Cone bipolar cell synapses generate transient versus sustained signals in parallel ON pathways of the mouse retina

Divergence into parallel pathways allows neural circuits to generate diverse outputs from a common set of inputs. This functional diversity can be quite striking; in vision, for example, light inputs initially encoded by the same collection of cone photoreceptors mediate sensitivity to several kinds of motion, to color and to spatial structure, all in the same region of space. These diverse functional sensitivities arise through parallel processing of light inputs, first in the retina and subsequently in downstream visual areas. Here, we focus on the origin of transient and sustained responses – a key differentiating characteristic of retinal output cells across species (Awatramani and Slaughter, 2000; Baden et al., 2016; Bae et al., 2018; Cleland et al., 1973; Ikeda and Wright, 1972; Roska and Werblin, 2001; Werblin, 1970).

The retina provides a unique opportunity to study the mechanisms that differentiate signals in parallel pathways. We have a near-complete list of retinal cell types and substantial information about which of these cell types participate in specific parallel pathways (Helmstaedter et al., 2013; Masland, 2012). Under daylight conditions, retinal processing starts with cone photoreceptors transducing light inputs and providing divergent output to ~13 types of bipolar cell (Euler et al., 2014; Greene et al., 2016; Helmstaedter et al., 2013; Shekhar et al., 2016; Tsukamoto and Omi, 2017). The resulting bipolar cell signals are transmitted to ~20–40 retinal ganglion cell (RGC) types (Baden et al., 2016; Bae et al., 2018; Goetz et al., 2022). RGC responses are also strongly shaped by the activity of a large and diverse collection of amacrine cells that receive input from bipolar cells and provide presynaptic inhibition to bipolar cells and postsynaptic inhibition to RGCs (Diamond, 2017; Jadzinsky and Baccus, 2013). Finally, RGC responses are shaped by feedforward synaptic properties, particularly synaptic depression and facilitation (DeVries, 2000; Grabner et al., 2016; Jarsky et al., 2011; Lagnado and Schmitz, 2015; Nikolaev et al., 2013; Oesch and Diamond, 2011).

These mechanisms collectively produce highly distinct responses across RGC types – with cells that sample inputs on a variety of spatial and temporal scales, cells with distinct chromatic properties, cells that sense the direction of moving objects, and cells that separate local from global motion (reviewed by Gollisch and Meister, 2010; Kerschensteiner, 2022). Several mechanisms contribute to these functional differences, starting with the division of signals into ON and OFF pathways at the cone-to-bipolar synapse (Euler et al., 2014; Slaughter and Miller, 1981). Temporal properties of responses of different bipolar cells can also differ for some stimuli (Awatramani and Slaughter, 2000; Baden et al., 2013; Euler et al., 2014; Euler and Masland, 2000; Ichinose et al., 2014; Ichinose and Hellmer, 2016; Wu et al., 2000). In the inner retina, integration of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic inputs produces directionally selective responses in specific RGC types (Taylor and Vaney, 2002; Vaney et al., 2012) and differences in spatial weighting functions in other RGCs (Cafaro and Rieke, 2013; Roska and Werblin, 2001; Zhang et al., 2012). Properties of dendritic integration and RGC spike generation also differentiate responses of some RGCs (Margolis et al., 2010; Ran et al., 2020; Wienbar and Schwartz, 2022).

A fundamental difference among RGCs is whether their responses are sustained or transient (Awatramani and Slaughter, 2000; Baden et al., 2016; Bae et al., 2018; Cleland et al., 1973; Ikeda and Wright, 1972; Roska and Werblin, 2001). Cone photoreceptors respond to changes in light intensity with graded potentials that have both a transient and sustained component (Angueyra and Rieke, 2013; Cangiano et al., 2012; Szikra et al., 2014). Both kinetic components of the cone response are maintained in the firing rates of sustained cells, which track the prevailing contrast. However, only the initial component of the cone response is preserved in the spiking response of transient cells, which therefore respond primarily to changes in contrast. Where and how these differences originate is not clear. Here, we show that the distinct kinetics of responses of ON-sustained alpha and ON-transient alpha RGCs (1) persist for stimuli that elicit near-identical responses among the relevant bipolar cells, (2) persist without amacrine cell-mediated inhibition, and (3) are correlated with anatomical differences in output synapses of bipolar cell subtypes that are presynaptic to these RGCs. These findings highlight the importance of feedforward bipolar cell output synapses in producing kinetically distinct retinal outputs.

We focused on two ON RGC cell types, ON-transient alpha (ON-T) and ON-sustained alpha (ON-S) RGCs, that could be readily identified in a flat-mount preparation of the isolated mouse retina (Figure 1A) by their characteristic spiking response to a step increment in light intensity (Figure 1B; Bae et al., 2018; Farrow et al., 2013; Goetz et al., 2022; Krieger et al., 2017; Kuo et al., 2016). Based on their light response, dendritic field size, and stratification pattern in the inner plexiform layer (IPL) (see below; Figure 3—figure supplement 2), the ON-T RGCs we studied here likely correspond to the PV2 RGC type of Farrow et al., 2013, 6sw RGC type of Bae et al., 2018, and the medium-field ON-transient RGC of Goetz et al., 2022. ON-S RGCs correspond to the PV1 RGC type of Farrow et al., 2013 and 8w RGC type of Bae et al., 2018.

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

We characterized the temporal spiking response properties of ON-T and ON-S RGCs by using an extracellular cell-attached patch electrode to measure action potential firing from either cell type while presenting a spatially uniform, randomly fluctuating light stimulus (Gaussian noise) that allowed us to efficiently probe a variety of stimulus contrasts and temporal frequencies. These and all subsequent physiological recordings were conducted using a photopic mean background light level (~3300 R*/rod/s; ~2000 P*/S-cone/s; and ~1650 P*/M-cone/s) to suppress rod photoreceptor responses and focus on cone-mediated signaling (Grimes et al., 2018; Ke et al., 2014). Figure 1C shows the spiking response of example ON-T and ON-S RGCs to multiple repetitions of the same random stimulus contrast sequence; these RGC types clearly responded differently to temporally modulated light input. In particular, noise-evoked ON-T RGC spike responses were comprised primarily of large amplitude, less frequent spike bursts, whereas ON-S RGC responses were less discrete and consisted of events with a wider range of amplitudes (Figure 1C, Figure 1—figure supplement 1A).

We summarized the response of each ON-T and ON-S RGC by computing the average stimulus preceding each recorded spike (the spike-triggered average or STA stimulus) when presenting a non-repeated Gaussian noise stimulus (Figure 1D; Chichilnisky, 2001). We quantified response kinetics from these STA waveforms by measuring the time of zero-crossing (between trough and peak) as well as the ratio of amplitudes of the trough and peak (biphasic index). ON-T RGC STAs were significantly more biphasic (biphasic index = 0.63 ± 0.07; mean ± S.D.; n = 15) than ON-S RGC STAs (biphasic index = 0.43 ± 0.11; mean ± S.D.; n = 13) (Figure 1E, right), consistent with their more transient responses to step stimuli (Figure 1B). ON-T RGC responses were also slightly delayed (zero-cross time = −0.080 ± 0.0063 s; mean ± S.D.; n = 15) relative to those of ON-S RGCs (zero-cross time = –0.072 ± 0.0052 s; mean ± S.D.; n = 13) (Figure 1C, bottom and Figure 1E, left). The STA provides a convenient summary of RGC temporal response properties, but it does not capture all differences between the RGC spike responses – e.g. the discreteness of the ON-T responses in Figure 1C. Nonetheless, the combination of direct observation of the spike responses and STA kinetics illustrates how ON-S and ON-T responses differ.

Bipolar cell to RGC synapses are an important site of signal diversification in ON pathways

A variety of mechanisms could contribute to the distinct temporal response characteristics of ON-T versus ON-S RGCs, including differences in excitatory and/or inhibitory input conveyed by presynaptic circuits. Parallel visual channels are initially established by the divergence of cone signals to different cone bipolar cell subtypes, which have axons that terminate at distinct depths within the IPL and can correspondingly contact distinct RGC types (Euler et al., 2014; Wässle et al., 2009). Prior studies have demonstrated that the kinetics of light-evoked glutamate release differ across IPL layers and hence across different bipolar cell synaptic terminals (Borghuis et al., 2013; Franke et al., 2017). We therefore sought to understand to what extent kinetic differences in bipolar cell-mediated excitatory synaptic input could account for the transient versus sustained responses of these RGCs.

To do this, we used somatic whole-cell voltage-clamp recordings to measure excitatory synaptic currents from both RGC types while stimulating the retina with the same spatially uniform Gaussian noise stimulus that we used to characterize RGC spike output (Figure 2A). We used these measurements to construct linear–nonlinear (LN) models comprised of a linear temporal filter (Figure 2—figure supplement 1A) and a time-invariant (static) nonlinearity (Figure 2—figure supplement 1B) that together provide a simple estimate of the transformation between visual input and excitatory synaptic input to each RGC type (Kim and Rieke, 2001). LN models for each RGC type accurately predicted measured responses to noise stimuli that were not used to construct the models, although LN models of ON-S RGC responses performed better than those for ON-T RGCs (correlation coefficient between average response to repeated noise stimulus and model prediction: 0.61 ± 0.06 (ON-S, n = 9) and 0.50 ± 0.13 (ON-T, n=11), mean ± S.D.; p = 0.028 Wilcoxon rank sum test). ON-T stimulus-evoked excitatory currents were biased toward large amplitude events compared to those of ON-S RGCs (Figure 1—figure supplement 1B), like the distinct amplitude distributions of spike events in these cell types noted above (Figure 1C, Figure 1—figure supplement 1A).

