The Journal of Neuroscience, July 23, 2003, 23(16):6557-6566
Previous Article | Next Article 
Two Forms of Synaptic Plasticity with Distinct Dependence on Age, Experience, and NMDA Receptor Subtype in Rat Visual Cortex
Yumiko Yoshimura,1
Tomohisa Ohmura,2 and
Yukio Komatsu1
1Department of Visual Neuroscience, Research
Institute of Environmental Medicine, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8601,
Japan, and 2Department of Ophthalmology, Nagoya
University School of Medicine, Nagoya 466-8550, Japan
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
In visual cortex, NMDA receptor (NMDAR) properties depend primarily on NR2A
and NR2B subunits, and NR2 subunit composition changes with age and visual
experience. We examined the roles of these NR2 subunits in activity-dependent
long-term modification of synaptic responses, which were evoked in layer 2/3
cells by stimulation of layer 4 in rat visual cortical slices. We used
theta-burst stimulation (TBS) of presynaptic fibers or low-frequency
stimulation paired with postsynaptic depolarization, which has been commonly
used to induce NMDAR-dependent long-term potentiation (LTP) in visual cortex.
In pyramidal cells, however, TBS produced long-term depression (LTD) at
inhibitory synapses rather than LTP at excitatory synapses. This was observed
in association with LTP of extracellular field potentials that reflect
postsynaptic potentials in a population of cells (field-LTP). This result is
inconsistent with the previous view that field-LTP reflects LTP of excitatory
connections. However, pairing stimulation produced LTP at excitatory synapses
of pyramidal cells frequently during development but rarely in adulthood. In
contrast, inhibitory LTD and field-LTP occurred similarly in both developing
and mature cortex. Experiments using NR2B selective and NR2 subunit
nonselective NMDAR antagonists demonstrated that NR2A- and NR2B-containing
NMDARs contribute selectively to inhibitory LTD-field-LTP and excitatory LTP,
respectively. In addition, we found that the developmental decline in the NR2B
component was paralleled by a decline in the incidence of excitatory LTP, and
these declines were both prevented by dark rearing. These results implicate
NR2 subunit composition in the regulation of neocortical plasticity and
demonstrate differential subunit regulation at inhibitory and excitatory
connections.
Key words: synaptic plasticity; long-term potentiation; long-term depression; NMDA receptor; NR2 subunit; visual cortex; development
 |
Introduction
|
|---|
Visual experience plays a crucial role in the maturation of mammalian
visual cortical functions. Visual response properties are remarkably
modifiable, depending on experience during a postnatal critical period, as
documented by studies on the effects of monocular deprivation on ocular
dominance preference (Wiesel,
1982
; Frégnac and
Imbert, 1984
). The NMDA receptor (NMDAR) may be a key molecule
involved in activity-dependent synaptic modification underlying this
developmental process (Fox and Daw,
1993
; Singer,
1995
; Katz and Shatz,
1996
). NMDARs are composed of both NR1 subunits, which are
essential to channel function, and NR2 subunits, which convey distinct
functional properties (Seeburg,
1993
; Mori and Mishina,
1995
). Of the four NR2 subunits, rodent cortex contains primarily
NR2A and NR2B. Developmentally, NR2B subunits are already expressed at birth
and increase to near a plateau level within the first 2 weeks, whereas NR2A
subunits are first expressed in the second week and increase gradually in
subsequent weeks (Watanabe et al.,
1992
; Monyer et al.,
1994
; Sheng et al.,
1994
). Therefore, the NR2A/NR2B ratio increases with maturation.
In visual cortex, NR2 subunit alteration is postponed by visual deprivation
(Nase et al., 1999
;
Quinlan et al., 1999
), as is
the termination of the critical period
(Cynader and Mitchell, 1980
;
Fagiolini et al., 1994
),
suggesting that the NR2 subunit composition is involved in controlling that
period.
If this is the case, the synaptic modifiability may depend on NR2 subunit
composition in visual cortex. Several studies have reported that
NMDAR-dependent long-term potentiation (LTP) of excitatory synaptic
transmission is induced by high-frequency stimulation, tetanic and theta-burst
stimulation (TBS) of presynaptic fibers, or low-frequency stimulation paired
with postsynaptic depolarization in visual cortex, as in the hippocampus
(Artola and Singer, 1987
;
Kimura et al., 1989
;
Kirkwood and Bear, 1994
;
Yoshimura and Tsumoto, 1994
).
