4.7 Article

Role of Afferents in the Differentiation of Bipolar Cells in the Mouse Retina

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 1677-1685

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5153-09.2010

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [EY-11087, RR-22585]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To establish dendritic arbors that integrate properly into a neural circuit, neurons must rely on cues from the local environment. The neurons presynaptic to these arbors, the afferents, are one potential source of these cues, but the particular dendritic features they regulate remain unclear. Retinal bipolar cells can be classified by the type of photoreceptor, cone or rod, forming synaptic contacts with their dendrites, suggesting a potential role of these afferents in shaping the bipolar cell dendritic arbor. In the present investigation, the role of photoreceptors in directing the differentiation of bipolar cells has been studied using two genetically modified coneless and conefull mice. Single cone (Type 7/CB4a) and rod bipolar cells were labeled with DiI to reveal the entire dendritic arbor and subsequently analyzed for several morphological features. For both cone and rod bipolar cells, the dendritic field area, number of dendritic terminals, and stratification of terminals in the outer plexiform layer were comparable among coneless, conefull, and wild-type retinas, and the overall morphological appearance of each type of cell was essentially conserved, indicating an independence from afferent specification. The presence of normal afferents was, however, found to be critical for the proper spatial distribution of dendritic terminals, exhibiting a clustered distribution for the cone bipolar cells and a dispersed distribution for the rod bipolar cells. These results demonstrate a selectivity in the afferent dependency of bipolar cell differentiation, their basic morphogenetic plan commanded cell intrinsically, and their fine terminal connectivity directed by the afferents themselves.

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

4.7
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