Analysis of rod/cone gap junctions from the reconstruction of mouse photoreceptor terminals

  1. Munenori Ishibashi
  2. Joyce Keung
  3. Catherine W Morgans
  4. Sue A Aicher
  5. James R Carroll
  6. Joshua H Singer
  7. Li Jia
  8. Wei Li
  9. Iris Fahrenfort
  10. Christophe P Ribelayga  Is a corresponding author
  11. Stephen C Massey  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Texas at Houston, United States
  2. Oregon Health & Science University, United States
  3. University of Maryland, College Park, United States
  4. National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, United States

Abstract

Electrical coupling, mediated by gap junctions, contributes to signal averaging, synchronization and noise reduction in neuronal circuits. In addition, gap junctions may also provide alternative neuronal pathways. However, because they are small and especially difficult to image, gap junctions are often ignored in large-scale 3D reconstructions. Here, we reconstruct gap junctions between photoreceptors in the mouse retina, using serial blockface-scanning electron microscopy (SBF-SEM), focused ion beam-scanning electron microscopy (FIB-SEM), and confocal microscopy for the gap junction protein Cx36. An exuberant spray of fine telodendria extends from each cone pedicle (including blue cones) to contact 40-50 nearby rod spherules at sites of Cx36 labeling, with approximately 50 Cx36 clusters per cone pedicle and 2-3 per rod spherule. We were unable to detect rod/rod or cone/cone coupling. Thus, rod/cone coupling accounts for nearly all gap junctions between photoreceptors. We estimate a mean of 86 Cx36 channels per rod/cone pair, which may provide a maximum conductance of ~ 1200 pS, if all gap junction channels were open. This is comparable to the maximum conductance previously measured between rod/cone pairs in the presence of a dopamine antagonist to activate Cx36, suggesting the open probability of gap junction channels can approach 100% under certain conditions.

Data availability

All the data used to create the figures in the manuscript have been provided as source data files for Figures 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8.The following data sets were generated.Ishibashi M, Keung J, Ribelayga CP, Massey SC (2018) Confocal imaging of the outer plexiform layer in mouse retina. Collection ID: 30675648bee2309e, URL: https://download.brainimagelibrary.org/30/67/30675648bee2309e/In the public domain at BIL http://www.brainimagelibrary.org/index.htmlSinger JH (2018) SBF-SEM of mouse retina. eel001. URL: https://wklink.org/9712In the public domain at webKnossos https://webknossos.org/Morgan CW, Aicher SA, Carroll JR (2019) FIB-SEM of the outer plexiform layer in light-adapted mouse retina. EM1 and EM2, URL: https://bossdb.org/project/ishibashi2021In the public domain at BossDB https://bossdb.org/

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Munenori Ishibashi

    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, University of Texas at Houston, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6922-573X
  2. Joyce Keung

    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, University of Texas at Houston, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Catherine W Morgans

    Department of Chemical Physiology and Biochemistry, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Sue A Aicher

    Department of Chemical Physiology and Biochemistry, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. James R Carroll

    Department of Chemical Physiology and Biochemistry, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9264-4502
  6. Joshua H Singer

    Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0561-2247
  7. Li Jia

    Retinal Neurophysiology Section, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Wei Li

    Retinal Neurophysiology Section, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2897-649X
  9. Iris Fahrenfort

    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, University of Texas at Houston, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Christophe P Ribelayga

    Department of Vision Sciences, University of Texas at Houston, Houston, United States
    For correspondence
    christophe.p.ribelayga@uth.tmc.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5889-2070
  11. Stephen C Massey

    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, University of Texas at Houston, Houston, United States
    For correspondence
    steve.massey@uth.tmc.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0224-6031

Funding

National Institute of Mental Health (RF1MH127343)

  • Catherine W Morgans
  • Sue A Aicher
  • Christophe P Ribelayga
  • Stephen C Massey

National Eye Institute (EY029408)

  • Christophe P Ribelayga
  • Stephen C Massey

National Eye Institute (EY017836)

  • Joshua H Singer

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (P30NS061800)

  • Sue A Aicher

National Eye Institute (P30EY028102)

  • Stephen C Massey

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Fred Rieke, University of Washington, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal procedures were reviewed and approved by the Animal Welfare Committee at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (AWC-20-0138) or by our collaborators' local Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees.

Version history

  1. Received: August 13, 2021
  2. Preprint posted: September 6, 2021 (view preprint)
  3. Accepted: April 25, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: April 26, 2022 (version 1)
  5. Accepted Manuscript updated: April 27, 2022 (version 2)
  6. Version of Record published: June 6, 2022 (version 3)

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 2,001
    views
  • 440
    downloads
  • 16
    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. Munenori Ishibashi
  2. Joyce Keung
  3. Catherine W Morgans
  4. Sue A Aicher
  5. James R Carroll
  6. Joshua H Singer
  7. Li Jia
  8. Wei Li
  9. Iris Fahrenfort
  10. Christophe P Ribelayga
  11. Stephen C Massey
(2022)
Analysis of rod/cone gap junctions from the reconstruction of mouse photoreceptor terminals
eLife 11:e73039.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.73039

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.73039

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Vezha Boboeva, Alberto Pezzotta ... Athena Akrami
    Research Article

    The central tendency bias, or contraction bias, is a phenomenon where the judgment of the magnitude of items held in working memory appears to be biased toward the average of past observations. It is assumed to be an optimal strategy by the brain and commonly thought of as an expression of the brain’s ability to learn the statistical structure of sensory input. On the other hand, recency biases such as serial dependence are also commonly observed and are thought to reflect the content of working memory. Recent results from an auditory delayed comparison task in rats suggest that both biases may be more related than previously thought: when the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) was silenced, both short-term and contraction biases were reduced. By proposing a model of the circuit that may be involved in generating the behavior, we show that a volatile working memory content susceptible to shifting to the past sensory experience – producing short-term sensory history biases – naturally leads to contraction bias. The errors, occurring at the level of individual trials, are sampled from the full distribution of the stimuli and are not due to a gradual shift of the memory toward the sensory distribution’s mean. Our results are consistent with a broad set of behavioral findings and provide predictions of performance across different stimulus distributions and timings, delay intervals, as well as neuronal dynamics in putative working memory areas. Finally, we validate our model by performing a set of human psychophysics experiments of an auditory parametric working memory task.

    1. Neuroscience
    Michael Berger, Michèle Fraatz ... Henrike Scholz
    Research Article

    The brain regulates food intake in response to internal energy demands and food availability. However, can internal energy storage influence the type of memory that is formed? We show that the duration of starvation determines whether Drosophila melanogaster forms appetitive short-term or longer-lasting intermediate memories. The internal glycogen storage in the muscles and adipose tissue influences how intensely sucrose-associated information is stored. Insulin-like signaling in octopaminergic reward neurons integrates internal energy storage into memory formation. Octopamine, in turn, suppresses the formation of long-term memory. Octopamine is not required for short-term memory because octopamine-deficient mutants can form appetitive short-term memory for sucrose and to other nutrients depending on the internal energy status. The reduced positive reinforcing effect of sucrose at high internal glycogen levels, combined with the increased stability of food-related memories due to prolonged periods of starvation, could lead to increased food intake.