Figure 2 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

The linear filter captures the kinetics of the RGC response and is analogous to the time-reversed STA derived from spike responses (Chichilnisky, 2001). As with the STAs in Figure 1D, excitatory linear filters were slower and more biphasic in ON-T (zero-cross time = 0.10 ± 0.013 s; biphasic ind. = 0.45 ± 0.090; mean ± S.D.; n = 13) compared to ON-S RGCs (zero-cross time = 0.083 ± 0.0074 s; biphasic ind. = 0.31 ± 0.10; mean ± S.D.; n = 15) (Figure 2C). This latter difference is consistent with more transient light-evoked excitatory synaptic input to ON-T RGCs. Indeed, light step-evoked excitatory currents to ON-T RGCs decayed to baseline levels within a few hundred milliseconds, even in the continued presence of light input, whereas excitatory inputs to ON-S RGCs had a sustained component that persisted for the duration of the light step (Figure 2D, E).

These results show that transient versus sustained kinetics are already present in the excitatory pathways that provide input to ON-T and ON-S RGCs. However, these findings do not rule out additional contributions to the distinct spiking behavior of these RGC types from amacrine cell-mediated inhibitory synaptic input to the RGCs or from different intrinsic spiking properties. To examine whether postsynaptic inhibition contributes importantly to kinetic differences between ON-T and ON-S RGCs, we measured both excitatory and inhibitory synaptic currents in response to Gaussian noise stimuli in a subset of RGC recordings (Figure 2—figure supplement 2). Like excitatory currents, light-evoked inhibitory currents were more transient in ON-T RGCs (linear filter biphasic ind. = 0.34 ± 0.12; mean ± S.D.; n = 8) compared to those in ON-S RGCs (biphasic ind. = 0.16 ± 0.09; mean ± S.D.; n = 8) (Figure 2—figure supplement 2B, C; p = 0.01, Wilcoxon rank sum test). We also quantified the relative strength of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic inputs by calculating the ratio between the largest noise-evoked excitatory and inhibitory conductances (G_exc and G_inh; derived from the measured currents) in response to a repeated noise stimulus in each RGC (Figure 2—figure supplement 2A, D, E). This ratio did not differ significantly between the two cell types (ON-T RGCs: peak G_exc /peak G_inh = 1.46 ± 0.65; mean ± S.D.; n = 6; ON-S RGCs: peak G_exc /peak G_inh = 4.04 ± 2.48; mean ± S.D.; n = 7; p = 0.10, Wilcoxon rank sum test). The relatively small inhibitory inputs, together with the clear differences we observed in excitatory synaptic input between ON-T and ON-S RGCs, indicate that bipolar cell pathways have a central role in establishing transient versus sustained kinetics.

ON-T and ON-S RGCs receive input from distinct bipolar types

Retinal circuits dedicated to transient versus sustained signaling are generally located at the center and borders of the IPL, respectively (Baden et al., 2016; Bae et al., 2018; Beaudoin et al., 2019; Borghuis et al., 2013; Franke et al., 2017; Roska and Werblin, 2001). We compared stratification patterns of ON-T and ON-S RGCs in a subset of whole-cell recordings by filling cells with a fluorescent dye and imaging the dendrites of physiologically characterized RGCs using two-photon microscopy. We assessed IPL depth in live tissue by using retinas from a transgenic mouse line in which type 5 bipolar cells strongly express EGFP (Gjd2-EGFP mice). These EGFP+ bipolar cells express calcium binding protein 5 (CaBP5; Figure 3—figure supplement 1B–D) and have axons that occupy a narrow band just above and overlapping with the dendrites of ON starburst amacrine cells (Figure 3—figure supplement 1A; Ghosh et al., 2004). Based on the regular spacing of their somas, these cells likely correspond to one of the three subtypes of type 5 bipolar cells previously identified in mouse retina (Greene et al., 2016; Rodieck, 1991; Figure 3—figure supplement 1E, F). Imaging of RGCs together with EGFP+ axon terminals in Gjd2-EGFP mice revealed that ON-T and ON-S RGC dendrites occupy distinct, mostly non-overlapping regions of the IPL (Figure 3—figure supplement 2).

The distinct IPL stratification of ON-T and ON-S RGCs indicates they receive input from different bipolar cell populations. Recent serial block face scanning electron microscopy (SBFSEM) connectomic analyses found that type 6 and 7 bipolar cells account for ~50–52% and 46% of the excitatory synapses formed upon ON-S RGC dendrites (Sabbah et al., 2018; Swygart et al., 2024). However, the bipolar cell subtype(s) presynaptic to ON-T RGCs have not previously been identified. Our observation that ON-T RGC dendrites occupy a narrow band in the IPL that closely matches the stratification pattern of EGFP+ type 5 bipolar cell axons in Gjd2-EGFP mice (Figure 3—figure supplement 2) suggests that these bipolar cells likely provide a substantial fraction of the excitatory input to ON-T RGCs. To test this possibility, we transfected retinas from Gjd2-EGFP mice with a plasmid encoding PSD-95 fused to the red fluorescent reporter mCherry to label postsynaptic sites of excitatory input (Figure 3—figure supplement 3). We used confocal microscopy to quantify the fraction of putative synapses, defined as sites with overlapping PSD-95 and EGFP fluorescent signals, that arose from Gjd2-EGFP+ axon terminals (Schwartz et al., 2012). From this analysis, we concluded that the labeled type 5 bipolar cells in Gjd2-EGFP mice provide ~40% of the ribbon synaptic input to ON-T RGCs (Figure 3—figure supplement 3D).

We next performed correlative fluorescence imaging and SBFSEM to identify which type 5 bipolar subtype is labeled in Gjd2-EGFP mice and to further characterize what other bipolar cell types provide the remaining input to ON-T RGCs. We first used 2P microscopy to image the dendritic morphology of two dye-filled ON-T RGCs that were identified from their light-evoked spike responses in flat-mounted retina from Gjd2-EGFP transgenic mice (Figure 3A). After 2P imaging, we fixed the retina and used the near-infrared branding (NIRB) technique to create fiducial marks in the tissue around the dye-filled ON-T RGCs (Bishop et al., 2011). After acquiring the SBFSEM volume, we located the somas of the two ON-T RGCs using these fiducial marks and reconstructed the dendritic arbors of both cells (e.g. Figure 3B). The dendritic morphologies from our EM reconstruction matched those from the light microscopy images. This suggests that we successfully identified the two ON-T RGCs recorded physiologically in our EM volume. We chose the two longest dendritic arbors from the RGC soma to the dendritic tip and identified all the synapses from bipolar cells along these dendrites (Figure 3C). We then reconstructed all the presynaptic bipolar cells and classified them according to their axon morphology and stratification (Figure 3D). Careful examination of axonal tiling among type 5i, 5o, and 5t subtypes provided additional confirmation of the classification of these type 5 bipolar cells (Figure 3—figure supplement 4A; Greene et al., 2016). When comparing the EM images with light microscopy images, it is clear that Gjd2-EGFP bipolar cells are type 5i bipolar cells (Figure 3—figure supplement 4B).

Figure 3 with 4 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Quantification of bipolar inputs to ON-T RGCs based on the SBFSEM reconstructions reinforced results from the light microscopy approach described above. Type 5i bipolar cell axon terminals provided the largest fraction of synapses onto the two ON-T RGCs within our SBFSEM volume (~30–35%). Other inputs arose from type 5o (~10%), type 5t (~5–15%), XBC (~15–30%), and, somewhat surprisingly given the differences in stratification, from type 6 (~20%) bipolar cells (Figure 3E). We confirmed this connectivity pattern by additionally analyzing bipolar cell synaptic inputs to a putative ON-T RGC (RGC7089) in the publicly available SBFSEM volume (Ding et al., 2016) that was used by Sabbah et al., 2018 to map inputs to ON-S RGCs (Figure 3E).

Bipolar cell light responses differ minimally across types

Are transient versus sustained signals already differentiated in the voltage responses of the different bipolar cells presynaptic to ON-T and ON-S RGCs? Or is the distinct excitatory synaptic input that these RGCs receive primarily due to differences at the bipolar cell to RGC synapse? To answer these questions, we compared the light-driven response properties of the bipolar cell subtypes that comprise most of the excitatory input to ON-T or ON-S RGCs. We made targeted electrophysiological recordings from type 5i, 6, and 7 bipolar cells in retinal slices from three transgenic mouse lines in which these different bipolar cell subtypes express fluorescent proteins (see Methods). In these experiments, we used somatic whole-cell perforated-patch recordings to limit perturbation of the G-protein signaling cascade that mediates ON bipolar cell light responses.

Somatic resting membrane potentials did not differ significantly among these bipolar cell types (mean ± S.D. V_rest: –38 ± 6.3 mV in type 5i (n = 11); –33.7 ± 6.3 mV in type 6 (n = 7); −36.5 ± 4.7 mV in type 7 (n = 6); Kruskal–Wallis test, p = 0.35; values are not corrected for the liquid junction potential since that is hard to estimate in perforated-patch recordings). We characterized light responses using the same spatially uniform Gaussian noise stimulus (Figure 4B) and LN model analysis (Figure 4C, Figure 4—figure supplement 1) as in RGC recordings to facilitate direct comparison of results from bipolar cells and RGCs (Kim and Rieke, 2001; Rieke, 2001). LN models of bipolar cell responses accurately predicted responses to noise stimuli (correlation coefficient between average response to repeated noise stimulus and LN model prediction = 0.75 ± 0.15 for n = 18 bipolar cells (n = 13 type 5; n = 3 type 6; n = 2 type 7)). Unlike for ON-T and ON-S RGCs, temporal characteristics of type 5i, 6, and 7 bipolar cell linear filters were indistinguishable from each other under our recording conditions (Figure 4B–D). Although there was some variability in the temporal response properties across the population of bipolar cells we recorded, these differences were not associated with morphologically and molecularly defined bipolar cell types. Rather, we observed variability in response kinetics within each bipolar cell subtype, and temporal responses thus overlapped substantially across different type 5i, 6, and 7 bipolar cells (Figure 4, Figure 4—figure supplement 1).

