scholarly journals Dynamics of the ganglion cell response in the catfish and frog retinas.

1987 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Sakuranaga ◽  
Y Ando ◽  
K Naka
Keyword(s):  
White Noise ◽  
Ganglion Cell ◽  
Point Process ◽  
Cell Response ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Linear Part ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Bipolar Cells ◽  
Response Component ◽  
Noise Input

Responses were evoked from ganglion cells in catfish and frog retinas by a Gaussian modulation of the mean luminance. An algorithm was devised to decompose intracellularly recorded responses into the slow and spike components and to extract the time of occurrence of a spike discharge. The dynamics of both signals were analyzed in terms of a series of first-through third-order kernels obtained by cross-correlating the slow (analog) or spike (discrete or point process) signals against the white-noise input. We found that, in the catfish, (a) the slow signals were composed mostly of postsynaptic potentials, (b) their linear components reflected the dynamics found in bipolar cells or in the linear response component of type-N (sustained) amacrine cells, and (c) their nonlinear components were similar to those found in either type-N or type-C (transient) amacrine cells. A comparison of the dynamics of slow and spike signals showed that the characteristic linear and nonlinear dynamics of slow signals were encoded into a spike train, which could be recovered through the cross-correlation between the white-noise input and the spike (point process signals. In addition, well-defined spike correlates could predict the observed slow potentials. In the spike discharges from frog ganglion cells, the linear (or first-order) kernels were all inhibitory, whereas the second-order kernels had characteristics of on-off transient excitation. The transient and sustained amacrine cells similar to those found in catfish retina were the sources of the nonlinear excitation. We conclude that bipolar cells and possibly the linear part of the type-N cell response are the source of linear, either excitatory or inhibitory, components of the ganglion cell responses, whereas amacrine cells are the source of the cells' static nonlinearity.

The number and distribution of bipolar to ganglion cell synapses in the inner plexiform layer of the anuran retina

1996 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 1099-1107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Péter Buzás ◽  
Sára Jeges ◽  
Robert Gábriel
Keyword(s):  
Ganglion Cell ◽  
Cross Sections ◽  
Information Transfer ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Receptive Fields ◽  
Plexiform Layer ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Bipolar Cells ◽  
Inner Plexiform Layer ◽  
Flow Through

AbstractThe main route of information flow through the vertebrate retina is from the photoreceptors towards the ganglion cells whose axons form the optic nerve. Bipolar cells of the frog have been so far reported to contact mostly amacrine cells and the majority of input to ganglion cells comes from the amacrines. In this study, ganglion cells of frogs from two species (Bufo marinus, Xenopus laevis) were filled retrogradely with horseradish peroxidase. After visualization of the tracer, light-microscopic cross sections showed massive labeling of the somata in the ganglion cell layer as well as their dendrites in the inner plexiform layer. In cross sections, bipolar output and ganglion cell input synapses were counted in the electron microscope. Each synapse was assigned to one of the five equal sublayers (SLs) of the inner plexiform layer. In both species, bipolar cells were most often seen to form their characteristic synaptic dyads with two amacrine cells. In some cases, however, the dyads were directed to one amacrine and one ganglion cell dendrite. This type of synapse was unevenly distributed within the inner plexiform layer with the highest occurrence in SL2 both in Bufo and Xenopus. In addition, SL4 contained also a high number of this type of synapse in Xenopus. In both species, we found no or few bipolar to ganglion cell synapses in the marginal sublayers (SLs 1 and 5). In Xenopus, 22% of the bipolar cell output synapses went onto ganglion cells, whereas in Bufo this was only 10%. We conclude that direct bipolar to ganglion cell information transfer exists also in frogs although its occurrence is not as obvious and regular as in mammals. The characteristic distribution of these synapses, however, suggests that specific type of the bipolar and ganglion cells participate in this process. These contacts may play a role in the formation of simple ganglion cell receptive fields.

scholarly journals Interneuron Circuits Tune Inhibition in Retinal Bipolar Cells

2010 ◽  
Vol 103 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika D. Eggers ◽  
Peter D. Lukasiewicz
Keyword(s):  
Ganglion Cell ◽  
Bipolar Cell ◽  
Amacrine Cell ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Feedback Inhibition ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Bipolar Cells ◽  
Light Stimuli ◽  
Cell Inhibition ◽  
Cell Networks