Most neocortical studies, however, did not analyze EPSPs isolated from IPSPs.
Some of the previously reported LTPs could reflect NMDAR-dependent long-term
depression (LTD) at inhibitory synapses
(Komatsu and Iwakiri, 1993
),
which allows excitatory inputs to produce larger depolarizing responses. This
could lead to the incorrect interpretation that LTP had occurred at excitatory
synapses.
In this study, we therefore recorded isolated EPSPs and IPSPs and tested
the roles of NR2 subunits in visual cortical synaptic plasticity. Experiments
were conducted in layer 2/3, where the manipulation of visual inputs produces
rapid plastic changes of response properties during the critical period
(Trachtenberg et al., 2000
)
and some changes even in adults (Gilbert,
1998
). In contrast to the previous view, we found that TBS
produced LTD of IPSPs but not LTP of EPSPs, in association with LTP of
extracellular field potentials reflecting postsynaptic potentials in a
population of cells (field-LTP); however, pairing stimulation could produce
LTP in excitatory connections. Pharmacological study demonstrated that NR2A-
and NR2B-containing NMDARs contribute selectively to inhibitory LTD and
excitatory LTP, respectively. The NR2B component and excitatory LTP incidence
changed in parallel with age and visual experience, indicating that the NR2
subunit composition is involved in the regulation of visual cortical synaptic
plasticity.
 |
Materials and Methods
|
|---|
Experiments were conducted using Sprague Dawley rats at postnatal day (PD)
20-30, except for the age-dependence study. Some rats were reared in a
completely dark room from birth to adulthood (PD 60-90). As described
previously (Komatsu, 1994
),
coronal slices of primary visual cortex (400 µm thick) were prepared from
rats under deep anesthesia with isoflurane and kept in normal artificial CSF
(ACSF) containing (in mM): 126 NaCl, 3 KCl, 1.3 MgSO4,
2.4 CaCl2, 1.2 NaH2PO4, 26 NaHCO3,
and 10 glucose at 33°C. When 20 µM bicuculline methiodide
(BMI) was added to ACSF to block GABAA receptor-mediated IPSPs, the
ACSF contained a high concentration (4 mM) of CaCl2 and
MgCl2 to avoid excess excitability. In this case,
NaH2PO4 and MgSO4 were omitted and NaCl
concentration was reduced to compensate for ACSF osmolarity. To record EPSPs
isolated from IPSPs in ACSF containing a normal concentration of divalent
cations, inhibition was blocked locally. BMI was diffused from a glass pipette
(tip diameter,
10 µm) that was filled with ACSF containing 5
mM BMI and placed <100 µm from the recording electrode (see
Fig. 2 D). To block
EPSP-EPSC completely, 40 µM 6,7-dinitroquinoxaline-2,3-dione
(DNQX), a non-NMDAR antagonist, and 100 µM
DL-2-amino-5-phosphonovaleric acid (DL-APV), an NMDAR
antagonist, were added to ACSF. NMDAR EPSPs were analyzed in ACSF containing
20 µM BMI, 40 µM DNQX, and 400 µM
D-serine, which reversed the depressive action of DNQX on the NMDAR
glycine site. NMDAR EPSCs were analyzed in ACSF containing 20 µM
BMI and 10 µM
2,3-dioxo-6-nitro-1,2,3,4-tetrahydrobenzo[f]quinoxaline-7-sulfonamide (NBQX),
another non-NMDAR antagonist lacking action on the NMDAR glycine site.

View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2. TBS fails to produce LTP of EPSPs under a blockade of IPSPs. A,
Effects of TBS on EPSPs evoked by very weak test stimulation in ACSF
containing 0.5 µM BMI. Traces show the superimposed average
EPSPs evoked by test stimulation in a cell before (a) and after
(b) TBS for test (squares) and control pathways (circles),
respectively. The bottom trace for the test pathway shows responses recorded
at a membrane potential of approximately-50 mV under a pharmacological
blockade of EPSPs (DNQX, APV) at the end of the experiment, confirming the
absence of IPSPs in test responses. The initial rising slope of EPSPs was
plotted against the time after TBS for test (squares) and control (circles)
pathways (average for 8 cells). B, Effects of TBS on field potentials
in ACSF containing a high concentration of Ca2+ and
Mg2+. Traces show the superimposed average field
potentials evoked by test stimulation before (a) and after
(b) TBS for test (filled triangles) and control pathways (open
circles), respectively. The amplitude of field potentials was plotted against
the time after TBS for test (filled triangles) and control (open circles)
pathways (average for 7 slices). C, Similar to B, but for
EPSPs recorded with patch pipettes under conditions in which 20
µM BMI was added to ACSF containing a high concentration of
Ca2+ and Mg2+. Filled squares and
open circles represent responses for test and control pathways, respectively.