Figure 4 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Responses to light steps measured in a subset of type 5i and 6 bipolar cell recordings confirmed our conclusion from Gaussian noise stimuli that different bipolar cell types exhibit nearly identical light response kinetics under our recording conditions (Figure 4E, F). Unlike the clear differences in light step-evoked excitatory currents we measured in ON-T and ON-S RGCs (Figure 2D, E), type 5i and 6 bipolar cells both had sustained responses to light steps. These findings indicate that mechanisms upstream of the generation of the cone bipolar cell voltage response, such as synaptic transmission from cones to cone bipolar cells and intrinsic response properties of the cone bipolar cells, cannot explain the kinetically distinct responses in parallel ON channels mediated by type 5i, 6, or 7 bipolar cells. Consistent with this conclusion, ON-T and ON-S RGCs exhibit kinetically distinct light step-evoked spiking responses under scotopic conditions (not shown), where much of the RGC response originates from signals carried from outer to inner retina via the rod bipolar cell pathway (Figure 1B; Grimes et al., 2014; Ke et al., 2014). Because AII amacrine cells distribute rod bipolar cell signals directly to cone bipolar cell axon terminals, differences observed under scotopic conditions likely arise at and/or downstream of cone bipolar cell synaptic output.

Presynaptic inhibition does not establish kinetic differences in bipolar cell-mediated excitation

Bipolar cells participate in diverse inhibitory circuits with amacrine cells, which are comprised of >40 morphologically and functionally distinct cell types (Diamond, 2017; Helmstaedter et al., 2013). Past work suggests that amacrine cell-mediated presynaptic inhibition is critical to bipolar cell subtype-specific patterns of light-evoked glutamate release (Franke et al., 2017). Our bipolar cell voltage recordings, which should reflect a combination of light-evoked excitatory and inhibitory input, argue that presynaptic inhibition is not required for generating differential synaptic output between type 5i, 6, and 7 bipolar cells. However, the slicing procedure we used to prepare tissue for bipolar cell recordings may damage some inhibitory connections, especially long-range amacrine cell inputs. Distance-dependent attenuation of voltage signals between bipolar cell axon terminals and the somatic recording site could also limit our ability to accurately measure the influence of presynaptic inhibition in these recordings. We therefore performed additional anatomical and pharmacological experiments to investigate a possible role for presynaptic inhibition in generating kinetically distinct excitation to ON-T and ON-S RGCs.

Many bipolar cell output synapses are organized into a ‘dyad’ arrangement in which a bipolar cell ribbon synapse releases glutamate onto the processes of two different postsynaptic cells. At dyads, bipolar cell output synapses can be presynaptic to the processes of two amacrine cells, two RGCs, or an amacrine cell and a RGC (Cohen and Sterling, 1990; Dowling and Boycott, 1966; McGuire et al., 1984; Yu et al., 2023). Dyad synapses comprised of an amacrine cell and a RGC may shape bipolar cell glutamate release dynamics onto the RGC partner because glutamatergic excitation of the postsynaptic amacrine cell can elicit release of inhibitory neurotransmitters (GABA or glycine) from the amacrine cell processes that feed back onto the bipolar cell axon terminal. This form of inhibitory feedback control of bipolar cell output, termed reciprocal inhibition, could potentially contribute to differences in glutamate release onto ON-T and ON-S RGCs.

We analyzed bipolar cell dyads with postsynaptic amacrine cell processes and either ON-T or ON-S RGC dendrites in SBFSEM volumes to examine whether reciprocal inhibition is likely to generate more transient glutamate release onto ON-T RGCs. We defined putative reciprocal synapses as bipolar cell/amacrine cell/RGC dyads in which we observed clustered vesicles within the amacrine cell process that were in close proximity to the bipolar cell ribbon synapse (Figure 5A). Our ultrastructural analysis revealed that the prevalence of reciprocal synapses was similar at dyad synapses with postsynaptic ON-T versus ON-S RGCs (Figure 5A, B). This finding is not consistent with an important role for feedback/reciprocal inhibition in generating differential bipolar cell output onto the different RGC types.

Figure 5 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

We also performed pharmacological experiments to further examine what role, if any, inhibition may have in establishing transient glutamate release onto ON-T RGC dendrites. We used artificial cerebrospinal fluid (ACSF) in place of Ames solution for the dissection and maintenance of tissue for these experiments. ACSF is often used in retina experiments, including the glutamate release measurements described below, and we wanted to check that our results generalized across conditions. Light step-evoked currents in both ON-T and ON-S RGCs were more sustained than responses measured using Ames’ solution (Figure 5—figure supplement 1A, B). Nonetheless, the difference between sustained and transient RGC types was maintained across different experimental conditions.

In ON-T RGCs, blockade of GABA_A and GABA_C receptors via bath co-application of SR95531 and TPMPA enhanced the peak amplitude of the initial transient component of light step-evoked excitatory synaptic currents (–2023 ± 372 pA; mean ± S.D.) compared to control (–834 ± 103 pA) (p = 0.031, Wilcoxon sign rank test; n = 6) whereas the sustained component at the end of the light step was not significantly affected (control: –201 ± 15 pA; GABA-R block: –291 ± 44; p = 0.16, Wilcoxon sign rank test; n = 6) (Figure 5C). The strong enhancement of the initial phase of the response we observed is consistent with prior work showing that GABA_C receptor-mediated inhibition limits multivesicular release from bipolar cells (Sagdullaev et al., 2006). Block of GABA receptors thus made excitatory currents in ON-T RGCs more transient compared to control conditions (Figure 5D). Note that this is opposite the expected effect if presynaptic GABA receptors contribute to generating transient responses in these cells. GABA receptor antagonists should have made excitatory currents more sustained if presynaptic GABAergic inhibition was generating transient bipolar cell input to ON-T RGCs. Thus, GABAergic inhibition appears to control response gain and time course of bipolar cell synaptic output to ON-T RGCs but is not responsible for the transient kinetics of excitatory input to these cells.

We also found that glycinergic inhibition is not likely to contribute importantly to the more transient glutamate release from bipolar cells presynaptic to ON-T RGCs; bath application of the glycine receptor antagonist strychnine did not significantly alter the kinetics of light step-evoked excitatory currents in these cells (Figure 5E, F). Taken together with our ultrastructural analysis, these results show that amacrine cell-mediated GABAergic or glycinergic inhibition of bipolar cell axon terminals does not explain kinetic differences in excitatory synaptic input to ON-T and ON-S RGCs.

Bipolar cell glutamate release differs across types

Taken together, the bipolar cell and RGC recordings in Figure 2 and Figure 4 indicate that bipolar cell synapses have a key role in the separation of visual signals into transient or sustained channels within ON pathways in the retina. Presynaptic and/or postsynaptic mechanisms could contribute to the distinct kinetics of bipolar cell-mediated excitatory input to ON-T and ON-S RGCs. To investigate whether presynaptic differences in glutamate release from bipolar cell axon terminals shape RGC response kinetics, we expressed the fluorescent glutamate reporter iGluSnFR on the dendrites of ON-T and ON-S RGCs (see Methods). Using two-photon glutamate sensor imaging, we found that light-evoked glutamate signals had significantly more transient kinetics at ON-T RGC dendrites (steady-state amplitude as % of peak amplitude = 21 ± 13; mean ± S.D.; n = 224 ROIs) compared to ON-S RGC dendrites (steady-state amp. as % of peak amp. = 44 ± 12; mean ± S.D.; n = 307 ROIs) (Figure 6).

Figure 6

Download asset Open asset

The experiments summarized in Figure 5 suggest that presynaptic inhibitory input to bipolar axon terminals is not required for the difference between ON-T and ON-S responses. The glutamate release measurements provided a further test. We compared the kinetics of release before and after suppressing spiking amacrine cell activity (with bath application of the voltage-gated Na⁺ channel blocker TTX) or all amacrine cells (with bath application of the glutamate receptor antagonist NBQX). This approach avoided the confounding changes in excitatory signals we encountered with inhibitory receptor blockers (e.g. the increase in excitatory input to ON-T RGCs in Figure 5C and oscillatory bursts of excitation in ON-S RGCs (not shown)). The more transient glutamate release kinetics at ON-T versus ON-S dendrites remained even when amacrine cell responses were suppressed (control: steady-state amp. as % of peak amp. 13 ± 10; mean ± S.D.; n = 189 ROIs/4 FOVs for ON-T dendrites vs. 40 ± 12; mean ± S.D.; n = 287 ROIs/8 FOVs for ON-S dendrites; TTX: 16 ± 9; mean ± S.D.; n = 50 ROIs/3 FOVs for ON-T dendrites vs. 35±11; mean ± S.D.; n = 146 ROIs/6 FOVs for ON-S dendrites; *p < 0.001; t-test; NBQX: 7 ± 3; mean ± S.D.; n = 112 ROIs/1 FOV for ON-T dendrites vs. 24 ± 9; mean ± S.D.; n = 97 ROIs/2 FOVs for ON-S dendrites; *p < 0.001; t-test; Figure 7).

Figure 7

Download asset Open asset

These results show that differences in glutamate release from presynaptic bipolar cells contribute to transient versus sustained ON RGC responses and that the differences in release are retained without amacrine feedback to bipolar cells. These experiments do not, however, rule out the possibility that additional postsynaptic mechanisms, for example, differential glutamate receptor expression or differences in spike generation, contribute to kinetic differences between RGC types.

Although whole-cell excitatory currents in ON-T and ON-S RGCs (Figure 2, Figure 5—figure supplement 1) and iGluSnFR signals measured from ON-T and ON-S RGC dendrites (Figure 6) both exhibited clear kinetic differences between the RGC types, there were quantitative differences in the response to light steps between the different measurement approaches. As described above, these differences appear to arise from differences in the external solution (Ames vs. ACSF). The iGluSnFR experiments used an ACSF solution, like the patch-clamp experiments in Figure 5, Figure 5—figure supplement 1. Both iGluSnFR responses and excitatory synaptic inputs measured in ACSF showed a larger sustained component of the step response at both ON-T and ON-S dendrites compared to currents measured in Ames (compare Figure 2D, E, Figure 5—figure supplement 1A, B and Figure 6B, C). This observation highlights the importance of comparing responses between different RGC types, as well as between RGCs and bipolar cells, under identical recording conditions.

