scholarly journals Characteristics of bipolar-bipolar coupling in the carp retina.

1988 ◽  
Vol 91 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
T Saito ◽  
T Kujiraoka
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Bipolar Cell ◽  
Lucifer Yellow ◽  
Electrical Coupling ◽  
Coupling Efficiency ◽  
Receptive Fields ◽  
Spatial Summation ◽  
Cell Types ◽  
Bipolar Cells ◽  
Cell Pair

ON and OFF bipolar cells were identified in the light-adapted carp retina by means of intracellular recording and Lucifer yellow dye injection. The receptive field centers, determined by measuring the response amplitudes obtained by centered spots of different diameters, were 0.3-1.0 mm for ON bipolar cells and 0.3-0.4 mm for OFF bipolar cells. These central receptive field values were much larger than the dendritic field diameters measured by histological methods. Simultaneous intracellular recordings were made from pairs of neighboring bipolar cells. Current of either polarity injected into one member of a bipolar cell pair elicited a sign-conserving, sustained potential change in the other bipolar cell. The coupling efficiency was nearly identical for both depolarizing and hyperpolarizing currents. The maximum separation of coupled bipolar cells was approximately 130 microns. This electrical coupling was reciprocal and summative, and it was observed in cell types of similar function and morphology. Dye coupling was observed in 4 out of 34 stained cells. These results strongly suggest that there is a spatial summation of signals at the level of bipolar cells, which makes their central receptive fields much larger than their dendritic fields.

Structure of the receptive fields of bipolar cells in the salamander retina

1987 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 1275-1291 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Borges ◽  
M. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Bipolar Cell ◽  
Synaptic Connection ◽  
Lucifer Yellow ◽  
Receptive Fields ◽  
Bipolar Cells ◽  
Light Scatter ◽  
Small Spot ◽  
Dendritic Arbors ◽  
Rule Out

1. The receptive-field structure of bipolar cells in the salamander retina has been examined using isolated retinae from dark-adapted eyes. 2. Receptive-field mapping was carried out with a 25-microns diam spot of light whose wavelength and intensity was intended to stimulate rods rather than cones. 3. Both hyperpolarizing and depolarizing bipolar cells showed receptive fields having a single central point of maximum sensitivity from which sensitivity declined radially. Antagonistic surrounds could not be demonstrated using a small spot of light. 4. The diameter of receptive fields was found to vary between 374 and 662 micron, consistent with a single bipolar cell being effectively connected to 323-1,275 rods. 5. Lucifer yellow injections of bipolar cells revealed dendritic arbors whose greatest dimensions varied between 43 and 70 microns, consistent with a direct synaptic connection of between 10 and 24 rods to each bipolar cell. 6. We rule out signal spread within the rod network, extensive lateral ramification of rod process, nonlinearity of synaptic transmission, and light scatter, as possible explanations of large bipolar cell receptive fields. It seems likely, instead, that signals are extensively shared between bipolar cells.

scholarly journals Inhibitory components of retinal bipolar cell receptive fields are differentially modulated by dopamine D1 receptors

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reece E. Mazade ◽  
Erika D. Eggers
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Bipolar Cell ◽  
Light Adaptation ◽  
Receptive Fields ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Receptor Activation ◽  
Bipolar Cells ◽  
D1 Receptor ◽  
D1 Receptors ◽  
Inhibitory Strength