Time course shown is an average for eight cells. D, Similar to
A, but IPSPs were blocked locally with a glass pipette containing 5
mM BMI that was placed near the recording patch pipette. Time
course shown is an average for 10 cells. E, Summary of experiments
conducted under a bath application of 0.5 µM BMI for TBS (open
squares), under a local application of BMI for TBS (gray squares), and under a
bath application of 20 µM BMI for TBS (filled squares) and
tetanic stimulation (diamonds). Each symbol represents the magnitude of LTP in
EPSPs of individual cells, assessed 40-45 min after conditioning stimulation.
Postsynaptic responses were recorded with patch electrodes except for the
experiment shown in A, during which they were recorded with sharp
electrodes.
|
|
Two pairs of bipolar stimulating tungsten electrodes were placed in layer
4, separated from each other by
0.5 mm (see
Fig. 1 A). A surgical
cut was imposed in layers 4/5 to ensure that separate groups of presynaptic
fibers were activated. One electrode was used to test the effect of
conditioning stimulation and the other served as a control. Test stimulation
was applied alternately to the electrodes at intervals of 5 sec. We used two
types of conditioning stimulation, which were five episodes of TBS (12 bursts
at 5 Hz, each burst contained four pulses at 100 Hz) at 0.1 Hz, and
low-frequency stimulation (100 pulses at 1 Hz) paired with postsynaptic
depolarization (between -10 and 0 mV) using current injection through patch
electrodes. In a part of the experiments, however, we used tetanic stimulation
(50 Hz, 1 sec) repeated 10 times at 0.1 Hz and TBS paired with postsynaptic
depolarization. Test stimulus intensity was adjusted to yield the subthreshold
of EPSPs required to initiate action potentials when intracellular responses
were recorded with sharp or patch electrodes and a roughly half-maximal
response when only field potentials were recorded. The intensity of TBS and
tetanic stimulation was adjusted to twice the test stimulus intensity. In some
of the nonpyramidal cells, however, the intensity of TBS was increased to four
times the test stimulus intensity, which produced almost maximal responses.
When the effect of TBS on IPSCs was examined, the intensity was adjusted as in
the case of EPSP studies. In experiments conducted in ACSF containing 0.5
µM BMI (see Fig. 2
A), very weak test stimulation was used to evoke EPSPs
without accompanying IPSPs. For this purpose, we selected cells in which the
threshold intensity was lower for evoking EPSPs than it was for IPSPs, and
test stimulation intensity could be set to a value 10-30% higher than the
threshold, at which no indication of superposition of IPSPs on EPSPs was
detected. The intensity of TBS was adjusted to the value that evoked the first
response with a rising slope larger than 5 mV/msec. TBS and tetanic
stimulation used in any of the present experiments produced orthodromic spikes
in recorded cells. The amplitude of the TBS-evoked response was assessed by
using the rising slope of the first intracellular response during TBS.

View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. TBS produces LTP of intracellular postsynaptic potentials only in the
presence of IPSPs. A, The arrangement of extracellular and
intracellular recording electrodes and bipolar stimulating metal electrodes
(S1 and S2). B, Example LTP of extracellular field potentials
associated with LTP of intracellular postsynaptic responses. Top and middle
traces show superimposed averages (n = 5) of extracellular and
intracellular responses evoked by test stimulation for test (filled circles)
and control pathways (open circles) before (a) and after (b)
TBS, respectively. The intensity of TBS was adjusted to twice the test
stimulus intensity. The average number of traces shown in the following
figures was five or six, unless stated otherwise. The recorded time of the
traces (a, b) is indicated in the graph on the right, where the
amplitude of extracellular field potentials (top) and the initial slope of
intracellular responses (bottom) (percentage of the mean baseline) are plotted
against the time after TBS (arrow) for test (filled circles) and control (open
circles) pathways. The bottom trace shows test pathway IPSPs recorded at
membrane potentials of approximately -50 mV using a depolarizing current
injection under EPSP blockade at the end of the experiments. C,
Similar to B, but for field-LTP not associated with LTP of
intracellular responses. IPSPs were not detected for the test pathway,
although the membrane potential was depolarized to approximately -50 mV by a
current injection. D, The amplitude of extracellular field potentials
(top) and the initial slope of intracellular responses (bottom) (mean ±
SEM) plotted against the time after TBS in cases with (circles; n =
5) and without IPSPs (squares; n = 6) for the test pathway.