While connections between inhibitory interneurons are common circuit elements, it has been difficult to define their signal processing roles because of the inability to activate these circuits using natural stimuli. We overcame this limitation by studying connections between inhibitory amacrine cells in the retina. These interneurons form spatially extensive inhibitory networks that shape signaling between bipolar cell relay neurons to ganglion cell output neurons. We investigated how amacrine cell networks modulate these retinal signals by selectively activating the networks with spatially defined light stimuli. The roles of amacrine cell networks were assessed by recording their inhibitory synaptic outputs in bipolar cells that suppress bipolar cell output to ganglion cells. When the amacrine cell network was activated by large light stimuli, the inhibitory connections between amacrine cells unexpectedly depressed bipolar cell inhibition. Bipolar cell inhibition elicited by smaller light stimuli or electrically activated feedback inhibition was not suppressed because these stimuli did not activate the connections between amacrine cells. Thus the activation of amacrine cell circuits with large light stimuli can shape the spatial sensitivity of the retina by limiting the spatial extent of bipolar cell inhibition. Because inner retinal inhibition contributes to ganglion cell surround inhibition, in part, by controlling input from bipolar cells, these connections may refine the spatial properties of the retinal output. This functional role of interneuron connections may be repeated throughout the CNS.

scholarly journals Heterocellular coupling between amacrine cell and ganglion cells

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Marc ◽  
Crystal Sigulinsky ◽  
Rebecca L. Pfeiffer ◽  
Daniel Emrich ◽  
James R. Anderson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gap Junctions ◽  
Ganglion Cell ◽  
Bipolar Cell ◽  
Amacrine Cell ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Plexiform Layer ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Bipolar Cells ◽  
Inner Plexiform Layer ◽  
Tem Analysis

AbstractAll superclasses of retinal neurons display some form of electrical coupling including the key neurons of the inner plexiform layer: bipolar cells (BCs), amacrine or axonal cells (ACs) and ganglion cells (GCs). However, coupling varies extensively by class. For example, mammalian rod bipolar cells form no gap junctions at all, while all cone bipolar cells form class-specific coupling arrays, many of them homocellular in-superclass arrays. Ganglion cells are unique in that classes with coupling predominantly form heterocellular cross-class arrays of ganglion cell::amacrine cell (GC::AC) coupling in the mammalian retina. Ganglion cells are the least frequent superclass in the inner plexiform layer and GC::AC gap junctions are sparsely arrayed amidst massive cohorts of AC::AC, bipolar cell BC::BC, and AC::BC gap junctions. Many of these gap junctions and most ganglion cell gap junctions are suboptical, complicating analysis of specific ganglion cells. High resolution 2 nm TEM analysis of rabbit retinal connectome RC1 allows quantitative GC::AC coupling maps of identified ganglion cells. Ganglion cells classes apparently avoid direct cross-class homocellular coupling altogether even though they have opportunities via direct membrane touches, while transient OFF alpha ganglion cells and transient ON directionally selective (DS) ganglion cells are strongly coupled to distinct amacrine / axonal cell cohorts.A key feature of coupled ganglion cells is intercellular metabolite flux. Most GC::AC coupling involves GABAergic cells (γ+ amacrine cells), which results in significant GABA flux into ganglion cells. Surveying GABA coupling signatures in the ganglion cell layer across species suggests that the majority of vertebrate retinas engage in GC::AC coupling.Multi-hop synaptic queries of the entire RC1 connectome clearly profiles the coupled amacrine and axonal cells. Photic drive polarities and source bipolar cell class selec-tivities are tightly matched across coupled cells. OFF alpha ganglion cells are coupled to OFF γ+ amacrine cells and transient ON DS ganglion cells are coupled to ON γ+ amacrine cells including a large interstitial axonal cell (IAC). Synaptic tabulations show close matches between the classes of bipolar cells sampled by the coupled amacrine and ganglion cells. Further, both ON and OFF coupling ganglion networks show a common theme: synaptic asymmetry whereby the coupled γ+ neurons are also presynaptic to ganglion cell dendrites from different classes of ganglion cells outside the coupled set. In effect, these heterocellular coupling patterns enable an excited ganglion cell to directly inhibit nearby ganglion cells of different classes. Similarly, coupled γ+ amacrine cells engaged in feedback networks can leverage the additional gain of bipolar cell synapses in shaping the signaling of a spectrum of downstream targets based on their own selective coupling with ganglion cells.