Abstract During adaptation to an increase in environmental luminance, retinal signaling adjustments are mediated by the neuromodulator dopamine. Retinal dopamine is released with light and can affect center-surround receptive fields, the coupling state between neurons, and inhibitory pathways through inhibitory receptors and neurotransmitter release. While the inhibitory receptive field surround of bipolar cells becomes narrower and weaker during light adaptation, it is unknown how dopamine affects bipolar cell surrounds. If dopamine and light have similar effects, it would suggest that dopamine could be a mechanism for light-adapted changes. We tested the hypothesis that dopamine D1 receptor activation is sufficient to elicit the magnitude of light-adapted reductions in inhibitory bipolar cell surrounds. Surrounds were measured from OFF bipolar cells in dark-adapted mouse retinas while stimulating D1 receptors, which are located on bipolar, horizontal, and inhibitory amacrine cells. The D1 agonist SKF-38393 narrowed and weakened OFF bipolar cell inhibitory receptive fields but not to the same extent as with light adaptation. However, the receptive field surround reductions differed between the glycinergic and GABAergic components of the receptive field. GABAergic inhibitory strength was reduced only at the edges of the surround, while glycinergic inhibitory strength was reduced across the whole receptive field. These results expand the role of retinal dopamine to include modulation of bipolar cell receptive field surrounds. Additionally, our results suggest that D1 receptor pathways may be a mechanism for the light-adapted weakening of glycinergic surround inputs and the furthest wide-field GABAergic inputs to bipolar cells. However, remaining differences between light-adapted and D1 receptor–activated inhibition demonstrate that non-D1 receptor mechanisms are necessary to elicit the full effect of light adaptation on inhibitory surrounds.

scholarly journals Functional Consequences of Neuronal Divergence Within the Retinogeniculate Pathway

2009 ◽  
Vol 101 (4) ◽  
pp. 2166-2185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chun-I Yeh ◽  
Carl R. Stoelzel ◽  
Chong Weng ◽  
Jose-Manuel Alonso
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Functional Anatomy ◽  
Receptive Fields ◽  
Spatial Summation ◽  
High Specificity ◽  
Field Size ◽  
Dorsal Lateral Geniculate Nucleus ◽  
Retinal Ganglion ◽  
Cell Pair ◽  
Functional Consequences

The neuronal connections from the retina to the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN) are characterized by a high specificity. Each retinal ganglion cell diverges to connect to a small group of geniculate cells and each geniculate cell receives input from a small number of retinal ganglion cells. Consistent with the high specificity of the connections, geniculate cells sharing input from the same retinal afferent are thought to have very similar receptive fields. However, the magnitude of the receptive-field mismatches, which has not been systematically measured across the different cell types in dLGN, seems to be in contradiction with the functional anatomy of the Y visual pathway: Y retinal afferents in the cat diverge into two geniculate layers (A and C) that have Y geniculate cells (YA and YC) with different receptive-field sizes, response latencies, nonlinearity of spatial summation, and contrast sensitivity. To better understand the functional consequences of retinogeniculate divergence, we recorded from pairs of geniculate cells that shared input from a common retinal afferent across layers and within the same layer in dLGN. We found that nearly all cell pairs that shared retinal input across layers had Y-type receptive fields of the same sign (i.e., both on-center) that overlapped by >70%, but frequently differed in size and response latency. The receptive-field mismatches were relatively small in value (receptive-field size ratio <5; difference in peak response <5 ms), but were robustly correlated with the strength of the synchronous firing generated by the shared retinal connections ( R2 = 0.75). On average, the percentage of geniculate spikes that could be attributed to shared retinal inputs was about 10% for all cell-pair combinations studied. These results are used to provide new estimates of retinogeniculate divergence for different cell classes.

The network properties of bipolar–bipolar cell coupling in the retina of teleost fishes

1994 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 533-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
Osamu Umino ◽  
Michiyo Maehara ◽  
Soh Hidaka ◽  
Shigeo Kita ◽  
Yoko Hashimoto
Keyword(s):  
Bipolar Cell ◽  
Spatial Information ◽  
Lucifer Yellow ◽  
Light Stimulus ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Electrical Coupling ◽  
Photoreceptor Cells ◽  
Significant Loss ◽  
Bipolar Cells ◽  
Cell Coupling

AbstractRetinal bipolar cells exhibit a center-surround antagonistic receptive field to a light stimulus (Werblin & Dowling, 1969; Kaneko, 1970), and thus constitute an early stage of spatial information processing. We injected Lucifer Yellow and a small biotinylated tracer, biocytin, into bipolar cells of the teleost retina to examine electrical coupling in these cells. Lucifer-Yellow coupling was observed in one of 55 stained bipolar cells; the coupling pattern was one injected bipolar cell and three surrounding cells. Biocytin coupling was observed in 16 of 55 stained bipolar cells, six of which were ON center and ten OFF center. Although biocytin usually coupled to three to six bipolar cells, some OFF-center bipolar cells showed strong coupling to more than 20 cells. The biocytin-coupled bipolar cells were morphologically homologous. Membrane appositions resembling gap junctions were found between dendrites and between axon terminals of neighboring bipolar cells.In the strongest biocytin-coupled bipolar cells, the contacts between bipolar cells and cone photoreceptor cells were examined after reconstruction of the dendritic trees of five well-stained, serially sectioned OFF-center bipolar cells. Each of these bipolar cells was in contact with different numbers of cones: 11 to 20 for twin cones and two to four for single cones. This implies that, although these bipolar cells belong to the same category, the signal inputs differ among bipolar cells. Numerical simulation conducted on a hexagonal array network model demonstrated that the electrical coupling of bipolar cells can decrease the difference in input (≈80%) without causing significant loss of spatial resolution. Our results suggest that electrical coupling of bipolar cells has the advantage of decreasing the dispersion of input signals from cones, and permits bipolar cells of the same class to respond to light with similar properties.

Receptive field of the retinal bipolar cell: a pharmacological study in the tiger salamander

1996 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
pp. 2005-2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. A. Hare ◽  
W. G. Owen
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Gaba Receptors ◽  
Bipolar Cell ◽  
Horizontal Cell ◽  
Pharmacological Study ◽  
Bipolar Cells ◽  
Horizontal Cells ◽  
Gaba Uptake ◽  
Gamma Aminobutyric Acid ◽  
Gabaergic Synapse

1. It is widely believed that signals contributing to the receptive field surrounds of retinal bipolar cells pass from horizontal cells to bipolar cells via GABAergic synapses. To test this notion, we applied gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) agonists and antagonists to isolated, perfused retinas of the salamander Ambystoma tigrinum while recording intracellularly from bipolar cells, horizontal cells, and photoreceptors. 2. As we previously reported, administration of the GABA analogue D-aminovaleric acid in concert with picrotoxin did not block horizontal cell responses or the center responses of bipolar cells but blocked the surround responses of both on-center and off-center bipolar cells. 3. Surround responses were not blocked by the GABA, antagonists picrotoxin or bicuculline, the GABAB agonist baclofen or the GABAB antagonist phaclofen, and the GABAC antagonists picrotoxin or cis-4-aminocrotonic acid. Combinations of these drugs were similarly ineffective. 4. GABA itself activated a powerful GABA uptake mechanism in horizontal cells for which nipecotic acid is a competitive agonist. It also activated, both in horizontal cells and bipolar cells, large GABAA conductances that shunted light responses but that could be blocked by picrotoxin or bicuculline. 5. GABA, administered together with picrotoxin to block the shunting effect of GABAA activation, did not eliminate bipolar cell surround responses at concentrations sufficient to saturate the known types of GABA receptors. 6. Surround responses were not blocked by glycine or its antagonist strychnine, or by combinations of drugs designed to eliminate GABAergic and glycinergic pathways simultaneously. 7. Although we cannot fully discount the involvement of a novel GABAergic synapse, the simplest explanation of our findings is that the primary pathway mediating the bipolar cell's surround is neither GABAergic nor glycinergic.

scholarly journals Attention operates uniformly throughout the classical receptive field and the surround

eLife ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bram-Ernst Verhoef ◽  
John HR Maunsell
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Cortical Neurons ◽  
Receptive Fields ◽  
Spatial Summation ◽  
Field Structure ◽  
Neuronal Responses ◽  
Large Variability ◽  
Area V4 ◽  
Classical Receptive Field ◽  
Spatially Varying

Shifting attention among visual stimuli at different locations modulates neuronal responses in heterogeneous ways, depending on where those stimuli lie within the receptive fields of neurons. Yet how attention interacts with the receptive-field structure of cortical neurons remains unclear. We measured neuronal responses in area V4 while monkeys shifted their attention among stimuli placed in different locations within and around neuronal receptive fields. We found that attention interacts uniformly with the spatially-varying excitation and suppression associated with the receptive field. This interaction explained the large variability in attention modulation across neurons, and a non-additive relationship among stimulus selectivity, stimulus-induced suppression and attention modulation that has not been previously described. A spatially-tuned normalization model precisely accounted for all observed attention modulations and for the spatial summation properties of neurons. These results provide a unified account of spatial summation and attention-related modulation across both the classical receptive field and the surround.

scholarly journals Physiological and morphological evidence for coupling in mouse salivary gland acinar cells.

1978 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
S B Kater ◽  
N J Galvin
Keyword(s):  
Salivary Gland ◽  
Lucifer Yellow ◽  
Electrical Coupling ◽  
Freeze Fracture ◽  
Acinar Cells ◽  
Cell Types ◽  
Morphological Evidence ◽  
Secretory Cells ◽  
Intercellular Exchange ◽  
Dc Current

Three experimental techniques were employed to examine coupling between acinar cells of the mouse salivary gland. Passage of DC current pulses via intracellular microelectrodes between neighboring cells showed that small ions could be directly passed from one cell to another. Intracellular iontophoresis of the dye Lucifer Yellow CH into a single cell indicated that small molecules could spread by means of intercellular cytoplasmic bridges througout an acinus and, occasionally, into cells of adjacent acini. Freeze-fracture replicas of acinar cell membranes indicated the presence of gap junctions which were correlated with both electrical and dye coupling experiments. Suggestions are made for the function of direct intercellular exchange in salivary secretory cells. The role of electrical coupling in coordination of the activity of different secretory cell types is discussed as one possible function.

scholarly journals Light adaptation alters inner retinal inhibition to shape OFF retinal pathway signaling

2016 ◽  
Vol 115 (6) ◽  
pp. 2761-2778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reece E. Mazade ◽  
Erika D. Eggers
Keyword(s):  
Ganglion Cell ◽  
Bipolar Cell ◽  
Light Adaptation ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Receptive Fields ◽  
Excitatory Input ◽  
Bipolar Cells ◽  
Visual Sensitivity ◽  
Resting Membrane Potential ◽  
Wide Range

The retina adjusts its signaling gain over a wide range of light levels. A functional result of this is increased visual acuity at brighter luminance levels (light adaptation) due to shifts in the excitatory center-inhibitory surround receptive field parameters of ganglion cells that increases their sensitivity to smaller light stimuli. Recent work supports the idea that changes in ganglion cell spatial sensitivity with background luminance are due in part to inner retinal mechanisms, possibly including modulation of inhibition onto bipolar cells. To determine how the receptive fields of OFF cone bipolar cells may contribute to changes in ganglion cell resolution, the spatial extent and magnitude of inhibitory and excitatory inputs were measured from OFF bipolar cells under dark- and light-adapted conditions. There was no change in the OFF bipolar cell excitatory input with light adaptation; however, the spatial distributions of inhibitory inputs, including both glycinergic and GABAergic sources, became significantly narrower, smaller, and more transient. The magnitude and size of the OFF bipolar cell center-surround receptive fields as well as light-adapted changes in resting membrane potential were incorporated into a spatial model of OFF bipolar cell output to the downstream ganglion cells, which predicted an increase in signal output strength with light adaptation. We show a prominent role for inner retinal spatial signals in modulating the modeled strength of bipolar cell output to potentially play a role in ganglion cell visual sensitivity and acuity.