Importantly, the kinetics of glutamate release measured using iGluSnFR resemble the excitatory synaptic inputs to ON-T and ON-S RGCs more closely than the relevant bipolar voltage responses (Figure 4). This indicates that the difference between the ON-T and ON-S responses originates at least in part in the conversion of bipolar voltage to glutamate release.

Ribbon size and vesicle replenishment

Prior work has shown that bipolar cells can exhibit profound short-term depression of glutamate release due to use-dependent depletion of the readily releasable pool of synaptic vesicles (Burrone and Lagnado, 2000; Singer and Diamond, 2006; Singer and Diamond, 2003; von Gersdorff and Matthews, 1997). Strong vesicle depletion at the cone bipolar cell synapses onto ON-T RGCs could generate more transient responses in these cells compared to ON-S RGCs. To examine this possibility, we measured excitatory synaptic inputs to ON-T and ON-S RGCs in response to a paired-flash stimulus in which two brief light flashes were separated by varying time intervals. As in Figures 1, 2, and 4, we used Ames’ medium for tissue preparation and maintenance in these experiments. These experiments used the same photopic background light level (~3300 R*/rod/s; ~2000 P*/S-cone/s; and ~1650 P*/M-cone/s) as used for Gaussian noise and step stimuli.

Flash-evoked excitatory synaptic currents were suppressed in both RGC types at short inter-flash intervals, consistent with incomplete recovery from vesicle depletion at the time of the second flash (Figure 8A, top/middle, B). This suppression was much stronger for currents measured in ON-T RGCs compared to ON-S RGCs. We quantified the extent of suppression using a paired-flash ratio, which was calculated as the peak amplitude of the response to the second flash divided by the peak amplitude of the response to the first flash. At the shortest interval that we tested (50 ms), the response to a second flash was almost completely suppressed in ON-T RGCs (paired-flash ratio = 0.04 ± 0.03; mean ± S.D.; n = 6) whereas the response to a second flash in ON-S RGCs was suppressed considerably less (paired-flash ratio = 0.29 ± 0.08; n = 5). To rule out the possibility that a reduction in bipolar cell voltage response to the second flash could account for the strong paired-flash suppression of excitatory input to RGCs, we also measured type 5i bipolar cell responses to the paired-flash stimuli. The amplitude of flash-evoked voltage responses in type 5i bipolar cells was unchanged by a preceding flash at all time intervals (Figure 8A, bottom, C), which argues that paired-flash suppression arises at the bipolar output synapse. These results are consistent with the idea that differences in the extent of stimulus-evoked vesicle pool depletion in bipolar cells could underlie transient versus sustained excitatory input to ON-T and ON-S RGCs.

Figure 8

Download asset Open asset

We next looked for ultrastructural correlates of differential synapse function in bipolar cell axon terminals reconstructed from SBFSEM volumes. Interestingly, type 6 bipolar cell synaptic ribbons were ~2- to 3-fold larger than those of type 5i bipolar cells (Figure 9A, B, Figure 9—figure supplement 1A). These differences did not depend on the identity of the postsynaptic RGC partner (Figure 9D, Figure 9—figure supplement 1B). Ribbons in XBCs, type 5o and 5t bipolar cells were also smaller than type 6 bipolar cell ribbons (Figure 9D, Figure 9—figure supplement 1B). This bipolar cell subtype-specific difference in ribbon size and the difference in ratio of type 6 to 5i input between RGC types meant that ribbons were on average smaller at synapses made on ON-T compared to ON-S dendrites (Figure 9C, D, Figure 9—figure supplement 1B).

Figure 9 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

We sought to understand how kinetically distinct visual pathways are established in the retina by directly comparing the visual response properties of transient and sustained ON RGCs with their presynaptic bipolar cells. Our results show that bipolar cell synapses have a key role in establishing different temporal channels in ON circuits of the retina. Further, amacrine cell-mediated presynaptic inhibition does not appear to account for transient versus sustained bipolar cell synaptic output. Rather, bipolar cell subtype-specific differences in synaptic release properties likely generate kinetically distinct output to postsynaptic targets. Our anatomical analysis suggests that these differences may at least in part be due to differences in synaptic vesicle pool size.

A key aspect of our work is that we measured RGC and bipolar cell responses using identical stimuli and under the same experimental recording conditions. To our knowledge, a direct comparison of RGC responses with those of their presynaptic bipolar cells has not previously been reported. The importance of measuring RGC and bipolar cell responses under the same conditions is highlighted by our observation that excitatory synaptic currents measured in ON alpha RGCs exhibited quantitatively different kinetics, although relative differences between types were preserved, when measurements were made from retinas maintained in ACSF versus Ames’ bath solution (compare Figure 2 (Ames’) and Figure 5, Figure 5—figure supplement 1 (ACSF)).

We found that the bipolar cell subtypes that provide the major input to ON-T (type 5i) or ON-S RGCs (types 6 and 7) had indistinguishable light-evoked voltage responses (Figure 4). This was not entirely surprising given that most or all ON cone bipolar cell subtypes are indirectly coupled to other nearby ON cone bipolar cells via electrical synapses between bipolar cell axon terminals and the distal processes of AII amacrine cells. These electrical synapses form the basis for the primary rod pathway that mediates vision under dim light conditions, but lateral signals can also flow among neighboring bipolar cells under conditions where cone signaling dominates (Demb and Singer, 2012). Indeed, a substantial fraction (~30–50%) of light-evoked responses in the bipolar cell types we investigated here can be attributed to lateral signals that arrive via electrical synapses at photopic light levels (Kuo et al., 2016). Each AII amacrine cell is electrically coupled to multiple ON cone bipolar subtypes as well as to other AII amacrine cells (Marc et al., 2014; Tsukamoto and Omi, 2017; Veruki and Hartveit, 2002b; Veruki and Hartveit, 2002a). Different ON cone bipolar cell subtypes may also be directly coupled via gap junctions to each other (Sigulinsky et al., 2020; Tsukamoto and Omi, 2017).

Direct or indirect (via AII) coupling may limit the extent to which different bipolar cells can generate subtype-specific voltage responses. These findings differ from a previous study that found some differences among mouse ON cone bipolar cell subtypes. Ichinose et al., 2014 reported that a subset of type 5 bipolar cells, which the authors termed type 5f, and type 7 bipolar cells had more transient responses than type 6 bipolar cells. Methodological differences may account for the discrepancy between our results and the previous work by Ichinose et al., 2014. For example, Ichinose et al. included inhibitory receptor antagonists in their experimental solutions and used 100 µm diameter spots to characterize bipolar cell responses, whereas we left inhibitory signaling intact and used larger (520 µm diameter) spots to match the stimuli we used for RGC recordings. Interestingly, a recent investigation of spatial and temporal response properties of light-evoked intracellular calcium signals across bipolar cell types suggests that ON bipolar cells can exhibit type-specific response kinetics for small stimuli (<~200 µm diameter) but not larger spot sizes, presumably due to surround inhibition (Hsiang et al., 2024). Regardless of the reasons for the different findings, our observation that bipolar cell subtypes exhibited similar responses under the same recording and light stimulus conditions for which we observed obvious differences among postsynaptic RGCs argues that mechanisms upstream of bipolar cell glutamate release (e.g. cone-to-bipolar cell synapses or intrinsic voltage response properties of bipolar cells) are unlikely to have a major role in shaping RGC type-specific responses for the stimuli we used here.

A limitation of our work is that we did not record from every one of the bipolar cell subtypes that are presynaptic to ON-T RGCs. Instead, we measured responses from type 5i and 6 bipolar cells, which together comprise >~50% of the synaptic input to ON-T RGC dendrites. It is possible that the other presynaptic bipolar cell types (type 5o, 5t, and XBC) may have more transient light-evoked voltage responses that could contribute to the transient excitatory synaptic input to ON-T RGCs. In fact, a previous study in mouse retina found that XBCs and a subset of type 5 bipolar cells express voltage-gated Na⁺ channels (Hellmer et al., 2016). These channels may enhance response transience or might even contribute to the generation of light-driven all-or-none spiking responses in these bipolar cells (Ichinose et al., 2014; Puthussery et al., 2013; Saszik and DeVries, 2012).

Even if transient intrinsic response properties of type 5o, 5t, and XBC bipolar cells contribute to the generation of transient responses in ON-T RGCs, this alone is unlikely to account for the kinetics of the excitatory synaptic currents we measured in these RGCs. Type 5i and 6 bipolar cells have a significant sustained component of their light step-evoked voltage response (Figure 4E, F), whereas excitatory currents measured for the same stimulus and under the same conditions in ON-T RGCs had little to no sustained component (Figure 2D, E). We would expect to observe some sustained excitatory input to ON-T RGCs if type 5i and 6 bipolar cell synaptic output follows the voltage response of these bipolar cells. Thus, a marked transformation of the sustained bipolar cell membrane voltage response to a transient synaptic current must take place. Our measurements of extracellular glutamate at ON-T and ON-S dendrites (Figure 5) suggest that much of this transformation occurs at the level of bipolar cell glutamate release. It is interesting in this context that ON-T and ON-S RGCs both receive input from type 6 bipolar cells (comprising ~20% and~50% of total synaptic input, respectively). Due to differences in dendrite stratification, type 6 bipolar cell synapses onto ON-T RGCs arise from a region of the axon that is located more proximal to the bipolar cell soma than the synapses formed onto ON-S RGCs, which are found within the distal axon lobules. However, we did not observe any differences in ribbon size at distal versus proximal locations in type 6 bipolar cell axons (Figure 9D). Whether postsynaptic target-specific synapse function, as has previously been reported in salamander retinal bipolar cells (Asari and Meister, 2014; Asari and Meister, 2012) and mouse starburst amacrine cells (Pottackal et al., 2021), contributes to signal diversification in circuits involving type 6 bipolar cells will require further investigation.

