Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:04:39.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stimulus size and intensity alter fundamental receptive-field properties of mouse retinal ganglion cells in vivo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2005

BOTIR T. SAGDULLAEV  and
MAUREEN A. MCCALL
BOTIR T. SAGDULLAEV
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychological and Brain Sciences and Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Louisville, Louisville Current address of Botir T. Sagdullaev: Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA
MAUREEN A. MCCALL
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychological and Brain Sciences and Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Louisville, Louisville
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The receptive field (RF) of most retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) is comprised of an excitatory center and an antagonistic surround. Interactions between these RF elements shape most of the visual responses of RGCs. To begin to investigate center-surround interactions of mouse RGCs quantitatively, we characterized their responses in an in vivo preparation to a variety of spot and full-field stimuli. When RGCs were stimulated with a spot that matched the cell's RF center diameter (optimal spot), all RGCs could be categorized as either ON- or OFF-center. In all RGCs, full-field stimulation significantly reduced both the peak and the mean firing rates evoked with an optimal spot stimulus. Full-field stimulation revealed differences in other response properties between ON- and OFF-center RGCs. With a full-field stimulus, the duration of the OFF-center RGCs response was reduced making them more transient, while the duration of the ON-center RGCs increased making them more sustained. Of most interest, full-field stimulation altered the RF center response sign in approximately half of the OFF-center RGCs, which became either OFF/ON or ON only. In contrast, all ON-center and the other OFF-center cells conserved their RF response sign in the presence of the full-field stimulus. We propose that sign-altering OFF-center RGCs possess an additional RF surround mechanism that underlies this alteration in their response. Of general interest these results suggest that the sole use of full-field stimulation to categorize visual response properties of RGCs does not adequately reflect their RF organization and, therefore, is not an optimal strategy for their classification.