Melanopsin and calbindin immunoreactivity in the inner retina of humans and marmosets

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashleigh J. Chandra ◽  
Sammy C.S. Lee ◽  
Ulrike Grünert
Keyword(s):  
Ganglion Cell ◽  
Calcium Binding ◽  
Ganglion Cell Layer ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Cell Layer ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Bipolar Cells ◽  
Human Retina ◽  
Immunohistochemical Markers ◽  
Starburst Amacrine Cells

Abstract In primate retina, the calcium-binding protein calbindin is expressed by a variety of neurons including cones, bipolar cells, and amacrine cells but it is not known which type(s) of cell express calbindin in the ganglion cell layer. The present study aimed to identify calbindin-positive cell type(s) in the amacrine and ganglion cell layer of human and marmoset retina using immunohistochemical markers for ganglion cells (RBPMS and melanopsin) and cholinergic amacrine (ChAT) cells. Intracellular injections following immunolabeling was used to reveal the morphology of calbindin-positive cells. In human retina, calbindin-labeled cells in the ganglion cell layer were identified as inner and outer stratifying melanopsin-expressing ganglion cells, and ON ChAT (starburst amacrine) cells. In marmoset, calbindin immunoreactivity in the ganglion cell layer was absent from ganglion cells but present in ON ChAT cells. In the inner nuclear layer of human retina, calbindin was found in melanopsin-expressing displaced ganglion cells and in at least two populations of amacrine cells including about a quarter of the OFF ChAT cells. In marmoset, a very low proportion of OFF ChAT cells was calbindin-positive. These results suggest that in both species there may be two types of OFF ChAT cells. Consistent with previous studies, the ratio of ON to OFF ChAT cells was about 70 to 30 in human and 30 to 70 in marmoset. Our results show that there are species-related differences between different primates with respect to the expression of calbindin.

scholarly journals Synaptic inputs from identified bipolar and amacrine cells to a sparsely branched ganglion cell in rabbit retina

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea S. Bordt ◽  
Diego Perez ◽  
Luke Tseng ◽  
Weiley Sunny Liu ◽  
Jay Neitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ganglion Cell ◽  
Retinal Ganglion Cells ◽  
Amacrine Cell ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Bipolar Cells ◽  
Rabbit Retina ◽  
Retinal Ganglion ◽  
Synaptic Inputs ◽  
Class Iv

AbstractThere are more than 30 distinct types of mammalian retinal ganglion cells, each sensitive to different features of the visual environment. In rabbit retina, they can be grouped into four classes according to their morphology and stratification of their dendrites in the inner plexiform layer (IPL). The goal of this study was to describe the synaptic inputs to one type of Class IV ganglion cell, the third member of the sparsely branched Class IV cells (SB3). One cell of this type was partially reconstructed in a retinal connectome developed using automated transmission electron microscopy (ATEM). It had slender, relatively straight dendrites that ramify in the sublamina a of the IPL. The dendrites of the SB3 cell were always postsynaptic in the IPL, supporting its identity as a ganglion cell. It received 29% of its input from bipolar cells, a value in the middle of the range for rabbit retinal ganglion cells studied previously. The SB3 cell typically received only one synapse per bipolar cell from multiple types of presumed OFF bipolar cells; reciprocal synapses from amacrine cells at the dyad synapses were infrequent. In a few instances, the bipolar cells presynaptic to the SB3 ganglion cell also provided input to an amacrine cell presynaptic to the ganglion cell. There was apparently no crossover inhibition from narrow-field ON amacrine cells. Most of the amacrine cell inputs were from axons and dendrites of GABAergic amacrine cells, likely providing inhibitory input from outside the classical receptive field.

Neurotransmitter-specific identification and characterization of neurons in the all-cone retina of Anolis carolinensis II: Glutamate and aspartate

1992 ◽  
Vol 9 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 313-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Sherry ◽  
Robert J. Ulshafer
Keyword(s):  
Ganglion Cell ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Müller Cells ◽  
Plexiform Layer ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Bipolar Cells ◽  
Anolis Carolinensis ◽  
Horizontal Cells ◽  
Inner Plexiform Layer ◽  
Muller Cells

