Sensitivity and kinetics of signal transmission at the first visual synapse differentially impact visually-guided behavior

  1. Ignacio Sarria
  2. Johan Pahlberg
  3. Yan Cao
  4. Alexander V Kolesnikov
  5. Vladimir J Kefalov
  6. Alapakkam P Sampath
  7. Kirill A Martemyanov  Is a corresponding author
  1. The Scripps Research Institute, United States
  2. University of California, Los Angeles, United States
  3. Washington University in St.Louis, United States

Abstract

In the retina, synaptic transmission between photoreceptors and downstream ON-bipolar neurons (ON-BCs) is mediated by a GPCR pathway, which plays an essential role in vision. However, the mechanisms that control signal transmission at this synapse and its relevance to behavior remain poorly understood. In this study we used a genetic system to titrate the rate of GPCR signaling in ON-BC dendrites by varying the concentration of key RGS proteins and measuring the impact on transmission of signal between photoreceptors and ON-BC neurons using electroretinography and single cell recordings. We found that sensitivity, onset timing, and the maximal amplitude of light-evoked responses in rod- and cone-driven ON-BCs are determined by different RGS concentrations. We further show that changes in RGS concentration differentially impact visually guided-behavior mediated by rod and cone ON pathways. These findings illustrate that neuronal circuit properties can be modulated by adjusting parameters of GPCR-based neurotransmission at individual synapses.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ignacio Sarria

    Department of Neuroscience, The Scripps Research Institute, Jupiter, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Johan Pahlberg

    Jules Stein Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Yan Cao

    Department of Neuroscience, The Scripps Research Institute, Jupiter, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Alexander V Kolesnikov

    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University in St.Louis, St. Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Vladimir J Kefalov

    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University in St.Louis, St. Louis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Alapakkam P Sampath

    Jules Stein Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Kirill A Martemyanov

    Department of Neuroscience, The Scripps Research Institute, Jupiter, United States
    For correspondence
    kirill@scripps.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jeremy Nathans, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All procedures were carried out in accordance with the National Institute of Health guidelines and were granted formal approval by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees of the Scripps Research Institute (IACUC protocol number 14-001), Washington University (IACUC protocol number 20140236), and the University of Southern California (IACUC protocol number 10890).

Version history

  1. Received: January 6, 2015
  2. Accepted: April 11, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 16, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: April 29, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Sarria et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,451
    views
  • 297
    downloads
  • 15
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Ignacio Sarria
  2. Johan Pahlberg
  3. Yan Cao
  4. Alexander V Kolesnikov
  5. Vladimir J Kefalov
  6. Alapakkam P Sampath
  7. Kirill A Martemyanov
(2015)
Sensitivity and kinetics of signal transmission at the first visual synapse differentially impact visually-guided behavior
eLife 4:e06358.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06358

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06358

Further reading

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Neuroscience
    Kenneth Chiou, Noah Snyder-Mackler
    Insight

    Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals the extent to which marmosets carry genetically distinct cells from their siblings.

    1. Neuroscience
    Flavio J Schmidig, Simon Ruch, Katharina Henke
    Research Article

    We are unresponsive during slow-wave sleep but continue monitoring external events for survival. Our brain wakens us when danger is imminent. If events are non-threatening, our brain might store them for later consideration to improve decision-making. To test this hypothesis, we examined whether novel vocabulary consisting of simultaneously played pseudowords and translation words are encoded/stored during sleep, and which neural-electrical events facilitate encoding/storage. An algorithm for brain-state-dependent stimulation selectively targeted word pairs to slow-wave peaks or troughs. Retrieval tests were given 12 and 36 hr later. These tests required decisions regarding the semantic category of previously sleep-played pseudowords. The sleep-played vocabulary influenced awake decision-making 36 hr later, if targeted to troughs. The words’ linguistic processing raised neural complexity. The words’ semantic-associative encoding was supported by increased theta power during the ensuing peak. Fast-spindle power ramped up during a second peak likely aiding consolidation. Hence, new vocabulary played during slow-wave sleep was stored and influenced decision-making days later.