|
|
Extracellular field potentials were recorded with glass pipettes filled
with saline containing 2% pontamine sky blue. Intracellular responses were
recorded from layer 2/3 regular spiking cells except for an experiment in
which we studied the effect of TBS on nonpyramidal cells. Postsynaptic
responses were recorded with sharp or patch pipettes. The sharp pipettes
contained 2 M K-methylsulfate (40-60 M
). We selected cells
with a stable resting membrane potential (less than -55 mV) and monitored
input resistance throughout the experiments by injecting hyperpolarizing
current pulses. For whole-cell recording, patch pipettes (4-6 M
) were
filled with a solution containing (in mM): 140 K-gluconate, 8 KCl,
2 NaCl, 0.2 EGTA, 10 HEPES, 3 MgATP, and 0.5 Na2GTP, pH 7.2 with
KOH. When NMDAR EPSCs were analyzed, a Cs+-base internal solution
containing 10 mM BAPTA was used to avoid possible
Ca2+-dependent response changes. We selected cells with
a high seal resistance (>1 G
) and a series resistance <30
M
for analysis. In some experiments, layer 2/3 pyramidal and
nonpyramidal cells were recorded under infrared differential interference
contrast (IR-DIC) optics (BX50WI, Olympus). When recording under current-clamp
mode, the experiments were conduced similarly to those with sharp electrodes.
Under voltage-clamp mode, we continuously monitored series and input
resistance by applying hyperpolarizing voltage steps and did not compensate
for series resistance. We analyzed only monosynaptic EPSPs-EPSCs. Responses
were considered monosynaptic when the onset latency was almost constant
(<0.3 msec) while the rising slope changed substantially at different
stimulation intensities and during high-frequency stimulation
(Komatsu et al., 1991
). In the
experiments studying LTD of IPSCs in pyramidal cells, presynaptic inhibitory
cells were stimulated focally with another patch pipette placed on the soma
(see Fig. 4 A). The
focal stimulating electrode was placed between the recording pipette and the
massive stimulating electrode, and the horizontal distance between these two
stimulating electrodes was adjusted to <100 µm, unless stated otherwise,
so that TBS activated the inhibitory synapses, which were tested by focal
stimulation.

View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4. TBS induces LTD of IPSCs in pyramidal cells. A, The arrangement of
massive stimulating electrodes for TBS and patch pipettes for focal
stimulation and whole-cell recording. B, The amplitude of IPSCs
plotted against the time after TBS (average for 7 cells). Traces show
superimposed IPSCs in a pyramidal cell before (a) and after
(b) TBS. C, Superimposed traces show test responses at -20,
-40, -60, and -80 mV before (top) and after (middle) TBS and after EPSC
blockade (bottom) in a cell. The left graph shows the I-V
relationship for those responses (average for 4 cells).
|
|
The laminar location of stimulating and recording electrodes was
histologically identified as described previously
(Komatsu, 1994
). In some
cases, 0.3% neurobiotin was included in patch electrodes to stain the recorded
cells. After recording, slices were fixed and resectioned as described
previously (Yoshimura et al.,
2000
). Sections were processed by a method using Cy3-conjugated
streptavidin (Sun et al.,
1998
), and labeled neurons were imaged with a Zeiss LSM510
(Oberkochen, Germany) confocal microscope. Staining was conducted on 20
regular spiking cells in the pairing stimulation experiments (n = 4,
PD 7-13; n = 5, PD 20-30; n = 3, PD 60-90; n = 8,
dark reared) and also on an additional 32 regular spiking cells (n =
5, PD 7-13; n = 15, PD 20-30; n = 12, PD 60-90). All of
these were identified as pyramidal cells in layer 2/3. Intracellular staining
with neurobiotin also confirmed the identification of pyramidal (n =
8, PD 7-13; n = 11, PD 20-30; n = 8, PD 60-90) and
nonpyramidal cells (n = 14, PD 20-30) under IR-DIC optics.
