Limits...
A new measure for the strength of electrical synapses.

Haas JS - Front Cell Neurosci (2015)

Bottom Line: Electrical synapses are typically quantified by subthreshold measurements of coupling, which fall short in describing their impact on spiking activity in coupled neighbors.This method, also applicable to neurotransmitter-based synapses, communicates the considerable strength of electrical synapses.For electrical synapses measured in rodent slices of the thalamic reticular nucleus and in simple model neurons, spike timing is modulated by tens of ms by activity in a coupled neighbor.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University Bethlehem, PA, USA.

ABSTRACT
Electrical synapses, like chemical synapses, mediate intraneuronal communication. Electrical synapses are typically quantified by subthreshold measurements of coupling, which fall short in describing their impact on spiking activity in coupled neighbors. Here, we describe a novel measurement for electrical synapse strength that directly evaluates the effect of synaptically transmitted activity on spike timing. This method, also applicable to neurotransmitter-based synapses, communicates the considerable strength of electrical synapses. For electrical synapses measured in rodent slices of the thalamic reticular nucleus and in simple model neurons, spike timing is modulated by tens of ms by activity in a coupled neighbor.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Comparison of δL to other measures of electrical synapse strength. (A) δL plotted against coupling coefficient cc in each direction for a set of n = 18 pairs. R2 = 0.38. (B) δL plotted against coupling conductance GC; R2 = 0.56. (C) δL plotted against absolute change in latency for each cell in 18 pairs.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4585165&req=5

Figure 3: Comparison of δL to other measures of electrical synapse strength. (A) δL plotted against coupling coefficient cc in each direction for a set of n = 18 pairs. R2 = 0.38. (B) δL plotted against coupling conductance GC; R2 = 0.56. (C) δL plotted against absolute change in latency for each cell in 18 pairs.

Mentions: δL has units of percentage in principle, δL can be negative. δL is unrelated to pulse input strength (R2 = 0.07; not shown). δL is moderately correlated to coupling coefficients, and better related to the coupling conductances (Figures 3A,B) measured by hyperpolarizing current inputs. While input from the electrical synapse often converted an input that, alone, was subthreshold into a supra-threshold input (e.g., 75 pA in Figure 2C), δL does not include that effect. For our sample of electrical synapses, the average value of δL was 29.5 ± 2.2% (mean ± SEM, n = 36; Figure 3C). Applied to the average peri-threshold latency in our dataset of 56 ms, δL represents a difference in spike timing of 16.5 ms, a substantial difference on a neuronal timescale.


A new measure for the strength of electrical synapses.

Haas JS - Front Cell Neurosci (2015)

Comparison of δL to other measures of electrical synapse strength. (A) δL plotted against coupling coefficient cc in each direction for a set of n = 18 pairs. R2 = 0.38. (B) δL plotted against coupling conductance GC; R2 = 0.56. (C) δL plotted against absolute change in latency for each cell in 18 pairs.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4585165&req=5

Figure 3: Comparison of δL to other measures of electrical synapse strength. (A) δL plotted against coupling coefficient cc in each direction for a set of n = 18 pairs. R2 = 0.38. (B) δL plotted against coupling conductance GC; R2 = 0.56. (C) δL plotted against absolute change in latency for each cell in 18 pairs.
Mentions: δL has units of percentage in principle, δL can be negative. δL is unrelated to pulse input strength (R2 = 0.07; not shown). δL is moderately correlated to coupling coefficients, and better related to the coupling conductances (Figures 3A,B) measured by hyperpolarizing current inputs. While input from the electrical synapse often converted an input that, alone, was subthreshold into a supra-threshold input (e.g., 75 pA in Figure 2C), δL does not include that effect. For our sample of electrical synapses, the average value of δL was 29.5 ± 2.2% (mean ± SEM, n = 36; Figure 3C). Applied to the average peri-threshold latency in our dataset of 56 ms, δL represents a difference in spike timing of 16.5 ms, a substantial difference on a neuronal timescale.

Bottom Line: Electrical synapses are typically quantified by subthreshold measurements of coupling, which fall short in describing their impact on spiking activity in coupled neighbors.This method, also applicable to neurotransmitter-based synapses, communicates the considerable strength of electrical synapses.For electrical synapses measured in rodent slices of the thalamic reticular nucleus and in simple model neurons, spike timing is modulated by tens of ms by activity in a coupled neighbor.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University Bethlehem, PA, USA.

ABSTRACT
Electrical synapses, like chemical synapses, mediate intraneuronal communication. Electrical synapses are typically quantified by subthreshold measurements of coupling, which fall short in describing their impact on spiking activity in coupled neighbors. Here, we describe a novel measurement for electrical synapse strength that directly evaluates the effect of synaptically transmitted activity on spike timing. This method, also applicable to neurotransmitter-based synapses, communicates the considerable strength of electrical synapses. For electrical synapses measured in rodent slices of the thalamic reticular nucleus and in simple model neurons, spike timing is modulated by tens of ms by activity in a coupled neighbor.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus