Ultraviolet colour opponency in the turtle retina

2001 ◽  
Vol 204 (14) ◽  
pp. 2527-2534 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. F. Ventura ◽  
Y. Zana ◽  
J. M. de Souza ◽  
R. D. DeVoe
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Spectral Sensitivity ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Horizontal Cell ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Sensitivity Function ◽  
Neural Basis ◽  
Inner Retina ◽  
Cell Responses ◽  
Spectral Sensitivity Function

SUMMARY We have examined the functional architecture of the turtle Pseudemys scripta elegans retina with respect to colour processing, extending spectral stimulation into the ultraviolet, which has not been studied previously in the inner retina. We addressed two questions. (i) Is it possible to deduce the ultraviolet cone spectral sensitivity function through horizontal cell responses? (ii) Is there evidence for tetrachromatic neural mechanisms, i.e. UV/S response opponency? Using a constant response methodology we have isolated the ultraviolet cone input into the S/LM horizontal cell type and described it in fine detail. Monophasic (luminosity), biphasic L/M (red-green) and triphasic S/LM (yellow-blue) horizontal cells responded strongly to ultraviolet light. The blue-adapted spectral sensitivity function of a S/LM cell peaked in the ultraviolet and could be fitted to a porphyropsin cone template with a peak at 372nm. In the inner retina eight different combinations of spectral opponency were found in the centre of the receptive field of ganglion cells. Among amacrine cells the only types found were UVSM−L+ and its reverse. One amacrine and four ganglion cells were also opponent in the receptive field surround. UV/S opponency, seen in three different types of ganglion cell, provides a neural basis for discrimination of ultraviolet colours. In conclusion, the results strongly suggest that there is an ultraviolet channel and a neural basis for tetrachromacy in the turtle retina.

Tetrachromatic input to turtle horizontal cells

2001 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 759-765 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. ZANA ◽  
D.F. VENTURA ◽  
J.M. de SOUZA ◽  
R.D. DeVOE
Keyword(s):  
Spectral Sensitivity ◽  
Horizontal Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Function ◽  
Horizontal Cells ◽  
Chromatic Adaptation ◽  
Morphological Evidence ◽  
Cone Type ◽  
Response Method ◽  
Uv Cone ◽  
Spectral Sensitivity Function

Recent physiological experiments support behavioral and morphological evidence for a fourth type of cone in the turtle retina, maximally sensitive in the ultraviolet (UV). This cone type has not yet been included in the models proposed for connectivity between cones and horizontal cells. In this study, we examined the inputs of UV, S, M, and L cones to horizontal cells. We used the high-resolution Dynamic Constant Response Method to measure the spectral sensitivity of horizontal cells without background light and after adaptation to UV, blue (B), green (G), and red (R) light. We concluded the following: (1) Tetrachromatic input to a Y/B horizontal cell was identified. The spectral-sensitivity curves of the cell in three of the adaptation conditions were well represented by L-, M-, and S-cone functions. Adaptation to blue light revealed a peak at 372 nm, the same wavelength location as that determined behaviorally in the turtle. A porphyropsin template could be closely fitted to the sensitivity band in that region, strong evidence for input from a UV cone. (2) The spectral-sensitivity functions of R/G horizontal cells were well represented by the L- and M-cone functions. There was no indication of UV- or S-cone inputs into these cells. (3) The spectral sensitivities of the monophasic horizontal cells were dominated by the L cone. However, the shape of the spectral-sensitivity function depended on the background wavelength, indicating secondary M-cone input. Connectivity models of the outer retina that predict input from all cone types are supported by the finding of tetrachromatic input into Y/B horizontal cells. In contrast, we did not find tetrachromatic input to R/G and monophasic horizontal cells. Chromatic adaptation revealed the spectral-sensitivity function of the turtle UV cone peaking at 372 nm.

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.

