MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Parallel Inhibition of Dopamine Amacrine Cells and Intrinsically Photosensitive Retinal Ganglion Cells in a Non-Image-Forming Visual Circuit of the Mouse Retina

2015· article· en· W2184794175 on OpenAlexafffund
Helen E. Vuong, Claudia N. Hardi, Steven Barnes, Nicholas C. Brecha

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Eye InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthNova Scotia Health Research FoundationPlum FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsIntrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cellsRetinaAmacrine cellDopamineBiologyAgonistInhibitory postsynaptic potentialNeuroscienceRetinalCell biologyEndocrinologyChemistryBiophysicsReceptorRetinal ganglion cellBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An inner retinal microcircuit composed of dopamine (DA)-containing amacrine cells and melanopsin-containing, intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (M1 ipRGCs) process information about the duration and intensity of light exposures, mediating light adaptation, circadian entrainment, pupillary reflexes, and other aspects of non-image-forming vision. The neural interaction is reciprocal: M1 ipRGCs excite DA amacrine cells, and these, in turn, feed inhibition back onto M1 ipRGCs. We found that the neuropeptide somatostatin [somatotropin release inhibiting factor (SRIF)] also inhibits the intrinsic light response of M1 ipRGCs and postulated that, to tune the bidirectional interaction of M1 ipRGCs and DA amacrine cells, SRIF amacrine cells would provide inhibitory modulation to both cell types. SRIF amacrine cells, DA amacrine cells, and M1 ipRGCs form numerous contacts. DA amacrine cells and M1 ipRGCs express the SRIF receptor subtypes sst2Aand sst4respectively. SRIF modulation of the microcircuit was investigated with targeted patch-clamp recordings of DA amacrine cells in TH–RFP mice and M1 ipRGCs in OPN4–EGFP mice. SRIF increases K+currents, decreases Ca2+currents, and inhibits spike activity in both cell types, actions reproduced by the selective sst2Aagonist L-054,264 (N-[(1R)-2-[[[(1S*,3R*)-3-(aminomethyl)cyclohexyl]methyl]amino]-1-(1H-indol-3-ylmethyl)-2-oxoethyl]spiro[1H-indene-1,4′-piperidine]-1′-carboxamide) in DA amacrine cells and the selective sst4agonist L-803,087 (N2-[4-(5,7-difluoro-2-phenyl-1H-indol-3-yl)-1-oxobutyl]-l-arginine methyl ester trifluoroacetate) in M1 ipRGCs. These parallel actions of SRIF may serve to counteract the disinhibition of M1 ipRGCs caused by SRIF inhibition of DA amacrine cells. This allows the actions of SRIF on DA amacrine cells to proceed with adjusting retinal DA levels without destabilizing light responses by M1 ipRGCs, which project to non-image-forming targets in the brain. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTAmacrine cells form multiple microcircuits in the inner retina to mediate visual processing, although their organization and function remain incompletely understood. The somatostatin [somatotropin release inhibiting factor (SRIF)]- and dopamine (DA)-releasing amacrine cells act globally, and, in this study, they are shown to interact and modulate the light response of intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs). SRIF amacrine cells target both DA amacrine cells and M1 ipRGCs for inhibition. The parallel actions of SRIF may serve to compensate for the loss of DA-mediated inhibition of M1 ipRGCs. This inhibitory tuning is of particular importance because the DA system mediates a broad range of light adaptational actions in the retina and M1 ipRGCs project to brain areas that influence sleep, mood, cognition, circadian entrainment, and pupillary reflexes.

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 score0.003

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations60
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207