Advertisement

Simplified Compartmental Models of CA1 Pyramidal Cells of Theta-Modulated Inhibition Effects on Spike Timing-Dependent Plasticity

  • Vassilis CutsuridisEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Computational Neuroscience book series (NEUROSCI)

Abstract

Spike timing-dependent plasticity (STDP) is a causal form of Hebb’s law of synaptic plasticity, where the precise timing of the presynaptic and postsynaptic action potentials determines the sign and magnitude of synaptic modifications (Bell et al. 1997; Bi and Poo 1998; Magee and Johnston 1997; Markram et al. 1997; Debanne et al. 1998; Sjostrom et al. 2001; Yao and Dan 2001; Zhang et al. 1998). In their pioneering study, Bi and Poo (1998) showed that the shape of the STDP curve in the in vitro hippocampal network has an asymmetric shape with the largest LTP/LTD value at Δτ = tposttpre = +/−10 ms, respectively. New experimental evidence has shown that the STDP asymmetry can sometimes change with the target and the location of the synapse (Tzounopoulos et al. 2004; Froemke et al. 2005; Letzkus et al. 2006; Caporale and Dan 2009) and can be dynamically regulated by the activity of adjacent synapses (Harvey and Svoboda 2007; Caporale and Dan 2009) or by the action of neuromodulators (Seol et al. 2007; Caporale and Dan 2009). Nishiyama et al. (2000) reported that “…the profile of STDP induced in the hippocampal CA1 network with inhibitory interneurons is symmetrical for the relative timing of pre- and postsynaptic activation.” Optical imaging studies in CA1 revealed that the shape of the STDP curve depends on the location on the stratum radiatum (SR) dendrite. A symmetric STDP profile was observed in the proximal-to-the-soma SR dendrite and an asymmetric STDP profile in the distal-to-the-soma one (Tsukada et al. 2005; Aihara et al. 2007). They suggested that this change in the shape of the STDP curve (i.e., from symmetry to asymmetry and vice versa) may be due to inhibition in the proximal SR dendrites (Tsukada et al. 2005). The functional consequences of such a change in the STDP temporal kernel dynamics are of great importance in neural network dynamics. A symmetrical STDP profile with short temporal windows may serve as a coincidence detector between the incoming inputs and plays a functional role in heteroassociation of memories (Cutsuridis et al. 2010). On the other hand an asymmetric STDP profile with broad temporal windows may play a role in chunking of ordered items in sequence learning (Hayashi and Igarashi 2009).

Keywords

Synaptic plasticity STDP Theta inhibition Hippocampus CA1 Pyramidal cell Computer model 