Light-evoked contraction of red absorbing cones in the Xenopus retina is maximally sensitive to green light

1992 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 243-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph C. Besharse ◽  
Paul Witkovsky
Keyword(s):  
Xenopus Laevis ◽  
Spectral Sensitivity ◽  
Red Light ◽  
Green Light ◽  
Sensitivity Function ◽  
Direct Mechanism ◽  
Sensitivity Experiments ◽  
Light Stimuli ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Spectral Sensitivity Function

AbstractTo test the hypothesis that light-evoked cone contraction in eye cups from Xenopus laevis is controlled through a direct mechanism initiated by the cone's own photopigment, we conducted spectral-sensitivity experiments. We estimate that initiation of contraction of red absorbing cones (611 nm) is 1.5 log units more sensitive to green (533 nm) than red (650 nm) light stimuli. The difference is comparable to that predicted from the spectral-sensitivity function of the green absorbing, principal rod (523 nm). Furthermore, 480-nm and 580-nm stimuli which are absorbed nearly equally by the principal rod have indistinguishable effects on cone contraction. We also found that light blockade of nighttime cone elongation is much more sensitive to green than to red light stimuli. Our observations are inconsistent with the hypothesis tested, and suggest that light-regulated cone motility is controlled through an indirect mechanism initiated primarily by the green absorbing, principal rod.

Regional distribution of nitrergic neurons in the inner retina of the chicken

2011 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARTIN WILSON ◽  
NICK NACSA ◽  
NATHAN S. HART ◽  
CYNTHIA WELLER ◽  
DAVID I. VANEY
Keyword(s):  
Ganglion Cell ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Regional Distribution ◽  
Plexiform Layer ◽  
Visual Image ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Cell Types ◽  
Inner Plexiform Layer ◽  
Inner Retina ◽  
Neuronal Types

AbstractUsing both NADPH diaphorase and anti-nNOS antibodies, we have identified—from retinal flatmounts—neuronal types in the inner retina of the chicken that are likely to be nitrergic. The two methods gave similar results and yielded a total of 15 types of neurons, comprising 9 amacrine cells, 5 ganglion cells, and 1 centrifugal midbrain neuron. Six of these 15 cell types are ubiquitously distributed, comprising 3 amacrine cells, 2 displaced ganglion cells, and a presumed orthotopic ganglion cell. The remaining nine cell types are regionally restricted within the retina. As previously reported, efferent fibers of midbrain neurons and their postsynaptic partners, the unusual axon-bearing target amacrine cells, are entirely confined to the ventral retina. Also confined to the ventral retina, though with somewhat different distributions, are the “bullwhip” amacrine cells thought to be involved in eye growth, an orthotopic ganglion cell, and two types of large axon-bearing amacrine cells whose dendrites and axons lie in stratum 1 of the inner plexiform layer (IPL). Intracellular fills of these two cell types showed that only a minority of otherwise morphologically indistinguishable neurons are nitrergic. Two amacrine cells that branch throughout the IPL are confined to an equatorial band, and one small-field orthotopic ganglion cell that branches in the proximal IPL is entirely dorsal. These findings suggest that the retina uses different processing on different regions of the visual image, though the benefit of this is presently obscure.

scholarly journals Synaptic inputs to the ganglion cells in the tiger salamander retina.

1979 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
D F Wunk ◽  
F S Werblin
Keyword(s):  
Cell Membrane ◽  
Receptive Field ◽  
Ganglion Cell ◽  
Time Course ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Hybrid Cell ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Inhibitory Input ◽  
Tiger Salamander ◽  
Synaptic Inputs

The postsynaptic potentials (PSPs) that form the ganglion cell light response were isolated by polarizing the cell membrane with extrinsic currents while stimulating at either the center or surround of the cell's receptive field. The time-course and receptive field properties of the PSPs were correlated with those of the bipolar and amacrine cells. The tiger salamander retina contains four main types of ganglion cell: "on" center, "off" center, "on-off", and a "hybrid" cell that responds transiently to center, but sustainedly, to surround illumination. The results lead to these inferences. The on-ganglion cell receives excitatory synpatic input from the on bipolars and that synapse is "silent" in the dark. The off-ganglion cell receives excitatory synaptic input from the off bipolars with this synapse tonically active in the dark. The on-off and hybrid ganglion cells receive a transient excitatory input with narrow receptive field, not simply correlated with the activity of any presynaptic cell. All cell types receive a broad field transient inhibitory input, which apparently originates in the transient amacrine cells. Thus, most, but not all, ganglion cell responses can be explained in terms of synaptic inputs from bipolar and amacrine cells, integrated at the ganglion cell membrane.