Data were expressed as mean ± SEM and Student's t, Welch's,
or Mann-Whitney U test was applied. The drugs used were obtained from
the following sources: D-APV, DL-APV, NBQX, and DNQX
from Tocris (Bristol, UK); ifenprodil, Ro 25-6981, BMI, and Cy3-conjugated
streptavidin from Sigma-RBI (St. Louis, MO); and neurobiotin from Vector
Laboratories (Burlingame, CA).
 |
Results
|
|---|
Postsynaptic responses evoked by layer 4 stimulation were recorded from
layer 2/3 of visual cortical slices prepared from rats at PD 20-30 during the
critical period (Fagiolini et al.,
1994
). As shown in Figure
1, TBS of layer 4 consistently produced field-LTP, which was
blocked by D-APV, an NMDAR antagonist. This LTP is essentially
identical to that reported previously
(Kimura et al., 1989
;
Kirkwood and Bear, 1994
).
Pairing stimulation but not TBS produces LTP at excitatory
synapses
To test whether field-LTP reflects changes at excitatory synapses,
monosynaptic EPSPs were recorded from regular spiking, presumably pyramidal
cells (Connors and Gutnick,
1990
; Mason and Larkman,
1990
), using sharp electrodes together with field potentials
(Fig. 1A). We used
test stimulation producing EPSPs that were subthreshold for orthodromic
spikes. In a preliminary study, a pharmacological blockade of EPSPs showed
that such monosynaptic EPSPs were evoked occasionally without accompanying
monosynaptic IPSPs. If TBS can induce LTP at excitatory synapses, LTP would
occur in such cases too. TBS always produced field-LTP (>15% increase from
the baseline level), but it produced LTP of intracellular postsynaptic
responses only in approximately half of the cells
(Fig. 1B-D).
Blocking of EPSPs always uncovered monosynaptic IPSPs for pathways that showed
intracellular LTP (Fig.
1B) but never for pathways that lacked intracellular LTP
(Fig. 1C). However, no
significant difference (p > 0.9) was found in the TBS-evoked
response, assessed by the rising slope of the first intracellular response
during TBS, resting membrane potential, or input resistance between the former
(6.9 ± 1.2 mV/msec; -65 ± 3 mV; 49 ± 5 M
;
n = 5) and the latter groups (7.4 ± 0.9 mV/msec; -68 ±
3 mV; 47 ± 6 M
; n = 6). Furthermore, there was no
significant difference (p > 0.8) in the magnitude of field-LTP
between the two groups (Fig.
1D). Thus, the TBS-induced modification in field
potentials may reflect changes in IPSPs rather than EPSPs.
In some previous studies, GABAA receptor-mediated inhibition was
partially blocked with a bath application of BMI to facilitate the induction
of NMDAR-dependent LTP (Artola and Singer,
1987
; Kimura et al.,
1989
). Thus, we also tested whether TBS induces LTP of EPSPs in
such conditions. To record EPSPs isolated from IPSPs, we used very weak test
stimulation and selected cells in which only EPSPs seemed to be evoked by that
stimulation. The absence of IPSPs was confirmed by a pharmacological blockade
of EPSPs at the end of the experiment. In the presence of BMI at 0.5
µM, which was the dose often used, TBS produced no changes in
EPSPs (Fig. 2A). The
rising slope of the first intracellular response during TBS (8.6 ± 1.0
mV/msec; n = 8) was larger than that demonstrated in the experiments
shown in Figure 1, in which TBS
always induced field-LTP in the normal ACSF. These results also suggested that
TBS cannot easily induce LTP of EPSPs.
This possibility was further examined under a complete blockade of IPSPs,
using the blind-patch whole-cell recording method. Because a bath application
of GABAA receptor antagonists at high doses increases excitability
extremely and hence makes it difficult to obtain stable test responses,
experiments were conducted in ACSF containing a high concentration of
CaCl2 and MgCl2. We confirmed that this divalent cation
modification alone did not affect field-LTP substantially
(Fig. 2B).
Nonetheless, neither TBS nor tetanic stimulation induced any clear LTP of
EPSPs under IPSP blockade (Fig.
2C,E). The rising slope of the first response during TBS
was 9.1 ± 0.7 mV/msec (n = 8), which was larger than the
values in the experiments shown in Figure
1. We also tested this issue in ACSF containing a normal
concentration of divalent cations by blocking IPSPs locally with a glass
pipette containing 5 mM BMI placed near the recording electrode.