Our electrophysiological and glutamate imaging results indicate that amacrine cell-mediated inhibition at bipolar cell synaptic terminals is not necessary for generating transient glutamate release kinetics onto ON-T RGC dendrites. This is seemingly at odds with prior work that has indicated an essential role for surround inhibition in establishing type-specific bipolar cell glutamate release dynamics (Franke et al., 2017). However, we note that our analysis here focused only on whether presynaptic inhibition shapes the kinetics of excitatory inputs to ON-T RGCs. Our anatomical and pharmacological experiments together argue that presynaptic inhibition is not an important factor in the transformation from sustained bipolar cell voltage responses to transient excitatory synaptic currents in ON-T RGCs. It can be difficult to interpret the effects of bath-applied antagonists on RGC responses since there are multiple upstream pre- and postsynaptic targets at which these agents act within the retinal circuit. Pharmacological block of inhibitory receptors (Figure 5) not only alters cone bipolar cell responses, but also inhibitory networks among amacrine cells, and NBQX application (Figure 7) affects horizontal cell function and OFF bipolar cell circuits in addition to most amacrine cells. Despite these limitations, our results support a limited role for inhibition in generating transient excitatory input to ON-T RGCs. This is not to say that amacrine cell-mediated inhibition does not have a role in generating subtype-specific response properties for other aspects of bipolar cell function. Indeed, inhibition does have an important role in establishing differential spatial tuning of excitatory inputs to the RGC types we studied; excitatory synaptic currents in ON-T RGCs exhibit stronger surround inhibition than ON-S RGCs, and this surround inhibition is reduced by bath application of GABA receptor antagonists (Figure 5—figure supplement 1C). Interestingly, recent work revealed postsynaptic target-specific surround inhibition at neighboring type 6 bipolar cell output synapses within the same axon terminal (Swygart et al., 2024). Whether target-specific presynaptic inhibition of type 6 bipolar cells also contributes to differential surround inhibition between ON-T and ON-S RGCs or is primarily due to differences across bipolar cell types (e.g. type 5i/5t/XBC vs. type 6/7) remains to be determined.

We conclude that transient versus sustained excitatory inputs to ON-T and ON-S RGCs most likely arise from bipolar cell subtype-specific differences in synaptic release properties. Excitatory inputs to ON-T RGCs exhibited stronger paired-flash depression than those to ON-S RGCs (Figure 8), which indicates distinct vesicle cycling dynamics at the bipolar cell axon terminals presynaptic to the different RGC types. Our ultrastructural analysis suggests that bipolar subtype-dependent differences in ribbon size may be a factor in establishing transient versus sustained glutamate release kinetics (Figure 9). It is important to note, however, that type 7 bipolar cells (~45% of excitatory input to ON-S RGCs) have small synaptic ribbons, yet iGluSnFR imaging of type 7 bipolar cell axon terminals found that these cells exhibit sustained glutamate release (Srivastava et al., 2022).

We found that ribbon size is strongly correlated with the total number of vesicles that are in close contact with the synaptic ribbon across different ON bipolar cell types (Figure 9E, F, Figure 9—figure supplement 1C). Thus, there are fewer ribbon-associated vesicles at glutamatergic synapses formed on ON-T RGC dendrites compared to those at ON-S RGCs. Ribbon-associated vesicles are thought to correspond to the releasable pool of vesicles, comprised of both a readily releasable pool that is docked at the base of the ribbon, at the presynaptic active zone, and a reserve (alternatively referred to as ‘releaseable’) pool of vesicles that are bound to the ribbon at more distal sites (Grabner et al., 2023; Lagnado and Schmitz, 2015; von Gersdorff et al., 1996; Wan and Heidelberger, 2011). The number of ribbon-associated vesicles, as well as the rate at which the readily releasable and reserve vesicle pools are replenished following exocytosis, together define the amplitude and time course of stimulus-evoked vesicle release (Jackman et al., 2009; Lagnado and Schmitz, 2015; Neves and Lagnado, 1999; Oesch and Diamond, 2011; Singer and Diamond, 2006; von Gersdorff and Matthews, 1997). For example, a small pool of readily releasable vesicles and relatively slow replenishment in rod bipolar cell axon terminals contributes to transient release kinetics from these cells (Singer and Diamond, 2006). Our observation that the average excitatory synaptic input to ON-T RGCs is smaller and that most excitatory input to ON-T cells originates from bipolar synapses with fewer ribbon-associated vesicles is consistent with a role for vesicle depletion in establishing transient glutamate release onto these RGCs. The larger pool of ribbon-associated vesicles in type 6 bipolar cell terminals, which comprise ~55% of the synaptic input to ON-S RGCs, may support sustained synaptic transmission onto these RGCs. However, additional mechanisms, such as bipolar cell type-specific differences in the rate of refilling of the ribbon-associated vesicles, could also contribute to sustained versus transient glutamate release.

Direct measurements of exocytosis at ribbon synapses show that release rates increase with increasing ribbon size and the number of vesicles bound to the ribbon. Evidence for this dependence includes a tight correspondence between functional measures of the releasable vesicle pool and anatomical measurements of the number of vesicles bound to the ribbon (Grabner et al., 2023; von Gersdorff et al., 1996). Ribbon size and the number of ribbon-associated vesicles vary across the day–night cycle; these morphological changes are correlated with diurnal changes in maintained vesicle fusion rates (Babai et al., 2016; Dembla et al., 2020; Hull et al., 2006). Finally, release rates decrease when ribbon size is reduced (Mehta et al., 2013; Wakeham et al., 2023), or when ribbons are ablated either abruptly or genetically (Grabner and Moser, 2021; Maxeiner et al., 2016; Mehta et al., 2013; Snellman et al., 2011). These biophysical studies are consistent with the correlation that we observe here between ribbon size and the extent to which transmitter release is transient versus sustained. A note of caution in making this comparison is that exocytosis is sensitive to the voltage trajectory (Snellman et al., 2009), and the biophysical studies often use more rapid and larger voltage changes than those elicited by physiological light inputs. In fact, genetic deletion of ribbons does not strongly alter light-evoked excitatory currents in ON-S RGCs (Okawa et al., 2019). Why ribbon deletion has relatively little effect on light-evoked responses in ON-S RGCs remains to be determined. It is interesting to note that ~30% of synapses formed by type 6 bipolar cells onto ON-S RGC dendrites lack ribbons even in wild-type retina (Okawa et al., 2019). Future studies will be needed to investigate to what extent such ribbonless synapses could contribute to bipolar cell type-specific differences in glutamate release such as we observed here.

The dynamics of transmitter release are also impacted by vesicle depletion and the time required for refilling of releasable vesicle pools following strong stimulation. In particular, the sustained transmitter release rate should be equal to the sustained refilling rate. Direct measurements of refilling at the cone output synapse following strong activation show that it is quite slow – with a time constant near 1 s (Grabner et al., 2016; Jackman et al., 2009; Rabl et al., 2006). This is far too slow to explain the recovery from paired-flash depression that we observe here. Several factors may contribute to this difference. First, postsynaptic receptor saturation can contribute to paired-pulse depression, and it can recover from such depression more quickly than the recovery of presynaptic release (Grabner et al., 2016). Second, the paired-flash depression that we measure in RGC synaptic inputs is largely absent in the bipolar voltage responses. This suggests that it is dominated by a history dependence at the cone bipolar output synapses and refilling of vesicle pools may proceed more quickly at bipolar synapses than cone synapses.

Mechanisms that we did not directly investigate here may also contribute to the difference between transient and sustained responses. For example, presynaptic resting potential has a strong effect on steady-state vesicle release and thus stimulus-evoked release dynamics. Exocytosis that occurs when bipolar cells rest at voltages near release threshold can lead to a depletion of readily releasable vesicles that limits the amount of release that occurs upon further light-induced depolarizations (Grimes et al., 2014; Jarsky et al., 2011; Oesch and Diamond, 2011). Thus, an initial phasic component of release can be reduced by depolarized resting potentials, whereas hyperpolarized potentials can facilitate greater occupancy of vesicles in the releasable pool, which can enhance response transience. Bipolar subtype-dependent differences in release threshold due to differential Ca²⁺ channel expression/regulation (Pangrsic et al., 2018) and/or coupling between Ca²⁺ channel activity and vesicle release (Burrone et al., 2002; Burrone and Lagnado, 2000; Ghosh et al., 2004) could also impact release dynamics. Several aspects of excitatory synaptic currents in the two RGC types we studied here are consistent with a situation in which bipolar cell inputs to ON-T RGCs have a higher threshold for glutamate release compared to those at ON-S RGCs; ON-T RGCs receive less spontaneous excitatory synaptic input than ON-S RGCs (Kuo et al., 2016) and stimulus-evoked EPSCs are slower, sparser, and more biased toward larger amplitude events in ON-T RGCs compared to those in ON-S RGCs (Figure 2, Figure 1—figure supplement 1B). Further investigation will be required to determine whether this is due to differences in axon terminal resting potential and/or other presynaptic factors. We did not find evidence for subtype-specific differences in resting membrane potential among type 5i, 6, and 7 bipolar cells, but our somatic voltage recordings likely have limited ability to resolve small voltage differences at the bipolar cell axon terminals. Further work is also necessary to determine to what extent molecular differences in presynaptic release machinery may contribute to bipolar subtype-specific glutamate release dynamics (Thoreson and Zenisek, 2024).

Our results do not rule out additional roles for postsynaptic mechanisms in establishing transient versus sustained RGC spike output. For example, delayed amacrine cell-mediated inhibitory synaptic input to RGC dendrites could truncate spiking responses (Nirenberg and Meister, 1997). We did not observe a significant difference in the light-evoked excitation/inhibition amplitude ratio between ON-S and ON-T RGCs (Figure 2—figure supplement 2E), but our data does not exclude a role for postsynaptic inhibition in generating transient responses. RGC cell-intrinsic mechanisms, such as RGC subtype-specific differences in voltage-gated Na⁺ channel properties and/or expression pattern could also contribute to distinct response kinetics (Brombas et al., 2022; Chang et al., 2023; Werginz et al., 2020). While a combination of pre- and postsynaptic factors may ultimately act in concert to generate transient versus sustained RGC spike output (Warwick et al., 2018; Werginz et al., 2020), our results establish a fundamental role for bipolar cell synapses in the segregation of visual input into kinetically distinct channels in ON pathways of the retina.

