4.8 Article

Timing Mechanisms Underlying Gate Control by Feedforward Inhibition

Journal

NEURON
Volume 99, Issue 5, Pages 941-+

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.07.026

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [R01 DE018025, R01 NS086372]
  2. National Natural Science Fund of China [31300922, 81704162]
  3. 2016 Postdoctoral International Exchange Program of China
  4. Development Project of Shanghai Peak Disciplines-Integrated Medicine [20150407]
  5. 2017 Postdoctoral International Exchange Program of China
  6. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2016M601512]
  7. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH [R01DE018025] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  8. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R01NS086372] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The gate control theory proposes that A beta mechanoreceptor inputs to spinal pain transmission T neurons are gated via feedforward inhibition, but it remains unclear how monosynaptic excitation is gated by disynaptic inhibitory inputs that arrive later. Here we report that A beta-evoked, non-NMDAR-dependent EPSPs in T neurons are subthreshold, allowing time for inhibitory inputs to prevent action potential firing that requires slow-onset NMDAR activation. Potassium channel activities-including I-A, whose sizes are established constitutively by Preprodynorphin(Cre)-derived inhibitory neurons-either completely filter away A beta inputs or make them subthreshold, thereby creating a permissive condition to achieve gate control. Capsaicin-activated nociceptor inputs reduce I-A and sensitize the T neurons, allowing Ab inputs to cause firing before inhibitory inputs arrive. Thus, distinct kinetics of glutamate receptors and electric filtering by potassium channels solve the timing problem underlying the gating by feedforward inhibition, and their modulation offers a way to bypass the gate control.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available