TBS also failed to induce LTP of EPSPs
(Fig. 2D,E), whereas
the rising slope of the first response during TBS was 7.8 ± 0.5 mV/msec
(n = 10). Taken together, these results suggest that high-frequency
stimulation is usually unable to produce LTP at excitatory synapses, contrary
to the previous view (Artola and Singer,
1987
; Kimura et al.,
1989
; Kirkwood and Bear,
1994
).
In contrast to TBS, pairing stimulation produced input-specific LTP of
EPSPs (>20% increase from the baseline level) in more than half of the
cells under IPSP blockade (Fig.
3A,B). However, no significant difference (p
> 0.2) was found in the resting membrane potential or input resistance
between the two groups of cells to which TBS (-69 ± 2 mV; 93 ±
12 M
; n = 8) or pairing stimulation (-72 ± 1 mV; 104
± 7 M
; n = 15) was applied in ACSF containing 20
µM BMI. This LTP was NMDAR dependent because it was blocked by
100 µM DL-APV (Fig.
3B). TBS might produce a depolarization insufficient to
induce LTP, because EPSPs usually undergo a transient depression caused by a
reduced transmitter release during high-frequency stimulation in neocortical
pyramidal cells, which is different from that of hippocampal pyramidal cells
(Thomson and Deuchars, 1994
;
Castro-Alamancos and Connors,
1997
). Thus, TBS was paired with postsynaptic depolarization. LTP
was induced in some cells, but far less frequently compared with low-frequency
pairing stimulation (Fig.
3B). Therefore, the ineffectiveness of TBS may be
explained by an insufficient level of NMDAR activation, which is ascribable to
both reduced transmitter release itself and a resultant insufficient
postsynaptic depolarization.

View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3. Pairing stimulation produces LTP of EPSPs. A, Similar to
Figure 2C but for
pairing stimulation. Gray and black circles represent an average for test
pathway responses, where LTP did not (n = 6) and did occur
(n = 9), respectively, and the open circles represent control pathway
responses. B, Similar to Figure 2
E, but for summary of experiments conducted under a bath
application of 20 µM BMI for pairing stimulation without
(circles) and with 100 µM DL-APV (triangles), and TBS paired
with depolarization (squares).
|
|
TBS produces LTD of IPSPs in pyramidal cells but not LTD of EPSPs in
nonpyramidal cells
To test whether TBS instead induces LTD at inhibitory synapses, we
conducted whole-cell recordings from visually identified pyramidal cells in
normal ACSF and obtained isolated monosynaptic inhibitory responses by the
focal stimulation of single inhibitory cells with another glass electrode
(Fig. 4A). Because the
amplitude of IPSP is small at resting membrane potentials and very sensitive
to changes in membrane potential, we analyzed IPSCs recorded under voltage
clamp at -40 mV. TBS was applied in current-clamp recording mode through the
metal electrode placed in layer 4. This induced LTD of IPSCs (>20% decrease
from the baseline level) in all of the tested cells (n = 7)
(Fig. 4B). The slope
of the plot between membrane potential and IPSC amplitude, reflecting IPSC
conductance, decreased significantly after TBS (p < 0.001;
n = 4) (Fig.
4C); however, there was no significant difference
(p > 0.2) in the reversal potential of IPSC, input resistance, or
series resistance before (-65 ± 0.3 mV; n = 4; 131 ± 10
M
, 13 ± 1 M
; n = 7) and after TBS (-65 ±
0.5 mV; 129 ± 10 M
, 13 ± 2 M
). A pharmacological
EPSC blockade conducted at the end of the experiments did not affect isolated
responses, confirming that focal stimulation elicited only monosynaptic IPSCs
(Fig. 4C). In these
experiments, the focal stimulating electrode was placed near the massive
stimulating electrodes (horizontal distance <100 µm); however, when they
were separated >300 µm horizontally and a surgical cut was made between
them, no change was found in isolated IPSCs after TBS (103 ± 4% of the
baseline level; n = 4), suggesting that LTD occurred selectively at
inhibitory synapses that were activated during TBS.