AbstractImmunocytochemical and autoradiographic methods were used to identify neurons in the pure cone retina of the lizard (Anolis carolinensis) that are likely to employ glutamate (GLU) or aspartate (ASP) as a neurotransmitter.GLU immunocytochemistry demonstrated high levels of endogenous GLU in all cone types and numerous bipolar cells. Moderate GLU levels were found in horizontal and ganglion cells. Müller cells and most amacrine cells had very low GLU levels. GLU immunoreactivity (GLU-IR) in the cones was present from the inner segment to the synaptic pedicle. A large spherical cell type with moderate GLU-IR was identified in the proximal inner plexiform layer (IPL). These cells also contain ASP and have been tentatively identified as amacrine cells. Uptake of [3H]-L-GLU labeled all retinal layers. All cone types and Müller cells sequestered [3H]-D-ASP, a substrate specific for the GLU transporter.Anti-ASP labeling was observed in cones, horizontal cells, amacrine cells, and cells in the ganglion cell layer. ASP immunoreactivity (ASP-IR) in the cones was confined to the inner segment. One ASP-containing pyriform amacrine cell subtype ramifying in IPL sublamina b was identified.Analysis of GLU-IR, ASP-IR, and GABA-IR on serial sections indicated that there were two distinct populations of horizontal cells in the Anolis retina: one containing GABA-IR, GLU-IR, and ASP-IR; and another type containing only GLU-IR and ASP-IR. Light GLU-IR was frequently found in GABA-containing amacrine cells but ASP-IR was not.The distinct distributions of GLU and ASP may indicate distinctly different roles for these amino acids. GLU, not ASP, is probably the major neurotransmitter in the cone-biploar-ganglion cell pathway of the Anolis retina. Both GLU and ASP are present in horizontal cells and specific subpopulations of amacrine cells, but it is unclear if GLU or ASP have a neurotransmitter role in these cells.

Spatiotemporal Patterns at the Retinal Output

1998 ◽  
Vol 80 (1) ◽  
pp. 447-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam L. Jacobs ◽  
Frank S. Werblin
Keyword(s):  
Ganglion Cell ◽  
Response Pattern ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Cell Activity ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Bipolar Cells ◽  
Spatiotemporal Patterns ◽  
Horizontal Cells ◽  
Aminobutyric Acid ◽  
Edge Enhancement

Jacobs, Adam L. and Frank S. Werblin. Spatiotemporal patterns at the retinal output. J. Neurophysiol. 80: 447–451, 1998. Edge enhancement in the retina is thought to be mediated by classical center-surround antagonism, first encountered as the interactions between horizontal cells and cones. But in the salamander retina these interactions do little to enhance edges. Instead, a robust dynamic interaction between amacrine and bipolar cells appears to be responsible for a sharp edge enhancement. To demonstrate this we recorded extracellularly from a single ganglion cell and moved a flashed square, 300 μm on a side, over a 1.5 × 1.0 mm2 grid at 25-μm increments. Playing back all of these recordings simultaneously simulated the pattern of responses that would have been measured from an array of ganglion cells. The emerging pattern of ganglion cell activity first faithfully represented the flashed square, but after ∼60 ms the center of the representation collapsed, leaving a representation of only the edges. We inferred that the feedback synapse from amacrine to bipolar cells at γ-aminobutyric acid-C (GABAC) receptors mediated this effect: bicuculline and strychnine were ineffective in altering the response pattern, but in picrotoxin the center of the representation did not collapse. The GABAergic amacrine cells thought to mediate this effect have quite narrow spread of processes, so the existence of this edge-enhancing effect suggests a mechanism quite different from classical lateral inhibition, namely the delayed inhibition of a spatially expanding input pattern.

Functional organization of catfish retina

1977 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Naka
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Ganglion Cell ◽  
Functional Organization ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Horizontal Cell ◽  
Receptive Fields ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Type A ◽  
Bipolar Cells ◽  
The Other

1. The basic organization of the biphasic (or concentric) receptive field is established in the bipolar cells as the result of an interaction between two signals, one local representing the activity of a small number of receptors, and the other integrating (19, 20) or global (28) coming from the S space or a lamina formed by the horizontal cells (8, 14, 22, 29). 2. Bipolar-ganglion cell pairs are segregated into two types; A (on center) and B (off center) pairs. A depolarization of a bipolar cell produces spike discharges from ganglion cells of the same type and a hyperpolarization depresses their discharges. I haven't detected any cross talk between the types A and B pairs. Bipolar and ganglion cells must be interfaced by the classical chemical synapses, the only such kind in the catfish retina. 3. Horizontal and type N neurons form two lateral transmission systems, one distal and the other proximal (19, 20). Signals in the lateral systems are shared by the two receptive-field types and are not excitatory or inhibitory in themselves; it is incumbent upon the postsynaptic neurons to decide the polarity of the synaptic transmission. The horizontal cell participates directly in the formation of biphasic receptive fields of bipolar cells by providing their surrounding, whereas type N neuron seems to modify the receptive-field organization established in the bipolar cells. 4. Type N neurons are amacrine cells because they do not produce spike discharges (2, 18, 21) and because they influence the activity of both A and B receptive fields. 5. The function of the type C neuron is as unique as its structure (21) and is not fully clear as yet. It is not a conventional amacrine cell as the type N appears to be, nor is it a classical ganglion cell which forms either a type A or B receptive field (2). 6. Type Y neurons are a class of ganglion cells which forms either a type A or B receptive field.

