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

  • 2,163
    views
  • 456
    downloads
  • 18
    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
    Wenyu Tu, Samuel R Cramer, Nanyin Zhang
    Research Article

    Resting-state brain networks (RSNs) have been widely applied in health and disease, but the interpretation of RSNs in terms of the underlying neural activity is unclear. To address this fundamental question, we conducted simultaneous recordings of whole-brain resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rsfMRI) and electrophysiology signals in two separate brain regions of rats. Our data reveal that for both recording sites, spatial maps derived from band-specific local field potential (LFP) power can account for up to 90% of the spatial variability in RSNs derived from rsfMRI signals. Surprisingly, the time series of LFP band power can only explain to a maximum of 35% of the temporal variance of the local rsfMRI time course from the same site. In addition, regressing out time series of LFP power from rsfMRI signals has minimal impact on the spatial patterns of rsfMRI-based RSNs. This disparity in the spatial and temporal relationships between resting-state electrophysiology and rsfMRI signals suggests that electrophysiological activity alone does not fully explain the effects observed in the rsfMRI signal, implying the existence of an rsfMRI component contributed by ‘electrophysiology-invisible’ signals. These findings offer a novel perspective on our understanding of RSN interpretation.

    1. Neuroscience
    Shanka Subhra Mondal, Steven Frankland ... Jonathan D Cohen
    Research Article

    Deep neural networks have made tremendous gains in emulating human-like intelligence, and have been used increasingly as ways of understanding how the brain may solve the complex computational problems on which this relies. However, these still fall short of, and therefore fail to provide insight into how the brain supports strong forms of generalization of which humans are capable. One such case is out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization – successful performance on test examples that lie outside the distribution of the training set. Here, we identify properties of processing in the brain that may contribute to this ability. We describe a two-part algorithm that draws on specific features of neural computation to achieve OOD generalization, and provide a proof of concept by evaluating performance on two challenging cognitive tasks. First we draw on the fact that the mammalian brain represents metric spaces using grid cell code (e.g., in the entorhinal cortex): abstract representations of relational structure, organized in recurring motifs that cover the representational space. Second, we propose an attentional mechanism that operates over the grid cell code using determinantal point process (DPP), that we call DPP attention (DPP-A) – a transformation that ensures maximum sparseness in the coverage of that space. We show that a loss function that combines standard task-optimized error with DPP-A can exploit the recurring motifs in the grid cell code, and can be integrated with common architectures to achieve strong OOD generalization performance on analogy and arithmetic tasks. This provides both an interpretation of how the grid cell code in the mammalian brain may contribute to generalization performance, and at the same time a potential means for improving such capabilities in artificial neural networks.