We also tested whether TBS induces LTD of EPSPs in inhibitory cells,
because such modifications may reduce the inhibition on pyramidal cells and
hence contribute to field-LTP. IPSPs were blocked by either bath or local
application of BMI. TBS never produced LTD in EPSPs recorded from visualized
layer 2/3 nonpyramidal cells under either total (97.7 ± 3.2% of the
baseline level at 45-50 min after TBS; n = 7) or local IPSP blockade
(106.5 ± 6.8%; n = 7). TBS was applied with similar
(n = 9) or higher intensities (n = 5), compared with those
used for pyramidal cells. The rising slope of the first response during TBS
was 8.1 ± 2.1 (n = 9) and 15.8 ± 1.1 mV/msec
(n = 5) for the former and the latter group of cells, respectively.
Intracellular staining revealed smooth or sparsely spiny dendrites in these
cells, which are characteristic of inhibitory interneurons
(Connors and Gutnick, 1990
).
Thus, we suggest that LTD of inhibitory synaptic transmission in pyramidal
cells is mainly responsible for field-LTP. Decreased inhibitory synaptic
transmission may increase the postsynaptic depolarization resulting from
excitatory inputs and the number of cells eliciting orthodromic spikes, which
are both likely to contribute to the enlargement of field potentials.
Consistent with this idea, it was reported that the amplitude of field
potentials was increased by a bath application of BMI at a low dose
(Bear et al., 1992
).
Effects of NR2B-containing NMDAR antagonists on synaptic
plasticity
To determine whether NR2A-NR2B subunits contribute differently to long-term
modifications at excitatory and inhibitory synapses, we used ifenprodil, which
noncompetitively blocks NR2B-containing NMDARs
(Williams et al., 1993
).
Because no antagonist is known to selectively block NR2A-containing NMDARs, we
also used D-APV, which blocks both but is more effective for
NR2A-than for NR2B-containing NMDARs
(Buller and Monaghan, 1997
);
results from D-APV were compared with the effects of ifenprodil. At
3 µM, ifenprodil blocks almost completely NR2B-containing NMDARs
but does not affect those containing NR2A
(Williams et al., 1993
). We
determined the dose of D-APV producing a blockade of NMDAR EPSPs
comparable with 3 µM of ifenprodil, first using sharp electrodes
instead of patch electrodes to avoid possible changes in the receptor function
caused by intracellular washout. The rising slope of NMDAR EPSPs was reduced
almost by half by 3 µM ifenprodil, and a comparable blockade
(p > 0.4) was accomplished by 1 µM D-APV
(Fig. 5A). At these
doses, we confirmed that the antagonists produced almost the same degree of
blockade in the peak amplitude and area of NMDAR EPSCs recorded from
visualized pyramidal cells with patch electrodes
(Fig. 5B).

View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 5. Effects of NMDAR antagonists on NMDAR EPSP-EPSC. A, Reduction of
the rising slope of NMDAR EPSPs with D-APV (squares) and ifenprodil
(triangle). Numbers attached to symbols indicate the number of tested cells.
Traces show the superimposed average NMDAR EPSPs before and after application
of 1 µM D-APV (left) or 3 µM ifenprodil (right).
B, No significant difference (p > 0.2) was found in NMDAR
EPSC reduction (percentage of the control value) assessed by the peak
amplitude or the total area between 3 µM ifenprodil and 1
µM D-APV. The values were determined 30 min after starting the
application of antagonists when the reduction of responses reached a steady
level. NMDAR EPSCs were recorded from visualized pyramidal cells at +40 mV in
the presence of NBQX and BMI. The number of cells was six for both ifenprodil
and D-APV. Traces show the superimposed average (n = 12)
NMDAR EPSCs in a cell before and after application of 1 µM D-APV
(left) or 3 µM ifenprodil (right).
|
|
Ifenprodil completely abolished LTP of EPSPs, but it did not affect LTD of
IPSCs or field-LTP (Fig. 6).
Because the blocker has some effects on voltage-gated channels and receptors
other than NR2B-containing NMDARs (Chenard
and Menniti, 1999
), we also used a more potent antagonist
(25-fold), Ro 25-6981, which is likely to lack such side effects
(Fischer et al., 1997
;
Mutel et al., 1998
). The
effect of Ro 25-6981 (0.3 µM) on excitatory LTP, field-LTP, and
inhibitory LTD was indistinguishable (p > 0.19) from that of
ifenprodil (Fig.
6D).

