Neural structures in the receptive field of pleural ganglion mechanosensory neurons of Aplysia californica

1993 ◽  
Vol 273 (3) ◽  
pp. 487-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabella Steffensen ◽  
Michel Anctil ◽  
Catherine E. Morris
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Aplysia Californica ◽  
Mechanosensory Neurons ◽  
Pleural Ganglion

Identification of Mechanoafferent Neurons in Terrestrial Snail: Response Properties and Synaptic Connections

2002 ◽  
Vol 87 (5) ◽  
pp. 2364-2371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksey Y. Malyshev ◽  
Pavel M. Balaban
Keyword(s):  
Avoidance Behavior ◽  
Receptive Fields ◽  
Dorsal Surface ◽  
Mechanical Stimulus ◽  
Terrestrial Snail ◽  
Mechanosensory Neurons ◽  
Intracellular Stimulation ◽  
Pleural Ganglion ◽  
Withdrawal Response ◽  
Stimulation Of

In this study, we describe the putative mechanosensory neurons, which are involved in the control of avoidance behavior of the terrestrial snail Helix lucorum. These neurons, which were termed pleural ventrolateral (PlVL) neurons, mediated part of the withdrawal response of the animal via activation of the withdrawal interneurons. Between 15 and 30 pleural mechanosensory neurons were located on the ventrolateral side of each pleural ganglion. Intracellular injection of neurobiotin revealed that all PlVL neurons sent their axons into the skin nerves. The PlVL neurons had no spontaneous spike activity or fast synaptic potentials. In the reduced “CNS-foot” preparations, mechanical stimulation of the skin covering the dorsal surface of the foot elicited spikes in the PlVL neurons without any noticeable prepotential activity. Mechanical stimulus-induced action potentials in these cells persisted in the presence of high-Mg2+/zero-Ca2+ saline. Each neuron had oval-shaped receptive field 5–20 mm in length located on the dorsal surface of the foot. Partial overlapping of the receptive fields of different neurons was observed. Intracellular stimulation of the PlVL neurons produced excitatory inputs to the parietal and pleural withdrawal interneurons, which are known to control avoidance behavior. The excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs) in the withdrawal interneurons were induced in 1:1 ratio to the PlVL neuron spikes, and spike-EPSP latency was short and highly stable. These EPSPs also persisted in the high-Mg2+/high-Ca2+ saline, suggesting monosynaptic connections. All these data suggest that PlVL cells were the primary mechanosensory neurons.

Motor controls of opaline secretion in Aplysia californica

1980 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 581-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. H. Tritt ◽  
J. H. Byrne
Keyword(s):  
Motor Neurons ◽  
Synaptic Input ◽  
Spike Activity ◽  
Aplysia Californica ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Synaptic Activity ◽  
Biophysical Properties ◽  
Ganglion Neurons ◽  
Pleural Ganglion

1. Using combined morphological and electrophysiological techniques, we have identified motor neurons in the right pleural ganglion of Aplysia californica that contribute to the release of opaline from the opaline gland. 2. Three pleural ganglion neurons were found to meet the requirements for identification as opaline gland motor neurons by a) sending processes in nerve P5, which innervates the gland; b) producing contractions of the gland in the absence of central synaptic activity; and c) producing excitatory junctional potentials (EJPs) in cells making up the opaline gland itself. The neurons can be reliably located and have been designated PLR1, PLR2, and PLR3. 3. When gland contraction is measured by the change in luminal pressure, the gland response is a graded function of low-frequency spike activity in the motor neurons. 4. Presumptive EJPs recorded from opaline gland cells are reversibly decreased in size by high extracellular Mg2+ and reversibly increased in size by raising the concentration of extracellular Ca2+. These results suggest that the presumptive EJPs are chemically mediated. The presumptive EJPs show facilitation and posttetanic potentiation. 5. The identified opaline motor neurons may constitute a significant portion of the motor input to the opaline gland via nerve P5 since hyperpolarization of the cells prevents the opaline gland response elicited by right connective stimulation in vitro. 6. We have compared the properties of the opaline motor neurons with the previously identified properties of the ink motor neurons (6--9, 19). Like the ink motor neurons, the opaline motor neurons have high resting potentials, are electrically coupled, and have no spontaneous spike activity. They also receive a slow and long-lasting evoked depolarizing synaptic input, which appears to be mediated by a decreased conductance mechanism. The firing pattern of the opaline motor neurons produced by synaptic input shows the same delayed bursting pattern previously described for the ink motor neurons. 7. The biophysical properties and synaptic input to the ink motor neurons have been shown to affect the features of inking behavior (4, 6--9, 19). The opaline motor neurons share some of these biophysical characteristics and mediate a defensive behavior similar to ink release. Further comparisons of these behaviors and their underlying neural circuits may provide a better understanding of the extent to which cellular biophysical properties and patterns of synaptic input influence the features of the behaviors that individual neurons mediate.