Signal transmission in the catfish retina. IV. Transmission to ganglion cells

1987 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 1307-1328 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. M. Sakai ◽  
K. Naka
Keyword(s):  
Ganglion Cell ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Bipolar Cells ◽  
Dynamic Responses ◽  
C Cells ◽  
Cell Responses ◽  
Major Transformation ◽  
Type C

1. To characterize the temporal dynamic responses of ganglion cells and to define the possible inputs giving rise to their responses in catfish retina, we recorded the ganglion cell responses evoked by 1) a step of light presented in the dark, 2) an incremental and decremental step from a background illumination, and 3) a white-noise modulated light. 2. For comparison, we recorded the responses of preganglionic cells evoked by the same set of stimuli as used for the ganglion cells. Type-C cells produced on-off transient depolarizations to step stimuli, whether presented in the dark or an illuminated background. Type-N amacrine cells produced complex transient responses to incremental and decremental steps, whereas their step-evoked responses in the dark were sustained polarizations. Bipolar cells produced sustained responses to all step stimuli. 3. Ganglion cells were classified into three types, based on their responses evoked by incremental and decremental steps of light. One class of ganglion cells produced responses similar to those of type-C cells, the second class produced responses similar to those of type-N cells, and the third class resembled bipolar cell responses, although spike discharges accompanied the ganglion cell responses. 4. The analysis of the first-order kernels indicates that the temporal properties of linear dynamic responses are established at the level of bipolar cells and encoded into spike trains of ganglion cells without a major transformation. 5. The second-order nonlinearity appeared at the amacrine cell level. Type-C and type-N cells produced a second-order kernel characteristic of each cell type. The second-order kernels produced in ganglion cells were similar to those produced either by type-C or type-N cells. 6. We conclude that bipolar cells are the major source of linear components of ganglion cell responses and that type-C and type-N amacrine cells are the major source of the nonlinear responses. These linear and second-order nonlinear signals were encoded into spike trains by ganglion cells without a major transformation of the temporal response properties.

scholarly journals Synaptic input to an ON parasol ganglion cell in the macaque retina: A serial section analysis

2002 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID W. MARSHAK ◽  
ELIZABETH S. YAMADA ◽  
ANDREA S. BORDT ◽  
WENDY C. PERRYMAN
Keyword(s):  
Ganglion Cell ◽  
Bipolar Cell ◽  
Amacrine Cell ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Plexiform Layer ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Bipolar Cells ◽  
Inhibitory Input ◽  
Inner Plexiform Layer ◽  
Cell Processes

A labeled ON parasol ganglion cell from a macaque retina was analyzed in serial, ultrathin sections. It received 13% of its input from diffuse bipolar cells. These directed a large proportion of their output to amacrine cells but received a relatively small proportion of their amacrine cell input via feedback synapses. In these respects, they were similar to the DB3 bipolar cells that make synapses onto OFF parasol cells. Bipolar cell axons that contacted the ON parasol cell in stratum 4 of the inner plexiform layer always made synapses onto the dendrite, and therefore, the number of bipolar cell synapses onto these ganglion cells could be estimated reliably by light microscopy in the future. Amacrine cells provided the majority of inputs to the ON parasol cell. Only a few of the presynaptic amacrine cell processes received inputs from the same bipolar cells as the parasol cells, and most of the presynaptic amacrine cell processes did not receive any inputs at all within the series. These findings suggest that most of the inhibitory input to the ON parasol cell originates from other areas of the retina. Amacrine cells presynaptic to the parasol ganglion cell interacted very infrequently with other neurons in the circuit, and therefore, they would be expected to act independently, for the most part.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document