 |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Previous Article | Next Article
Journal of Neuroscience, Vol 4, 234-250, Copyright © 1984 by Society for Neuroscience
ARTICLE
Target selection by surgically misdirected optic fibers in the tectum of goldfish
RL Meyer
This study tested the capacity of regenerating optic fibers to read tectal markers and thereby grow to their appropriate tectal loci when initial position, optic pathway, and interfiber interactions are eliminated as useful cues. The stability of these markers with long- term optic denervation of the tectum was also examined. In adult goldfish optic fibers innervating lateroposterior optic tectum were dissected free of tectum and inserted into the medial anterior region of the opposite "host" tectum. Normally, fibers at this position either innervate medial anterior tectum or follow the medial division of the optic pathway into medioposterior tectum. Host tectum was denervated of all other optic fibers by enucleating its contralateral eye either at the time of the deflection or at various times up to 18 months prior to deflection. The regeneration of these deflected fibers into host tectum was examined by autoradiography and electrophysiology at 1 to 11 months later. At the insertion site deflected fibers split into two groups of roughly equal size. One group directly entered the optic layers of medial tectum and grew posterolaterally across the medial half of tectum into the lateral half. The second group followed an almost direct path to the lateral tectum, sometimes traversing through the deep cell layers of tectum in which optic fibers are not usually found. These fibers subsequently entered the optic layers at the lateral edge of tectum and grew posteriorly. This second path was not seen in controls in which optic fibers from medioposterior tectum were similarly deflected. Instead growth was almost entirely posteriorly directed. On the average by 1.5 months deflected lateroposterior fibers were preferentially distributed in the lateral half of the tectum. Densitometric measurements indicated nearly a 4-fold difference in lateroposterior compared with medial posterior labeling. By contrast, controls in which medial posterior fibers were deflected had 4 times more grains medially than laterally. There was also a posterior over anterior preference, but this was weak. There was no suggestion that long periods of optic denervation prior to deflection or long postoperative periods after deflection of lateroposterior fibers diminished the lateral over medial preference. These findings support the idea that stable tectal markers exist which are differentially read by medial and lateral optic fibers. However, in no case was the innervation by deflected fibers as selective as in the normal projection.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
|
|
|
|
 |
|