References

  1. Aihara T, Abiru Y, Yamazaki Y, Watanabe H, Fukushima Y, Tsukada M (2007) The relation between spike-timing dependent plasticity and Ca2+ dynamics in the hippocampal CA1 network. Neuroscience 145:80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auerbach JM, Segal M (1996) Muscarinic receptors mediating depression and long-term potentiation in rat hippocampus. J Physiol 492(Pt 2):479–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell CC, Han VZ, Sugawara Y, Grant K (1997) Synaptic plasticity in a cerebellum-like structure depends on temporal order. Nature 387:278–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bi GQ, Poo MM (1998) Synaptic modifications in cultured hippocampal neurons: dependence on spike timing, synaptic strength, and postsynaptic cell type. J Neurosci 18:10464–10472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bi GQ, Rubin J (2005) Timing in synaptic plasticity: from detection to integration. TINS 28(5):222–228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Blitzer RD, Gil O, Landau EM (1990) Cholinergic stimulation enhances longterm potentiation in the CA1 region of rat hippocampus. Neurosci Lett 119:207–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boddeke EW, Enz A, Shapiro G (1992) SDZ ENS 163, a selective muscarinic M1 receptor agonist, facilitates the induction of long-term potentiation in rat hippocampal slices. Eur J Pharmacol 222:21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caporale N, Dan Y (2009) Spike timing dependent plasticity: a Hebbian learning rule. Annu Rev Neurosci 31:25–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cobb S, Lawrence JJ (2010) Neuromodulation of hippocampal cells and circuits. In: Cutsuridis V et al (eds) Hippocampal microcircuits: a computational Modeller’s resource book, vol V. Springer, New York, pp 187–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cutsuridis V (2010) Action potential bursts modulate the NMDA-R mediated spike timing dependent plasticity in a biophysical model, Lecture notes in computer science (LNCS), vol 6352. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 107–116Google Scholar
  11. Cutsuridis V (2011) GABA inhibition modulates NMDA-R mediated spike timing dependent plasticity (STDP) in a biophysical model. Neural Netw 24(1):29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cutsuridis V (2012) Bursts shape the NMDA-R mediated spike timing dependent plasticity curve: role of burst interspike interval and GABA inhibition. Cogn Neurodyn 6(5):421–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cutsuridis V (2013) Interaction of inhibition and triplets of excitatory spikes modulates the NMDA-R mediated synaptic plasticity in a computational model of spike timing dependent plasticity. Hippocampus 23(1):75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cutsuridis V, Cobb S, Graham BP (2010) Encoding and retrieval in the hippocampal CA1 microcircuit model. Hippocampus 20(3):423–446PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Debanne D, Gahwiler BH, Thompson SM (1998) Long-term synaptic plasticity between pairs of individual CA3 pyramidal cells in rat hippocampal slice cultures. J Physiol 507:237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Froemke RC, Poo MM, Dan Y (2005) Spike-timing-dependent synaptic plasticity depends on dendritic location. Nature 434(7030):221–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galey D, Destrade C, Jaffard R (1994) Relationships between septo-hippocampal cholinergic activation and the improvement of long-term retention produced by medial septal electrical stimulation in two inbred strains of mice. Behav Brain Res 60:183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harvey CD, Svoboda K (2007) Locally dynamic synaptic learning rules in pyramidal neuron dendrites. Nature 450(7173):1195–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hayashi H, Igarashi J (2009) LTD windows of the STDP learning rule and synaptic connections having a large transmission delay enable robust sequence learning amid background noise. Cogn Neurodyn 3:119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kroker KS, Rast G, Rosenbrock H (2011) Differential effects of subtype-specific nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonists on early and late hippocampal LTP. Eur J Pharmacol 671(1–3):26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Letzkus JJ, Kampa BM, Stuart GJ (2006) Learning rules for spike timing-dependent plasticity depend on dendritic synapse location. J Neurosci 26(41):10,420–10,429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Magee JC, Johnston D (1997) A synaptically controlled, associative signal for hebbian plasticity in hippocampal neurons. Science 275:209–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Markevich V, Scorsa AM, Dawe GS, Stephenson JD (1997) Cholinergic facilitation and inhibition of long-term potentiation of CA1 in the urethane-anaesthetized rats. Brain Res 754:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Markram H, Luebke J, Frotscher M, Sakmann B (1997) Regulation of synaptic efficacy by coincidence of postsynaptic APs and EPSPs. Science 275:213–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nishiyama M, Hong K, Mikoshiba K, Poo MM, Kato K (2000) Calcium stores regulate the polarity and input specificity of synaptic modification. Nature 408:584–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ovsepian SV, Anwyl R, Rowan MJ (2004) Endogenous acetylcholine lowers the threshold for long-term potentiation induction in the CA1 area through muscarinic receptor activation: in vivo study. Eur J Neurosci 20:1267–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rubin JE, Gerkin RC, Bi GQ, Chow CC (2005) Calcium time course as a signal for spike-timing-dependent plasticity. J Neurophysiol 93:2600–2613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Seol GH, Ziburkus J, Huang SY, Song L, Kim IT, Takamiya K, Huganir RL, Lee HK, Kirkwood A (2007) Neuromodulators control the polarity of spike-timing-dependent synaptic plasticity. Neuron 55(6):919–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shinoe T, Matsui M, Taketo MM, Manabe T (2005) Modulation of synaptic plasticity by physiological activation of M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptors in the mouse hippocampus. J Neurosci 25:11194–11200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sjostrom PJ, Turrigiano GG, Nelson SB (2001) Rate, timing, and cooperativity jointly determine cortical synaptic plasticity. Neuron 32:1149–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sugisaki E, Fukushima Y, Tsukada M, Aihara T (2011) Cholinergic modulation on spike timing-dependent plasticity in hippocampal CA1 network. Neuroscience 192:91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tsukada M, Aihara T, Kobayashi Y, Shimazaki H (2005) Spatial analysis of spike-timing-dependent LTP and LTD in the CA1 area of hippocampal slices using optical imaging. Hippocampus 15:104–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tzounopoulos T, Kim Y, Oertel D, Trussell LO (2004) Cell-specific, spike timing-dependent plasticities in the dorsal cochlear nucleus. Nat Neurosci 7(7):719–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yao H, Dan Y (2001) Stimulus timing-dependent plasticity in cortical processing of orientation. Neuron 32:315–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhang LI, Tao HW, Holt CE, Harris WA, Poo M (1998) A critical window for cooperation and competition among developing retinotectal synapses. Nature 395:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of LincolnLincolnUK

Personalised recommendations