Source data for Figures 1–5, 8 and 9 have been deposited with Dryad: Cone bipolar cell synapses generate transient versus sustained signals in parallel ON pathways of the mouse retina, Rieke, Kuo, Yu, Srivastava, Okawa, Della Santina, Berson, Awatramani, Wong, 2025; Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.47d7wm3tz.

1. 1. Kuo SP
   2. Yu WQ
   3. Srivastava P
   4. Okawa H
   5. Santina LD
   6. Berson DM
   7. Awatramani GB
   8. Wong ROL
   9. Rieke F

   (2026) Dryad Digital Repository

   Data from: Cone bipolar cell synapses generate transient versus sustained signals in parallel ON pathways of the mouse retina.

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.47d7wm3tz

1. 1. Angueyra JM
   2. Rieke F

   (2013) Origin and effect of phototransduction noise in primate cone photoreceptors

   Nature Neuroscience 16:1692–1700.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3534

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Asari H
   2. Meister M

   (2012) Divergence of visual channels in the inner retina

   Nature Neuroscience 15:1581–1589.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3241

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Asari H
   2. Meister M

   (2014) The projective field of retinal bipolar cells and its modulation by visual context

   Neuron 81:641–652.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.11.029

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Awatramani GB
   2. Slaughter MM

   (2000) Origin of transient and sustained responses in ganglion cells of the retina

   The Journal of Neuroscience 20:7087–7095.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.20-18-07087.2000

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Babai N
   2. Sendelbeck A
   3. Regus-Leidig H
   4. Fuchs M
   5. Mertins J
   6. Reim K
   7. Brose N
   8. Feigenspan A
   9. Brandstätter JH

   (2016) Functional roles of complexin 3 and complexin 4 at mouse photoreceptor ribbon synapses

   The Journal of Neuroscience 36:6651–6667.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4335-15.2016

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Baden T
   2. Berens P
   3. Bethge M
   4. Euler T

   (2013) Spikes in mammalian bipolar cells support temporal layering of the inner retina

   Current Biology 23:48–52.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.11.006

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Baden T
   2. Berens P
   3. Franke K
   4. Román Rosón M
   5. Bethge M
   6. Euler T

   (2016) The functional diversity of retinal ganglion cells in the mouse

   Nature 529:345–350.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16468

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bae JA
   2. Mu S
   3. Kim JS
   4. Turner NL
   5. Tartavull I
   6. Kemnitz N
   7. Jordan CS
   8. Norton AD
   9. Silversmith WM
   10. Prentki R
   11. Sorek M
   12. David C
   13. Jones DL
   14. Bland D
   15. Sterling ALR
   16. Park J
   17. Briggman KL
   18. Seung HS
   19. Eyewirers

   (2018) Digital museum of retinal ganglion cells with dense anatomy and physiology

   Cell 173:1293–1306.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.04.040

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Beaudoin DL
   2. Kupershtok M
   3. Demb JB

   (2019) Selective synaptic connections in the retinal pathway for night vision

   The Journal of Comparative Neurology 527:117–132.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.24313

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Bishop D
    2. Nikić I
    3. Brinkoetter M
    4. Knecht S
    5. Potz S
    6. Kerschensteiner M
    7. Misgeld T

    (2011) Near-infrared branding efficiently correlates light and electron microscopy

    Nature Methods 8:568–570.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1622

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Borghuis BG
    2. Marvin JS
    3. Looger LL
    4. Demb JB

    (2013) Two-photon imaging of nonlinear glutamate release dynamics at bipolar cell synapses in the mouse retina

    The Journal of Neuroscience 33:10972–10985.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1241-13.2013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Brombas A
    2. Zhou X
    3. Williams SR

    (2022) Light-evoked dendritic spikes in sustained but not transient rabbit retinal ganglion cells

    Neuron 110:2802–2814.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2022.06.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Burrone J
    2. Lagnado L

    (2000) Synaptic depression and the kinetics of exocytosis in retinal bipolar cells

    The Journal of Neuroscience 20:568–578.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.20-02-00568.2000

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Burrone J
    2. Neves G
    3. Gomis A
    4. Cooke A
    5. Lagnado L

    (2002) Endogenous calcium buffers regulate fast exocytosis in the synaptic terminal of retinal bipolar cells

    Neuron 33:101–112.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(01)00565-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Cafaro J
    2. Rieke F

    (2013) Regulation of spatial selectivity by crossover inhibition

    The Journal of Neuroscience 33:6310–6320.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4964-12.2013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Cangiano L
    2. Asteriti S
    3. Cervetto L
    4. Gargini C

    (2012) The photovoltage of rods and cones in the dark-adapted mouse retina

    J Physiol 590:3841–3855.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2011.226878

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Chang L
    2. Ran Y
    3. Yang M
    4. Auferkorte O
    5. Butz E
    6. Hüser L
    7. Haverkamp S
    8. Euler T
    9. Schubert T

    (2023) Spike desensitisation as a mechanism for high-contrast selectivity in retinal ganglion cells

    Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience 17:1337768.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2023.1337768

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Chichilnisky EJ

    (2001) A simple white noise analysis of neuronal light responses

    Network 12:199–213.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/713663221

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Cleland BG
    2. Levick WR
    3. Sanderson KJ

    (1973) Properties of sustained and transient ganglion cells in the cat retina

    J Physiol 228:649–680.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1973.sp010105

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Cohen E
    2. Sterling P

    (1990) Demonstration of cell types among cone bipolar neurons of cat retina

    Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 330:305–321.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1990.0201

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Della Santina L
    2. Kuo SP
    3. Yoshimatsu T
    4. Okawa H
    5. Suzuki SC
    6. Hoon M
    7. Tsuboyama K
    8. Rieke F
    9. Wong ROL

    (2016) Glutamatergic monopolar interneurons provide a novel pathway of excitation in the mouse retina

    Current Biology 26:2070–2077.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.06.016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Demb JB
    2. Singer JH

    (2012) Intrinsic properties and functional circuitry of the AII amacrine cell

    Visual Neuroscience 29:51–60.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952523811000368

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Dembla E
    2. Dembla M
    3. Maxeiner S
    4. Schmitz F

    (2020) Synaptic ribbons foster active zone stability and illumination-dependent active zone enrichment of RIM2 and Cav1.4 in photoreceptor synapses

    Scientific Reports 10:5957.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62734-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. DeVries SH

    (2000) Bipolar cells use kainate and AMPA receptors to filter visual information into separate channels

    Neuron 28:847–856.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(00)00158-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Diamond JS

    (2017) Inhibitory interneurons in the retina: types, circuitry, and function

    Annual Review of Vision Science 3:1–24.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-vision-102016-061345

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Ding H
    2. Smith RG
    3. Poleg-Polsky A
    4. Diamond JS
    5. Briggman KL

    (2016) Species-specific wiring for direction selectivity in the mammalian retina

    Nature 535:105–110.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18609

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Dowling JE
    2. Boycott BB

    (1966) Organization of the primate retina: electron microscopy

    Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 166:80–111.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1966.0086

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Duan X
    2. Krishnaswamy A
    3. De la Huerta I
    4. Sanes JR

    (2014) Type II cadherins guide assembly of a direction-selective retinal circuit

    Cell 158:793–807.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.06.047

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Euler T
    2. Masland RH

    (2000) Light-evoked responses of bipolar cells in a mammalian retina

    Journal of Neurophysiology 83:1817–1829.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.2000.83.4.1817

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Euler T
    2. Haverkamp S
    3. Schubert T
    4. Baden T

    (2014) Retinal bipolar cells: elementary building blocks of vision

    Nat Rev Neurosci 15:507–519.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3783

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Farrow K
    2. Teixeira M
    3. Szikra T
    4. Viney TJ
    5. Balint K
    6. Yonehara K
    7. Roska B

    (2013) Ambient illumination toggles a neuronal circuit switch in the retina and visual perception at cone threshold

    Neuron 78:325–338.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.02.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Franke K
    2. Berens P
    3. Schubert T
    4. Bethge M
    5. Euler T
    6. Baden T

    (2017) Inhibition decorrelates visual feature representations in the inner retina

    Nature 542:439–444.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21394

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Ghosh KK
    2. Bujan S
    3. Haverkamp S
    4. Feigenspan A
    5. Wässle H

    (2004) Types of bipolar cells in the mouse retina

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 469:70–82.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.10985

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Goetz J
    2. Jessen ZF
    3. Jacobi A
    4. Mani A
    5. Cooler S
    6. Greer D
    7. Kadri S
    8. Segal J
    9. Shekhar K
    10. Sanes JR
    11. Schwartz GW

    (2022) Unified classification of mouse retinal ganglion cells using function, morphology, and gene expression

    Cell Reports 40:111040.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2022.111040

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Gollisch T
    2. Meister M

    (2010) Eye smarter than scientists believed: neural computations in circuits of the retina

    Neuron 65:150–164.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.12.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Grabner CP
    2. Ratliff CP
    3. Light AC
    4. DeVries SH

    (2016) Mechanism of high-frequency signaling at a depressing ribbon synapse

    Neuron 91:133–145.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.05.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Grabner CP
    2. Moser T

    (2021) The mammalian rod synaptic ribbon is essential for Cav channel facilitation and ultrafast synaptic vesicle fusion

    eLife 10:e63844.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63844

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Grabner CP
    2. Futagi D
    3. Shi J
    4. Bindokas V
    5. Kitano K
    6. Schwartz EA
    7. DeVries SH

    (2023) Mechanisms of simultaneous linear and nonlinear computations at the mammalian cone photoreceptor synapse

    Nature Communications 14:3486.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38943-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Greene MJ
    2. Kim JS
    3. Seung HS
    4. EyeWirers

