4.4 Article

Changes in input strength and number are driven by distinct mechanisms at the retinogeniculate synapse

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 112, 期 4, 页码 942-950

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00175.2014

关键词

vision; thalamus; synaptic plasticity; synapse development; critical period

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health Grants [R01 EY013613, P01 HD18655]
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute Medical Research Fellowship
  3. Nancy Lurie Marks Foundation Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies have demonstrated that vision influences the functional remodeling of the mouse retinogeniculate synapse, the connection between retinal ganglion cells and thalamic relay neurons in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN). Initially, each relay neuron receives a large number of weak retinal inputs. Over a 2-to 3-wk developmental window, the majority of these inputs are eliminated, and the remaining inputs are strengthened. This period of refinement is followed by a critical period when visual experience changes the strength and connectivity of the retinogeniculate synapse. Visual deprivation of mice by dark rearing from postnatal day (P) 20 results in a dramatic weakening of synaptic strength and recruitment of additional inputs. In the present study we asked whether experience-dependent plasticity at the retinogeniculate synapse represents a homeostatic response to changing visual environment. We found that visual experience starting at P20 following visual deprivation from birth results in weakening of existing retinal inputs onto relay neurons without significant changes in input number, consistent with homeostatic synaptic scaling of retinal inputs. On the other hand, the recruitment of new inputs to the retinogeniculate synapse requires previous visual experience prior to the critical period. Taken together, these findings suggest that diverse forms of homeostatic plasticity drive experience-dependent remodeling at the retinogeniculate synapse.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据