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.

scholarly journals Synaptic organization and ionic basis of on and off channels in mudpuppy retina. III. A model of ganglion cell receptive field organization based on chloride-free experiments.

1976 ◽  
Vol 67 (6) ◽  
pp. 679-690 ◽  
Author(s):  
R F Miller ◽  
R F Dacheux
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Ganglion Cell ◽  
Cell Model ◽  
Horizontal Cell ◽  
Cell Activity ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Inhibitory Input ◽  
Synaptic Organization ◽  
Field Organization ◽  
Receptive Field Organization

A chloride-free environment produces selective changes in the retinal network which include a separation of on and off channels. The identification of chloride-sensitive and insensitivie neuronal activity permits identification of some of the connections and intervening polarities of synaptic interactions which are expressed in ganglion cell receptive field organization. These experiments support previous suggestions that surround antagonism is dependent on horizontal cell activity. In addition they suggest a model of the neuronal connections which subserve on-center, off-center, and on-off ganglion cells. Experimental tests of the on-off ganglion cell model favor the idea that this type of ganglion cell receives inhibitory input from amacrine cells and excitatory activation from depolarizing and hyperpolarizing bipolar cells.

scholarly journals Antagonistic center-surround mechanisms for direction selectivity in the retina

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lea Ankri ◽  
Elishai Ezra-Tsur ◽  
Shir R. Maimon ◽  
Nathali Kaushansky ◽  
Michal Rivlin-Etzion
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Sensory Processing ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Direction Selectivity ◽  
Repetitive Stimulation ◽  
Spatiotemporal Model ◽  
Starburst Amacrine Cells ◽  
Modeling Data

SummaryA key feature in sensory processing is center-surround receptive field antagonism. Retinal direction-selectivity (DS) relies on asymmetric inhibition from starburst amacrine cells (SAC) to direction selective ganglion cells (DSGC). SAC exhibit antagonistic center-surround, depolarizing to light increments and decrements in their center and surround, respectively, but the role of this property in DS remains elusive. We found that a repetitive stimulation exhausts SAC center and enhances its surround and used it to distinguish center-from surround-mediated responses. Center, but not surround stimulation, induced direction-selective responses in SAC, as predicted by an elementary spatiotemporal model. Nevertheless, both SAC center and surround elicited direction-selective responses in DSGCs, but to opposite directions. Physiological and morphology-based modeling data show that the opposed responses resulted from inverted DSGC’s excitatory-inhibitory temporal balance, indicating that SAC response time rules DS. Our findings reveal antagonistic center-surround mechanisms for DS, and demonstrate how context-dependent center-surround reorganization enables flexible computations.

scholarly journals Dendro-somatic synaptic inputs to ganglion cells violate receptive field and connectivity rules in the mammalian retina

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miloslav Sedlacek ◽  
William Grimes ◽  
Morgan Musgrove ◽  
Amurta Nath ◽  
Hua Tian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Receptive Field ◽  
Ganglion Cells ◽  
Plexiform Layer ◽  
Amacrine Cells ◽  
Cell Types ◽  
Excitatory Input ◽  
Mouse Retina ◽  
Inner Plexiform Layer ◽  
Visual Response ◽  
Dendritic Arbors

In retinal neurons, morphology strongly influences visual response features. Ganglion cell (GC) dendrites ramify in distinct strata of the inner plexiform layer (IPL) so that GCs responding to light increments (ON) or decrements (OFF) receive appropriate excitatory inputs. This vertical stratification prescribes response polarity and ensures consistent connectivity between cell types, whereas the lateral extent of GC dendritic arbors typically dictates receptive field (RF) size. Here, we identify circuitry in mouse retina that contradicts these conventions. A2 amacrine cells are interneurons understood to mediate 'cross-over' inhibition by relaying excitatory input from the ON layer to inhibitory outputs in the OFF layer. Ultrastructural and physiological analyses show, however, that some A2s deliver powerful inhibition to OFF GC somas and proximal dendrites in the ON layer, rendering their inhibitory RFs smaller than their dendritic arbors. This OFF pathway, avoiding entirely the OFF region of the IPL, challenges several tenets of retinal circuitry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document