Retinal Circuits: How we see the forest and the trees

  1. Jeffrey S Diamond  Is a corresponding author
  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, United States

Abstract

Signaling pathways in the retina help us see spatial detail in our visual world.

Main text

Imagine you are walking through an alpine forest on a beautiful fall day, passing a stand of aspen trees with their thin trunks forming a vertical grid before a brilliant backdrop of autumn color. A closer look reveals the horizontal striations in their white bark (Figure 1A,B). This simple, sylvan example highlights how our visual system seamlessly shifts its attention across the broad range of spatial frequencies in the natural world: it can report global shapes, patterns and motion, and also encode fine details, enabling us to see the forest – and the trees.

Processing visual information in the retina.

(A) A stand of aspen trees, seen from a distance, presents primarily vertical lines (Image credit: John Price). (B) Closer inspection reveals primarily horizontal features in the bark of individual trees (Image credit: Peng Chen). (C) Simplified schematic of the retinal circuitry showing the synapses between photoreceptors (top) and bipolar cells, and between bipolar cells and a single ganglion cell. The amacrine cells influence the behavior of the bipolar cells (and the ganglion cells). (D) Neurotransmitter release by bipolar cells (y-axis) versus the membrane potential of these cells. Bipolar cells inhabit one of three release regimes: quiescent (blue), when visual stimulation is insufficient to evoke release; linear (red), when release is proportional to the stimulus; and rectified (gold), when only positive stimuli evoke release. (E) Schematic showing a checkerboard stimulus presented to a 2 × 2 array of bipolar cells. (F) The change in the membrane potential (y-axis) over time (x-axis) of each bipolar cell depends on whether it receives a positive stimulus (2 and 3) or a negative stimulus (1 and 4) from the checkerboard. (G) The release of neurotransmitters from the four bipolar cells and the resulting response in the ganglion cell (bottom) depend on the release regime occupied by the bipolar cell (see main text).

One might expect that such a sophisticated system would require this information to be sent to 'higher' visual centers in the brain for processing. However, much of this processing is actually carried out at a relatively 'low' level by the neurons in the retina (Hochstein and Shapley, 1976; Demb et al., 1999; Schwartz et al., 2012; Grimes et al., 2014; Turner and Rieke, 2016). Now, in eLife, Maxwell Turner and Fred Rieke of the University of Washington, and Gregory Schwartz of Northwestern University, report how circuits in the retina fine-tune their spatial sensitivity in response to the surrounding visual world (Turner et al., 2018).

Neurons communicate with each other by releasing signaling molecules called neurotransmitters into the synaptic gaps between them. In the retina, visual signals in the form of slow, graded changes in membrane potential are transmitted from photoreceptors (the cells that actually detect the light we see) to bipolar cells and then to ganglion cells (Figure 1C). The release of neurotransmitters from bipolar cells into a synapse depends on the value of the membrane potential of the neuron relative to the activation range of the calcium ion channels that trigger the release (Figure 1D). There are three different regimes: the 'quiescent' regime, in which only a very strong positive stimulus will evoke release; the 'rectified' regime, in which a positive stimulus will evoke release, but a negative stimulus will not; and the 'linear' regime, in which a positive stimulus will lead to an increase in release, and a negative stimulus will lead to a decrease. Many of the synapses formed by bipolar cells operate in the 'rectified' regime.

Turner et al. studied how visual signals are transmitted from a number of bipolar cells to a single ganglion cell. This transmission depends on which regime the bipolar cells are in, particularly when the intensity of the visual image being transmitted varies across the receptive field of the ganglion cells (Croner and Kaplan, 1995).

Suppose that the bipolar cells in a 2 × 2 array are stimulated independently by a checkerboard image, with two cells receiving a positive stimulus and two receiving a negative stimulus (Figure 1E,F). If the bipolar cells are quiescent, the stimuli will not evoke a release from any of the four cells, and hence no signal will be transmitted to the ganglion cell. Likewise, if the bipolar cells are in the 'linear' regime, the release of neurotransmitters from two of the cells will increase, and the release from two will decrease, thus cancelling each other out, so the signal being transmitted to the ganglion cell will not change. Linear responses can, therefore, diminish the responses of the ganglion cells to higher spatial frequencies. However, if the bipolar cells are in the 'rectified' regime, only the two positively stimulated bipolar cells will release a neurotransmitter, enabling the ganglion cells to respond (Figure 1G; Enroth-Cugell and Robson, 1966).

