MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2101421898 · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2007.130682

Persistence has its own reward: repetitive firing of action potentials in neurons

2007· letter· en· W2101421898 sur OpenAlexaff
P. K. Rose

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Physiology · 2007
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Établissements canadiensQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDepolarizationAfterhyperpolarizationNeuroscienceHyperpolarization (physics)Tonic (physiology)NeuronPopulationInterneuronMembrane potentialChemistryPhysicsBiophysicsBiologyInhibitory postsynaptic potentialMedicineNuclear magnetic resonance

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The problem seems trivial. Given a steady input (e.g. tonic synaptic activity), design a neuron to discharge repetitively for most or all of the duration of the input. The need for a solution to this problem is obvious. Without this ability, how can neurons relay the information delivered by a population of asynchronously firing afferents? On first inspection, the solution to this design problem appears to be obvious. Add a set of potassium channels that hyperpolarize the neuron after each action potential (i.e. the afterhyperpolarization). As this hyperpolarization gradually declines, the cell, and most importantly, the voltage-dependent sodium channels responsible for action potentials, will ‘see’ the decline in the hyperpolarization as a depolarization. Since these channels are activated by a depolarization, they are ideally suited to trigger another action potential. Problem solved! This simple solution may have a snag or two. The first hint of trouble can be found in reports of some neurons that fire only one action potential in response to a step of injected current. Single-spiking neurons form a distinct class of cells in both the dorsal and ventral horns (Ruscheweyh & Sandkuhler, 2002; Prescott & De Koninck, 2002). Given the design described above, it is not immediately obvious why some neurons would only fire one action potential. Do these cells have additional properties that actively prevent repetitive firing? Alternatively, what are they missing? The latter idea bears careful scrutiny given that some single-spiking neurons can be converted into repetitively firing cells with the application of serotonin (Garraway & Hochman, 2001). There is another snag. Biophysicists describe the operation of voltage-dependent sodium channels in terms of one open state and multiple closed and inactivated states (Taddese & Bean, 2002). In other words, their dependency on voltage is not simple. During slow depolarizations that are typical of the membrane potential trajectory between action potentials, sodium channels carrying a transient current responsible for action potentials will slip into an inactivated state. Now we have a second problem. The anticipated influx of sodium ions fails to materialize and the cell stops firing. In this issue of The Journal of Physiology, Theiss et al. (2007) provide an elegant answer to our design problem. Neurons in the ventral horn of the spinal cord can be divided into four distinct classes based on their response to a step of depolarizing current. Some fire repetitively for the entire duration of the current step; others discharge with a burst of action potentials at the start of the current step; some adopt a repetitive mode of firing or an initial burst response, depending on the input level; and finally, some fire only once – the ‘problem’ cells previously described. Voltage-clamp recordings from these cells revealed an intriguing pattern. In response to a slow voltage ramp that was designed to inactivate the sodium channels responsible for transient sodium currents, the cells that fired repetitively displayed a persistent sodium current that was activated at voltages hyperpolarized to the voltage threshold for action potentials. In contrast, this current was much smaller in initial burst and repetitive/burst cells, and absent in single-spiking cells. This persistent sodium current is just what we needed! As the cell slowly recovers from a postspike hyperpolarization, the persistent sodium current accelerates the depolarization and acts to limit inactivation of the transient sodium channels that generate the next action potential. If the cell lacks a persistent sodium current, single-spiking emerges. Correlations are well and good, but Theiss et al. (2007) go on to provide evidence of a causal link between persistent sodium currents and repetitive firing. In response to low concentrations of riluzole, the persistent sodium current is greatly reduced. This reduction transforms all three classes of repetitively firing neurons into single-spiking cells. Importantly, these cells retain the ability to fire multiple action potentials, but only if they are stimulated with repeated short current pulses. This study is significant for several reasons. In addition to other important roles (Vervaeke et al. 2006), persistent sodium currents may also ensure a repetitive discharge in response to tonic synaptic activity. In turn, this helps to shape the unique firing patterns of different classes of cells (see also Kuo et al. 2006). It is also significant that ventral horn interneurons are endowed with these channels. These cells relay descending and segmental signals to motoneurons. Thus, this relay may be subject to dynamic transformations based on the state of the channels responsible for persistent sodium currents. If the behaviour of these channels is altered, as might happen after spinal cord injury (Harvey et al. 2006), the signals reaching motoneurons may be changed in ways that could facilitate or impede recovery.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,023

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,023
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,008
Communication savante0,0030,014
Science ouverte0,0020,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,008
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,196
Tête enseignante GPT0,377
Écart entre enseignants0,181 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of Physiology→Même sujetNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research→Travaux en français237 207→