Registered Report: Transcriptional Analysis of Savings Memory Suggests Forgetting Is Due to Retrieval Failure

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Calin-Jageman ◽  
Irina Calin-Jageman ◽  
Tania Rosiles ◽  
Melissa Nguyen ◽  
Annette Garcia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Memory Trace ◽  
Aplysia Californica ◽  
Transcriptional Response ◽  
Transcriptional Analysis ◽  
Retrieval Failure ◽  
Initial Learning ◽  
Rigorous Test ◽  
Stage 1 ◽  
Induced Changes

[[This is a Stage 2 Registered Report manuscript now accepted for publication at eNeuro. The accepted Stage 1 manuscript is posted here: https://psyarxiv.com/s7dft, and the pre-registration for the project is available here (https://osf.io/fqh8j, 9/11/2019). A link to the final Stage 2 manuscript will be posted after peer review and publication.]] There is fundamental debate about the nature of forgetting: some have argued that it represents the decay of the memory trace, others that the memory trace persists but becomes inaccessible due to retrieval failure. These different accounts of forgetting lead to different predictions about savings memory, the rapid re-learning of seemingly forgotten information. If forgetting is due to decay, then savings requires re-encoding and should thus involve the same mechanisms as initial learning. If forgetting is due to retrieval failure, then savings should be mechanistically distinct from encoding. In this registered report we conducted a pre-registered and rigorous test between these accounts of forgetting. Specifically, we used microarray to characterize the transcriptional correlates of a new memory (1 day after training), a forgotten memory (8 days after training), and a savings memory (8 days after training but with a reminder on day 7 to evoke a long-term savings memory) for sensitization in Aplysia californica (n = 8 samples/group). We found that the re-activation of sensitization during savings does not involve a substantial transcriptional response. Thus, savings is transcriptionally distinct relative to a newer (1-day old) memory, with no co-regulated transcripts, negligible similarity in regulation-ranked ordering of transcripts, and a negligible correlation in training-induced changes in gene expression (r = .04 95% CI [-.12, .20]). Overall, our results suggest that forgetting of sensitization memory represents retrieval failure.

Stage 1 Registered Report Manuscript - Transcriptional Correlates of Savings Memory: Is Forgetting Due to Decay or Retrieval Failure?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Calin-Jageman ◽  
Irina Calin-Jageman ◽  
Tania Rosiles ◽  
Melissa Nguyen ◽  
Annette Garcia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Memory Trace ◽  
Aplysia Californica ◽  
Retrieval Failure ◽  
Initial Learning ◽  
Rigorous Test ◽  
Regulated Gene Expression ◽  
Stage 1 ◽  
Weak Similarity

[[This is a Stage 1 Registered Report manuscript. The project was submitted for review to eNeuro. Upon revision and acceptance, this version of the manuscript was pre-registered on the OSF (9/11/2019, https://osf.io/fqh8j) (but due to an oversight not posted as a preprint until July 2020). A Stage 2 manuscript is now posted as a pre-print (https://psyarxiv.com/h59jv) and is under review at eNeuro. A link to the final Stage 2 manuscript will be added when available.]]There is fundamental debate about the nature of forgetting: some have argued that it represents the decay of the memory trace, others that the memory trace persists but becomes inaccessible due to retrieval failure. These different accounts of forgetting make different predictions about savings memory, the rapid re-learning of seemingly forgotten information. If forgetting is due to decay then savings requires re-encoding and should thus involve the same mechanisms as initial learning. If forgetting is due to retrieval-failure then savings should be mechanistically distinct from encoding. In this registered report we conducted a pre-registered and rigorous test between these accounts of forgetting. Specifically, we used microarray to characterize the transcriptional correlates of a new memory (1 day from training), a forgotten memory (8 days from training), and a savings memory (8 days from training but with a reminder on day 7 to evoke a long-term savings memory) for sensitization in Aplysia californica (n = 8 samples/group). We find that the transcriptional correlates of savings are [highly similar / somewhat similar / unique] relative to new (1-day-old) memories. Specifically, savings memory and a new memory share [X] of [Y] regulated transcripts, show [strong / moderate / weak] similarity in sets of regulated transcripts, and show [r] correlation in regulated gene expression, which is [substantially / somewhat / not at all] stronger than at forgetting. Overall, our results suggest that forgetting represents [decay / retrieval-failure / mixed mechanisms].

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document