Another set of cells in the inner retina, the amacrine cells, are also involved regulating the release of neurotransmitters by bipolar cells and thus fine-tuning the information transferred to ganglion cells. In particular, the amacrine cells contribute to the 'center-surround' organization of the receptive fields of ganglion cells: put simply, this means that if a ganglion cell is excited by a stimulus in the center of its receptive field, a similar stimulus in the surrounding area will be inhibitory.

Turner et al. show that ‘surround inhibition’ can influence the spatial sensitivity of the ganglion cells by shifting the bipolar cells from one release regime to another. Strong surround inhibition pushes bipolar cells toward quiescence, limiting responses to center stimuli. Conversely, surround stimuli of the opposite polarity to that of the center decreases inhibition in the surround, pushing the bipolar cells into their linear regime. As a result, contrasting details in the center cancel each other, reducing the ganglion cells’ spatial sensitivity. This proves useful when visual features change abruptly on a larger spatial scale, and encoding global contrast or motion takes temporary precedence over the finer details.

In our spatially correlated natural world, however, the luminance of the center and surround are often similar, so that bipolar cells occupy their rectified regime, thereby maximizing the sensitivity of the ganglion cells to higher spatial frequencies (Field, 1987). Notably, these changes can occur quickly, enabling the circuit to adapt in real time to changing visual conditions.

The work by Turner et al. and others has certainly expanded our appreciation for the remarkable versatility and computational power of this thin, transparent sheet of neurons that lines the back of the eye (Gollisch and Meister, 2010). The retinal circuitry has revealed itself as a dense forest of connected trees that holds many more secrets yet to be discovered.

References

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jeffrey S Diamond

    Jeffrey S Diamond is in the Synaptic Physiology Section, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, United States

    For correspondence
    diamondj@ninds.nih.gov
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1770-2629

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: October 12, 2018 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2018, Diamond

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

Metrics

  • 1,726
    Page views
  • 164
    Downloads
  • 2
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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. Jeffrey S Diamond
(2018)
Retinal Circuits: How we see the forest and the trees
eLife 7:e41633.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.41633

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Nikoloz Sirmpilatze et al.
    Research Article

    During deep anesthesia, the electroencephalographic (EEG) signal of the brain alternates between bursts of activity and periods of relative silence (suppressions). The origin of burst-suppression and its distribution across the brain remain matters of debate. In this work, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to map the brain areas involved in anesthesia-induced burst-suppression across four mammalian species: humans, long-tailed macaques, common marmosets, and rats. At first, we determined the fMRI signatures of burst-suppression in human EEG-fMRI data. Applying this method to animal fMRI datasets, we found distinct burst-suppression signatures in all species. The burst-suppression maps revealed a marked inter-species difference: in rats, the entire neocortex engaged in burst-suppression, while in primates most sensory areas were excluded—predominantly the primary visual cortex. We anticipate that the identified species-specific fMRI signatures and whole-brain maps will guide future targeted studies investigating the cellular and molecular mechanisms of burst-suppression in unconscious states.

    1. Neuroscience
    Camila Vesga-Castro et al.
    Review Article

    Over the last few years, there has been growing interest in measuring the contractile force (CF) of engineered muscle tissues to evaluate their functionality. However, there are still no standards available for selecting the most suitable experimental platform, measuring system, culture protocol, or stimulation patterns. Consequently, the high variability of published data hinders any comparison between different studies. We have identified that cantilever deflection, post deflection, and force transducers are the most commonly used configurations for CF assessment in 2D and 3D models. Additionally, we have discussed the most relevant emerging technologies that would greatly complement CF evaluation with intracellular and localized analysis. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the most significant advances in CF evaluation and its critical parameters. In order to compare contractile performance across experimental platforms, we have used the specific force (sF, kN/m2), CF normalized to the calculated cross-sectional area (CSA). However, this parameter presents a high variability throughout the different studies, which indicates the need to identify additional parameters and complementary analysis suitable for proper comparison. We propose that future contractility studies in skeletal muscle constructs report detailed information about construct size, contractile area, maturity level, sarcomere length, and, ideally, the tetanus-to-twitch ratio. These studies will hopefully shed light on the relative impact of these variables on muscle force performance of engineered muscle constructs. Prospective advances in muscle tissue engineering, particularly in muscle disease models, will require a joint effort to develop standardized methodologies for assessing CF of engineered muscle tissues.