MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1544975792 · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2011.225060

Intrinsic oscillatory activity arising within the electrically coupled AII amacrine–ON cone bipolar cell network is driven by voltage‐gated Na<sup>+</sup> channels

2012· article· en· W1544975792 on OpenAlexafffund
Stuart Trenholm, Joanna Borowska, Jiawei Zhang, Alex Hoggarth, Kyle Johnson, Steven Barnes, Timothy J. Lewis, Gautam B. Awatramani

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaDalhousie University
FundersNeurosciences FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of OttawaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFoundation Fighting BlindnessNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAmacrine cellRetinaHyperpolarization (physics)BiophysicsNeuroscienceGap junctionChemistryPhysicsBiologyIntracellularBiochemistryStereochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key points In mouse models for retinal degeneration, photoreceptor death leads to membrane oscillation in the remnant AII amacrine–ON cone bipolar cell network through an unknown mechanism. We found such oscillations require voltage‐gated Na + channels and gap junctions but not hyperpolarization‐activated currents ( I h ). Na + channels are expressed predominantly in AII amacrine cells and I h in ON cone bipolar cells, and appear to interact via gap junctions to shape oscillations. Similar intrinsic oscillations arose in the wild‐type (wt) AII amacrine–ON cone bipolar cell network when photoreceptor inputs to bipolar cells were pharmacologically occluded. Computational modelling captures experimental findings when a low level of cellular heterogeneity is introduced in the coupled network. These unique insights into the cellular mechanisms underlying spontaneous activity in the degenerating retina might aid in designing the most effective strategies to restore vision using retinal prosthesis. Abstract In the rd1 mouse model for retinal degeneration, the loss of photoreceptors results in oscillatory activity (∼10–20 Hz) within the remnant electrically coupled network of retinal ON cone bipolar and AII amacrine cells. We tested the role of hyperpolarization‐activated currents ( I h ), voltage‐gated Na + channels and gap junctions in mediating such oscillatory activity. Blocking I h (1 m m Cs + ) hyperpolarized the network and augmented activity, while antagonizing voltage‐dependent Na + channels (1 μ m TTX) abolished oscillatory activity in the AII amacrine–ON cone bipolar cell network. Voltage‐gated Na + channels were only observed in AII amacrine cells, implicating these cells as major drivers of activity. Pharmacologically uncoupling the network (200 μ m meclofenamic acid (MFA)) blocked oscillations in all cells indicating that Na + channels exert their influence over multiple cell types within the network. In wt retina, occluding photoreceptor inputs to bipolar cells (10 μ m NBQX and 50 μ m l ‐AP4) resulted in a mild (∼10 mV) hyperpolarization and the induction of oscillatory activity within the AII amacrine–ON cone bipolar cell network. These oscillations had similar properties to those observed in rd1 retina, suggesting that no major degeneration‐induced network rewiring is required to trigger spontaneous oscillations. Finally, we constructed a simplified computational model that exhibited Na + channel‐dependent network oscillations. In this model, mild heterogeneities in channel densities between individual neurons reproduced our experimental findings. These results indicate that TTX‐sensitive Na + channels in AII amacrine cells trigger degeneration‐induced network oscillations, which provide a persistent synaptic drive to downstream remnant neurons, thus appearing to replace photoreceptors as the principal drivers of retinal activity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations97
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207