    (2016) Analogous convergence of sustained and transient inputs in parallel on and off pathways for retinal motion computation

    Cell Reports 14:1892–1900.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.02.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Grimes WN
    2. Schwartz GW
    3. Rieke F

    (2014) The synaptic and circuit mechanisms underlying a change in spatial encoding in the retina

    Neuron 82:460–473.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.02.037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Grimes WN
    2. Baudin J
    3. Azevedo AW
    4. Rieke F

    (2018) Range, routing and kinetics of rod signaling in primate retina

    eLife 7:e38281.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38281

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Hellmer CB
    2. Zhou Y
    3. Fyk-Kolodziej B
    4. Hu Z
    5. Ichinose T

    (2016) Morphological and physiological analysis of type-5 and other bipolar cells in the mouse retina

    Neuroscience 315:246–258.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.12.016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Helmstaedter M
    2. Briggman KL
    3. Turaga SC
    4. Jain V
    5. Seung HS
    6. Denk W

    (2013) Connectomic reconstruction of the inner plexiform layer in the mouse retina

    Nature 500:168–174.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12346

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Hsiang JC
    2. Shen N
    3. Soto F
    4. Kerschensteiner D

    (2024) Distributed feature representations of natural stimuli across parallel retinal pathways

    Nature Communications 15:1920.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46348-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Huang L
    2. Shanker YG
    3. Dubauskaite J
    4. Zheng JZ
    5. Yan W
    6. Rosenzweig S
    7. Spielman AI
    8. Max M
    9. Margolskee RF

    (1999) Ggamma13 colocalizes with gustducin in taste receptor cells and mediates IP3 responses to bitter denatonium

    Nature Neuroscience 2:1055–1062.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/15981

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Huang L
    2. Max M
    3. Margolskee RF
    4. Su H
    5. Masland RH
    6. Euler T

    (2003) G protein subunit G gamma 13 is coexpressed with G alpha o, G beta 3, and G beta 4 in retinal ON bipolar cells

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 455:1–10.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.10396

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Hull C
    2. Studholme K
    3. Yazulla S
    4. von Gersdorff H

    (2006) Diurnal changes in exocytosis and the number of synaptic ribbons at active zones of an ON-type bipolar cell terminal

    Journal of Neurophysiology 96:2025–2033.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00364.2006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Ichinose T
    2. Fyk-Kolodziej B
    3. Cohn J

    (2014) Roles of ON cone bipolar cell subtypes in temporal coding in the mouse retina

    The Journal of Neuroscience 34:8761–8771.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3965-13.2014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Ichinose T
    2. Hellmer CB

    (2016) Differential signalling and glutamate receptor compositions in the OFF bipolar cell types in the mouse retina

    The Journal of Physiology 594:883–894.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/JP271458

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Ikeda H
    2. Wright MJ

    (1972) Receptive field organization of ‘sustained’ and ‘transient’ retinal ganglion cells which subserve different functional roles

    The Journal of Physiology 227:769–800.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1972.sp010058

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Jackman SL
    2. Choi SY
    3. Thoreson WB
    4. Rabl K
    5. Bartoletti TM
    6. Kramer RH

    (2009) Role of the synaptic ribbon in transmitting the cone light response

    Nature Neuroscience 12:303–310.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2267

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Jadzinsky PD
    2. Baccus SA

    (2013) Transformation of visual signals by inhibitory interneurons in retinal circuits

    Annual Review of Neuroscience 36:403–428.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-062012-170315

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Jarsky T
    2. Cembrowski M
    3. Logan SM
    4. Kath WL
    5. Riecke H
    6. Demb JB
    7. Singer JH

    (2011) A synaptic mechanism for retinal adaptation to luminance and contrast

    The Journal of Neuroscience 31:11003–11015.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2631-11.2011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Ke JB
    2. Wang YV
    3. Borghuis BG
    4. Cembrowski MS
    5. Riecke H
    6. Kath WL
    7. Demb JB
    8. Singer JH

    (2014) Adaptation to background light enables contrast coding at rod bipolar cell synapses

    Neuron 81:388–401.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.10.054

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Kerschensteiner D

    (2022) Feature detection by retinal ganglion cells

    Annual Review of Vision Science 8:135–169.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-vision-100419-112009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Kim KJ
    2. Rieke F

    (2001) Temporal contrast adaptation in the input and output signals of salamander retinal ganglion cells

    The Journal of Neuroscience 21:287–299.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-01-00287.2001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Krieger B
    2. Qiao M
    3. Rousso DL
    4. Sanes JR
    5. Meister M

    (2017) Four alpha ganglion cell types in mouse retina: Function, structure, and molecular signatures

    PLOS ONE 12:e0180091.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180091

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Kuo SP
    2. Schwartz GW
    3. Rieke F

    (2016) Nonlinear spatiotemporal integration by electrical and chemical synapses in the retina

    Neuron 90:320–332.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.03.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Kuo SP
    2. Chiang PP
    3. Nippert AR
    4. Newman EA

    (2020) Spatial organization and dynamics of the extracellular space in the mouse retina

    The Journal of Neuroscience 40:7785–7794.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1717-20.2020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Lagnado L
    2. Schmitz F

    (2015) Ribbon synapses and visual processing in the retina

    Annual Review of Vision Science 1:235–262.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-vision-082114-035709

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Marc RE
    2. Anderson JR
    3. Jones BW
    4. Sigulinsky CL
    5. Lauritzen JS

    (2014) The aII amacrine cell connectome: a dense network hub

    Frontiers in Neural Circuits 8:104.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2014.00104

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Margolis DJ
    2. Gartland AJ
    3. Euler T
    4. Detwiler PB

    (2010) Dendritic calcium signaling in ON and OFF mouse retinal ganglion cells

    The Journal of Neuroscience 30:7127–7138.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5694-09.2010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Masland RH

    (2012) The neuronal organization of the retina

    Neuron 76:266–280.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Maxeiner S
    2. Luo F
    3. Tan A
    4. Schmitz F
    5. Südhof TC

    (2016) How to make a synaptic ribbon: RIBEYE deletion abolishes ribbons in retinal synapses and disrupts neurotransmitter release

    The EMBO Journal 35:1098–1114.

    https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.201592701

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. McGuire BA
    2. Stevens JK
    3. Sterling P

    (1984) Microcircuitry of bipolar cells in cat retina

    The Journal of Neuroscience 4:2920–2938.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.04-12-02920.1984

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Mehta B
    2. Snellman J
    3. Chen S
    4. Li W
    5. Zenisek D

    (2013) Synaptic ribbons influence the size and frequency of miniature-like evoked postsynaptic currents

    Neuron 77:516–527.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.11.024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Morgan JL
    2. Soto F
    3. Wong ROL
    4. Kerschensteiner D

    (2011) Development of cell type-specific connectivity patterns of converging excitatory axons in the retina

    Neuron 71:1014–1021.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.08.025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. Software

    1. Murphy-Baum B

    (2019) StimGen, version swh:1:rev:3c6baf8d46984c4ef989355c38a4d7f78c517130

    Software Heritage.

    https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:73b445a200fe12f3e12c98cf8c8d343ed53f621c;origin=https://github.com/benmurphybaum/StimGen;visit=swh:1:snp:8ee026e3007d1c105ab379ce5874e119d6a2d2f8;anchor=swh:1:rev:3c6baf8d46984c4ef989355c38a4d7f78c517130
69. 1. Neves G
    2. Lagnado L

    (1999) The kinetics of exocytosis and endocytosis in the synaptic terminal of goldfish retinal bipolar cells

    The Journal of Physiology 515 (Pt 1):181–202.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7793.1999.181ad.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Nikolaev A
    2. Leung KM
    3. Odermatt B
    4. Lagnado L

    (2013) Synaptic mechanisms of adaptation and sensitization in the retina

    Nature Neuroscience 16:934–941.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3408

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Nirenberg S
    2. Meister M

    (1997) The light response of retinal ganglion cells is truncated by a displaced amacrine circuit

    Neuron 18:637–650.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80304-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Oesch NW
    2. Diamond JS

    (2011) Ribbon synapses compute temporal contrast and encode luminance in retinal rod bipolar cells

    Nature Neuroscience 14:1555–1561.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2945

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Okawa H
    2. Yu WQ
    3. Matti U
    4. Schwarz K
    5. Odermatt B
    6. Zhong H
    7. Tsukamoto Y
    8. Lagnado L
    9. Rieke F
    10. Schmitz F
    11. Wong ROL

    (2019) Dynamic assembly of ribbon synapses and circuit maintenance in a vertebrate sensory system

    Nature Communications 10:2167.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10123-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Pangrsic T
    2. Singer JH
    3. Koschak A

    (2018) Voltage-gated calcium channels: key players in sensory coding in the retina and the inner ear

    Physiological Reviews 98:2063–2096.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00030.2017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Pottackal J
    2. Singer JH
    3. Demb JB

    (2021) Computational and molecular properties of starburst amacrine cell synapses differ with postsynaptic cell type

    Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience 15:660773.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2021.660773

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Puthussery T
    2. Venkataramani S
    3. Gayet-Primo J
    4. Smith RG
    5. Taylor WR

    (2013) NaV1.1 channels in axon initial segments of bipolar cells augment input to magnocellular visual pathways in the primate retina

    The Journal of Neuroscience 33:16045–16059.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1249-13.2013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Rabl K
    2. Cadetti L
    3. Thoreson WB

    (2006) Paired-pulse depression at photoreceptor synapses

    The Journal of Neuroscience 26:2555–2563.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3667-05.2006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Ran Y
    2. Huang Z
    3. Baden T
    4. Schubert T
    5. Baayen H
    6. Berens P
    7. Franke K
    8. Euler T

    (2020) Type-specific dendritic integration in mouse retinal ganglion cells

    Nature Communications 11:2101.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15867-9

    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Rieke F

    (2001) Temporal contrast adaptation in salamander bipolar cells

    The Journal of Neuroscience 21:9445–9454.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-23-09445.2001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Rodieck RW