Keywords

Center/surroundReceptive fieldInhibitionRetinal ganglion cellMouse
Type
Research Article
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 22 , Issue 5 , September 2005 , pp. 649 - 659
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Artal, P., Herreros de Tejada, P., Munoz Tedo, C., & Green, D.G. (1998). Retinal image quality in the rodent eye. Visual Neuroscience 15, 597–605.Google Scholar
Balkema, G.W., Jr. & Pinto, L.H. (1982). Electrophysiology of retinal ganglion cells in the mouse: A study of a normally pigmented mouse and a congenic hypopigmentation mutant, pearl. Journal of Neurophysiology 48, 968–980.Google Scholar
Barlow, H.B. (1953). Summation and inhibition in the frog's retina. Journal of Physiology 119, 69–88.Google Scholar
Barlow, H.B., Fitzhugh, R., & Kuffler, S.W. (1957). Change of organisation in the receptive fields of the cat's retina during dark adaptation. Journal of Physiology 137, 338–354.Google Scholar
Barlow, H.B. & Levick, W.R. (1969). Coding of light intensity by the cat retina. Processing of Optical Data XLIII, 383–396.Google Scholar
Belgum, J.H., Dvorak, D.R., McReynolds, J.S., & Miyachi, E. (1987). Push-pull effect of surround illumination on excitatory and inhibitory inputs to mudpuppy retinal ganglion cells. Journal of Physiology 388, 233–243.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, S.A. & Dacheux, R.F. (2001). Rod vision: Pathways and processing in the mammalian retina. Progress in Retinal Eye Research 20, 351–384.Google Scholar
Caldwell, J.H. & Daw, N.W. (1978). New properties of rabbit retinal ganglion cells. Journal of Physiology 276, 257–276.Google Scholar
Cleland, B.G., Levick, W.R., & Sanderson, K.J. (1973). Properties of sustained and transient ganglion cells in the cat retina. Journal of Physiology 228, 649–680.Google Scholar
Cook, P.B. & McReynolds, J.S. (1998). Lateral inhibition in the inner retina is important for spatial tuning of ganglion cells. Nature Neuroscience 1, 714–719.Google Scholar
De Monasterio, F.M. & Gouras, P. (1975). Functional properties of ganglion cells of the rhesus monkey retina. Journal of Physiology 251, 167–195.Google Scholar
Enroth-Cugell, C. & Lennie, P. (1975). The control of retinal ganglion cell discharge by receptive field surrounds. Journal of Physiology 247, 551–578.Google Scholar
Enroth-Cugell, C., Lennie, P., & Shapley, R.M. (1975). Surround contribution to light adaptation in cat retinal ganglion cells. Journal of Physiology 247, 579–588.Google Scholar
Enroth-Cugell, C. & Pinto, L.H. (1972a). Properties of the surround response mechanism of cat retinal ganglion cells and centre-surround interaction. Journal of Physiology 220, 403–439.Google Scholar
Enroth-Cugell, C. & Pinto, L.H. (1972b). Pure central responses from off-centre cells and pure surround responses from on-centre cells. Journal of Physiology 220, 441–464.Google Scholar
Enroth-Cugell, C. & Robson, J.G. (1966). The contrast sensitivity of retinal ganglion cells of the cat. Journal of Physiology 187, 517–552.Google Scholar
Flores-Herr, N., Protti, D.A., & Wassle, H. (2001). Synaptic currents generating the inhibitory surround of ganglion cells in the mammalian retina. Journal of Neuroscience 21, 4852–4863.Google Scholar
Hammond, P. (1974). Cat retinal ganglion cells: size and shape of receptive field centres. Journal of Physiology 242(1), 99–118.Google Scholar
Hubel, D.H. (1957). Tungsten microelectrode for recording from single units. Science 125, 549–550.Google Scholar
Jeon, C.J., Strettoi, E., & Masland, R.H. (1998). The major cell populations of the mouse retina. Journal of Neuroscience 18(21), 8936–8946.Google Scholar
Koch, K., McLean, J., Berry, M., Sterling, P., Balasubramanian, V., & Freed, M.A. (2004). Efficiency of information transmission by retinal ganglion cells. Current Biology 14, 1523–1530.Google Scholar
Kuffler, S.W. (1953). Discharge patterns and functional organization of mammalian retina. Journal of Neurophysiology 16, 37–68.Google Scholar
Lin, B., Wang, S.W., & Masland, R.H. (2004). Retinal ganglion cell type, size, and spacing can be specified independent of homotypic dendritic contacts. Neuron 43, 475–485.Google Scholar
Linsenmeier, R.A., Frishman, L.J., Jakiela, H.G., & Enroth-Cugell, C. (1982). Receptive field properties of x and y cells in the cat retina derived from contrast sensitivity measurements. Vision Research 22, 1173–1183.Google Scholar
Mangel, S.C. (1991). Analysis of the horizontal cell contributions to the receptive field surround of ganglion cells in the rabbit retina. Journal of Physiology 442, 211–234.Google Scholar
McCall, M.A. & Sagdullaev, B.T. (2003). GABAC receptor-mediated inhibition shapes retinal ganglion cell visual responses. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 44, E-Abstract 3235.Google Scholar
Merwine, D.K., Amthor, F.R., & Grzywacz, N.M. (1995). Interaction between center and surround in rabbit retinal ganglion cells. Journal of Neurophysiology 73, 1547–1567.Google Scholar
Morigiwa, K., Tauchi, M., & Fukuda, Y. (1989). Fractal analysis of ganglion cell dendritic branching patterns of the rat and cat retinae. Neuroscience Research (Suppl.) 10, S131–139.Google Scholar
Muller, J.F. & Dacheux, R.F. (1997). Alpha ganglion cells of the rabbit retina lose antagonistic surround responses under dark adaptation. Visual Neuroscience 14, 395–401.Google Scholar
Nirenberg, S. & Meister, M. (1997). The light response of retinal ganglion cells is truncated by a displaced amacrine circuit. Neuron 18, 637–650.Google Scholar
Norton, T.T. & Casagrande, V.A. (1982). Laminar organization of receptive-field properties in lateral geniculate nucleus of bush baby (Galago crassicaudatus). Journal of Neurophysiology 47, 715–741.Google Scholar
Peichel, L., Buhl, E.H., & Boycott, B.B. (1987). Alpha ganglion cells in the rabbit retina. Journal of Comparative Neurology 263(1), 25–41.Google Scholar
Porciatti, V., Pizzorusso, T., & Maffei, L. (1999). The visual physiology of the wild type mouse determined with pattern VEPs. Vision Research 39, 3071–3081.Google Scholar
Rodieck, R.W. (1965). Quantitative analysis of cat retinal ganglion cell response to visual stimuli. Vision Research 5, 583–601.Google Scholar
Rodieck, R.W. & Stone, J. (1965). Analysis of receptive fields of cat retinal ganglion cells. Journal of Neurophysiology 28, 832–849.Google Scholar
Sagdullaev, B.T., DeMarco, P.J., & McCall, M.A. (2004). Improved contact lens electrode for corneal ERG recordings in mice. Documenta Ophthalmologica 108, 181–184.Google Scholar
Schmucker, C. & Schaeffel, F. (2004). In vivo biometry in the mouse eye with low coherence interferometry. Vision Research 44, 2445–2456.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.R., Jacobs, A.L., & Nirenberg, S. (2004). Selective ablation of a class of amacrine cells alters spatial processing in the retina. Journal of Neuroscience 24, 1459–1467.Google Scholar
Stone, C. & Pinto, L. (1993). Response properties of ganglion cells in the isolated mouse retina. Visual Neuroscience 10, 31–39.Google Scholar
Sun, W., Li, N., & He, S. (2002). Large-scale morphological survey of mouse retinal ganglion cells. Journal of Comparative Neurology 451, 115–126.Google Scholar
Taylor, W.R. (1999). TTX attenuates surround inhibition in rabbit retinal ganglion cells. Visual Neuroscience 16, 285–290.Google Scholar
Vaney, D.I., Levick, W.R., & Thibos, L.N. (1981). Rabbit retinal ganglion cells. Receptive field classification and axonal conduction properties. Experimental Brain Research 44, 27–33.Google Scholar
Weber, A.J., McCall, M.A., & Stanford, L.R. (1991). Synaptic inputs to physiologically identified retinal X-cells in the cat. Journal of Comparative Neurology 314, 350–366.Google Scholar
Werblin, F.S. & Dowling, J.E. (1969). Organization of the retina of mudpuppy, Necuturus maculosis. II. Intracellular recording. Journal of Neurophysiology 32, 339–355.Google Scholar
Woch, G., Aramant, R.B., Seiler, M.J., Sagdullaev, B.T., & McCall, M.A. (2001). Retinal transplants restore visually evoked responses in rats with photoreceptor degeneration. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 42, 1669–1676.Google Scholar
Zaghloul, K.A., Boahen, K., & Demb, J.B. (2003). Different circuits for ON and OFF retinal ganglion cells cause different contrast sensitivities. Journal of Neuroscience 23, 2645–2654.Google Scholar