scholarly journals Characterization of a novel large-field cone bipolar cell type in the primate retina: Evidence for selective cone connections

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
HANNAH R. JOO ◽  
BETH B. PETERSON ◽  
TONI J. HAUN ◽  
DENNIS M. DACEY
Keyword(s):  
Giant Cell ◽  
Bipolar Cell ◽  
Visual Information ◽  
Dendritic Tree ◽  
Cell Types ◽  
Giant Cells ◽  
Bipolar Cells ◽  
Large Field ◽  
Inner Plexiform Layer ◽  
Dendritic Field

AbstractParallel processing of visual information begins at the first synapse in the retina between the photoreceptors and bipolar cells. Ten bipolar cell types have been previously described in the primate retina: one rod and nine cone bipolar types. In this paper, we describe an 11th type of bipolar cell identified in Golgi-stained macaque retinal whole mount and vertical section. Axonal stratification depth, in addition to dendritic and axonal morphology, distinguished the “giant” cell from all previously well-recognized bipolar cell types. The giant bipolar cell had a very large and sparsely branched dendritic tree and a relatively large axonal arbor that costratified with the DB4 bipolar cell near the center of the inner plexiform layer. The sparseness of the giant bipolar’s dendritic arbor indicates that, like the blue cone bipolar, it does not contact all the cones in its dendritic field. Giant cells contacting the same cones as midget bipolar cells, which are known to contact single long-wavelength (L) or medium-wavelength (M) cones, demonstrate that the giant cell does not exclusively contact short-wavelength (S) cones and, therefore, is not a variant of the previously described blue cone bipolar. This conclusion is further supported by measurement of the cone contact spacing for the giant bipolar. The giant cell contacts an average of about half the cones in its dendritic field (mean ± s.d. = 52 ± 17.6%; n = 6), with a range of 27–82%. The dendrites from single or neighboring giant cells that converge onto the same cones suggest that the giant cell may selectively target a subset of cones with a highly variable local density, such as the L or M cones.

A comparison of receptive-field and tracer-coupling size of amacrine and ganglion cells in the rabbit retina

1997 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1153-1165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stewart A. Bloomfield ◽  
Daiyan Xin
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Electrical Coupling ◽  
Receptive Fields ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Visual Signals ◽  
Lateral Spread ◽  
Field Size ◽  
Electrical Networks ◽  
Mammalian Retina

AbstractRecent studies have shown that amacrine and ganglion cells in the mammalian retina are extensively coupled as revealed by the intercellular movement of the biotinylated tracers biocytin and Neurobiotin. These demonstrations of tracer coupling suggest that electrical networks formed by proximal neurons (i.e. amacrine and ganglion cells) may underlie the lateral propagation of signals across the inner retina. We studied this question by comparing the receptive-field size, dendritic-field size, and extent of tracer coupling of amacrine and ganglion cells in the dark-adapted, supervised, isolated retina eyecup of the rabbit. Our results indicate that while the center-receptive fields of proximal neurons are approximately 15% larger than their corresponding dendritic diameters, this slight difference can be explained by factors other than electrical coupling such as tissue shrinkage associated with histological processing. However, the extent of tracer coupling of amacrine and ganglion cells was, on average, about twice the size of the corresponding receptive fields. Thus, the receptive field of an individual proximal neuron matched far more closely to its dendritic diameter than to the size of the tracer-coupled network of cells to which it belonged. The exception to this rule was the AII amacrine cells for which center-receptive fields were 2–3 times the size of their dendritic diameters but matched closely to the size of the tracer-coupled arrays. Thus, with the exception of AII cells, our data indicate that tracer coupling between proximal neurons is not associated with an enlargement of their receptive fields. Our results, then, provide no evidence for electrical coupling or, at least, indicate that extensive lateral spread of visual signals does not occur in the proximal mammalian retina.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document