    (1991) The density recovery profile: a method for the analysis of points in the plane applicable to retinal studies

    Visual Neuroscience 6:95–111.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/s095252380001049x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Roska B
    2. Werblin F

    (2001) Vertical interactions across ten parallel, stacked representations in the mammalian retina

    Nature 410:583–587.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/35069068

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. Preprint

    1. Sabbah S
    2. Papendorp C
    3. Koplas E
    4. Beltoja M
    5. Etebari C
    6. Gunesch AN
    7. Carrete L
    8. Kim MT
    9. Manoff G
    10. Bhatia-Lin A
    11. Zhao T
    12. Schreck D
    13. Dowling H
    14. Briggman KL
    15. Berson DM

    (2018) Synaptic Circuits for Irradiance Coding by Intrinsically Photosensitive Retinal Ganglion Cells

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/442954

    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Sagdullaev BT
    2. McCall MA
    3. Lukasiewicz PD

    (2006) Presynaptic inhibition modulates spillover, creating distinct dynamic response ranges of sensory output

    Neuron 50:923–935.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.05.015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Saszik S
    2. DeVries SH

    (2012) A mammalian retinal bipolar cell uses both graded changes in membrane voltage and all-or-nothing Na+ spikes to encode light

    The Journal of Neuroscience 32:297–307.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2739-08.2012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Schwartz GW
    2. Okawa H
    3. Dunn FA
    4. Morgan JL
    5. Kerschensteiner D
    6. Wong RO
    7. Rieke F

    (2012) The spatial structure of a nonlinear receptive field

    Nature Neuroscience 15:1572–1580.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3225

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Shekhar K
    2. Lapan SW
    3. Whitney IE
    4. Tran NM
    5. Macosko EZ
    6. Kowalczyk M
    7. Adiconis X
    8. Levin JZ
    9. Nemesh J
    10. Goldman M
    11. McCarroll SA
    12. Cepko CL
    13. Regev A
    14. Sanes JR

    (2016) Comprehensive classification of retinal bipolar neurons by single-cell transcriptomics

    Cell 166:1308–1323.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.07.054

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Sigulinsky CL
    2. Anderson JR
    3. Kerzner E
    4. Rapp CN
    5. Pfeiffer RL
    6. Rodman TM
    7. Emrich DP
    8. Rapp KD
    9. Nelson NT
    10. Lauritzen JS
    11. Meyer M
    12. Marc RE
    13. Jones BW

    (2020) Network architecture of gap junctional coupling among parallel processing channels in the mammalian retina

    The Journal of Neuroscience 40:4483–4511.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1810-19.2020

    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Singer JH
    2. Diamond JS

    (2003) Sustained Ca2+ entry elicits transient postsynaptic currents at a retinal ribbon synapse

    The Journal of Neuroscience 23:10923–10933.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-34-10923.2003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Singer JH
    2. Diamond JS

    (2006) Vesicle depletion and synaptic depression at a mammalian ribbon synapse

    Journal of Neurophysiology 95:3191–3198.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01309.2005

    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Slaughter MM
    2. Miller RF

    (1981) 2-amino-4-phosphonobutyric acid: a new pharmacological tool for retina research

    Science 211:182–185.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6255566

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Snellman J
    2. Zenisek D
    3. Nawy S

    (2009) Switching between transient and sustained signalling at the rod bipolar‐aII amacrine cell synapse of the mouse retina

    The Journal of Physiology 587:2443–2455.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2008.165241

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Snellman J
    2. Mehta B
    3. Babai N
    4. Bartoletti TM
    5. Akmentin W
    6. Francis A
    7. Matthews G
    8. Thoreson W
    9. Zenisek D

    (2011) Acute destruction of the synaptic ribbon reveals a role for the ribbon in vesicle priming

    Nature Neuroscience 14:1135–1141.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2870

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Srivastava P
    2. de Rosenroll G
    3. Matsumoto A
    4. Michaels T
    5. Turple Z
    6. Jain V
    7. Sethuramanujam S
    8. Murphy-Baum BL
    9. Yonehara K
    10. Awatramani GB

    (2022) Spatiotemporal properties of glutamate input support direction selectivity in the dendrites of retinal starburst amacrine cells

    eLife 11:e81533.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.81533

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Swygart D
    2. Yu WQ
    3. Takeuchi S
    4. Wong ROL
    5. Schwartz GW

    (2024) A presynaptic source drives differing levels of surround suppression in two mouse retinal ganglion cell types

    Nature Communications 15:599.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-44851-w

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Szikra T
    2. Trenholm S
    3. Drinnenberg A
    4. Jüttner J
    5. Raics Z
    6. Farrow K
    7. Biel M
    8. Awatramani G
    9. Clark DA
    10. Sahel JA
    11. da Silveira RA
    12. Roska B

    (2014) Rods in daylight act as relay cells for cone-driven horizontal cell-mediated surround inhibition

    Nature Neuroscience 17:1728–1735.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3852

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Taylor WR
    2. Vaney DI

    (2002) Diverse synaptic mechanisms generate direction selectivity in the rabbit retina

    The Journal of Neuroscience 22:7712–7720.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-17-07712.2002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Thoreson WB
    2. Zenisek D

    (2024) Presynaptic proteins and their roles in visual processing by the retina

    Annual Review of Vision Science 10:347–375.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-vision-101322-111204

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Tsukamoto Y
    2. Omi N

    (2017) Classification of mouse retinal bipolar cells: type-specific connectivity with special reference to rod-driven aii amacrine pathways

    Frontiers in Neuroanatomy 11:92.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnana.2017.00092

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Vaney DI
    2. Sivyer B
    3. Taylor WR

    (2012) Direction selectivity in the retina: symmetry and asymmetry in structure and function

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 13:194–208.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3165

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Veruki ML
     2. Hartveit E

     (2002a) Electrical synapses mediate signal transmission in the rod pathway of the mammalian retina

     The Journal of Neuroscience 22:10558–10566.

     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-24-10558.2002

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Veruki ML
     2. Hartveit E

     (2002b) AII (rod) amacrine cells form a network of electrically coupled interneurons in the mammalian retina

     Neuron 33:935–946.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00609-8

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. von Gersdorff H
     2. Vardi E
     3. Matthews G
     4. Sterling P

     (1996) Evidence that vesicles on the synaptic ribbon of retinal bipolar neurons can be rapidly released

     Neuron 16:1221–1227.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80148-8

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
103. 1. von Gersdorff H
     2. Matthews G

     (1997) Depletion and replenishment of vesicle pools at a ribbon-type synaptic terminal

     The Journal of Neuroscience 17:1919–1927.

     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.17-06-01919.1997

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Wakeham CM
     2. Shi Q
     3. Ren G
     4. Haley TL
     5. Duvoisin RM
     6. von Gersdorff H
     7. Morgans CW

     (2023) Trophoblast glycoprotein is required for efficient synaptic vesicle exocytosis from retinal rod bipolar cells

     Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience 17:1306006.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2023.1306006

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Wan QF
     2. Heidelberger R

     (2011) Synaptic release at mammalian bipolar cell terminals

     Visual Neuroscience 28:109–119.

     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952523810000453

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Warwick RA
     2. Kaushansky N
     3. Sarid N
     4. Golan A
     5. Rivlin-Etzion M

     (2018) Inhomogeneous encoding of the visual field in the mouse retina

     Current Biology 28:655–665.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.01.016

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
107. 1. Wässle H
     2. Puller C
     3. Müller F
     4. Haverkamp S

     (2009) Cone contacts, mosaics, and territories of bipolar cells in the mouse retina

     The Journal of Neuroscience 29:106–117.

     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4442-08.2009

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Werblin FS

     (1970) Response of retinal cells to moving spots: intracellular recording in necturus maculosus

     Journal of Neurophysiology 33:342–350.

     https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1970.33.3.342

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
109. 1. Werginz P
     2. Raghuram V
     3. Fried SI

     (2020) Tailoring of the axon initial segment shapes the conversion of synaptic inputs into spiking output in OFF-α T retinal ganglion cells

     Science Advances 6:eabb6642.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abb6642

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Wienbar S
     2. Schwartz GW

     (2022) Differences in spike generation instead of synaptic inputs determine the feature selectivity of two retinal cell types

     Neuron 110:2110–2123.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2022.04.012

     • Google Scholar
111. 1. Wu SM
     2. Gao F
     3. Maple BR

     (2000) Functional architecture of synapses in the inner retina: segregation of visual signals by stratification of bipolar cell axon terminals

     The Journal of Neuroscience 20:4462–4470.

     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.20-12-04462.2000

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
112. 1. Yu WQ
     2. Swanstrom R
     3. Sigulinsky CL
     4. Ahlquist RM
     5. Knecht S
     6. Jones BW
     7. Berson DM
     8. Wong RO

     (2023) Distinctive synaptic structural motifs link excitatory retinal interneurons to diverse postsynaptic partner types

     Cell Reports 42:112006.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2023.112006

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
113. 1. Zhang Y
     2. Kim IJ
     3. Sanes JR
     4. Meister M

     (2012) The most numerous ganglion cell type of the mouse retina is a selective feature detector

     PNAS 109:E2391–E2398.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211547109

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Sidney P Kuo

   1. Department of Neurobiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
   2. Department of Biology, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

2. Wan-Qing Yu

   Department of Neurobiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Prerna Srivastava

   Department of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Haruhisa Okawa

   Department of Neurobiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Luca Della Santina

   Department of Neurobiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6036-1295

6. David M Berson

   Department of Neuroscience, Brown University, Providence, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Gautam B Awatramani

   Department of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0610-5271

8. Rachel OL Wong

   Department of Neurobiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5089-6296

9. Fred Rieke

   Department of Neurobiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   rieke@uw.edu

   Competing interests

   Reviewing editor, eLife

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1052-2609

• 903

  views

• 46

  downloads

• 2

  citations

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

Citations by DOI

• 2

  citations for Reviewed Preprint v1 https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.98817.1