View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 6. Effects of NMDAR antagonists on synaptic plasticity. A, Effects of
NR2B antagonists and D-APV on LTP of EPSPs. Black, red, and green
symbols plot the rising slope of test pathway EPSPs (mean ± SEM for all
of the tested cells) against the time after pairing stimulation in control,
NR2B antagonist (3 µM ifenprodil or 0.3 µM Ro
25-6981), and D-APV (1 µM) solution, respectively.
The number of cells was 15 (control), 10 (ifenprodil), 7 (Ro 25-6981), and 9
(D-APV). Top, middle, and bottom traces show superimposed test
pathway EPSPs before (a) and after (b) pairing stimulation
in control, ifenprodil, and D-APV solution, respectively.
B, Similar to A, but for field-LTP induced by TBS. The
number of slices was 15 (control), 10 (ifenprodil), 9 (Ro 25-6981), and 10
(D-APV). C, Similar to A, but for LTD of IPSCs.
The number of cells was 7 (control), 6 (ifenprodil), 3 (Ro 25-6981), and 7
(D-APV). D, The magnitude of excitatory LTP (circles),
field-LTP (squares), and inhibitory LTD (diamonds) in control (filled black
symbols) and in the presence of 3 µM ifenprodil (red), 0.3
µM Ro 25-6981 (gray), 1 µM D-APV(green), and 50
µM D-APV (blue). Values were determined 40-45, 55-60, and 25-30
min after conditioning stimulation for LTP of EPSPs, field-LTP, and LTD of
IPSCs, respectively. Asterisks indicate values significantly different
(p < 0.05) from control values.
|
|
The effects of 1 µM D-APV were different from those of NR2B
antagonists. Pairing stimulation produced excitatory LTP with a slightly but
insignificantly (p > 0.08) reduced magnitude compared with the
control solution, but it was significantly larger (p < 0.02) than
in the presence of NR2B antagonists (Fig.
6A,D). APV significantly reduced both LTD of IPSCs and
field-LTP at 1 µM (p < 0.003) and completely
abolished them at 50 µM (Fig.
6B-D). These pharmacological profiles could not
be explained by the mere difference in the total NMDAR activation level
required for induction. Instead, they suggest that NR2A- and NR2B-containing
NMDARs contribute selectively to the induction of LTD of IPSPs-field-LTP and
LTP of EPSPs, respectively.
Age and visual experience dependence of synaptic plasticity and NMDAR
EPSC
These two forms of plasticity depending on different NR2 subunits showed
different age dependence. Compared with the critical period (PD 20-30), LTP of
EPSPs occurred more frequently at an early stage (PD 7-13), when the eyes have
not yet opened, but never in adults (PD 60-90)
(Fig. 7A).
Regular-spiking cells were clearly identified in all age groups
(Fig. 7B). The input
resistance decreased significantly (p < 0.0001) from PD 7-13 (229
± 15 M
; n = 13) to PD 20-30 (104 ± 7 M
;
n = 15) but insignificantly (p > 0.3) from PD 20-30 to PD
60-90 (95 ± 6 M
; n = 9). The resting membrane potential
was significantly depolarized (p < 0.008) at PD 7-13 (-64 ±
2 mV) compared with the later two stages (-72 ± 1 mV, PD 20-30; -72
± 2 mV, PD 60-90), but no significant difference (p > 0.8)
was found between the latter groups. Some of these cells were stained with
neurobiotin and all were identified as pyramidal cells
(Fig. 7B). Because the
dendritic arbor size increased with age, the postsynaptic depolarization
during pairing stimulation might have been insufficient to activate NMDARs
located on dendrites far from the recording electrode in older rats. This is
unlikely, however, because we confirmed that EPSPs were reversed around 0 mV
(between -5 and +10 mV) in all age groups
(Fig. 7C)(n =
5, PD 7-13; n = 6, PD 20-30; n = 4, PD 60-90).

View larger version (42K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 7. Age- and visual experience-dependent changes in excitatory LTP. A,
The left graph plots the initial slope of test pathway EPSPs (mean ±
SEM for all of the tested cells) against the time after pairing stimulation
for different age groups (open circles, PD 7-13, n = 13; filled
circles, PD 20-30, n = 15; gray circles, PD 60-90, n = 9)
and dark-reared adults (triangles, n = 8). The right graph plots the
magnitude (mean ± SEM) of excitatory LTP against postnatal days
(average for all of the tested cells) and, in addition, values for dark-reared
adults (DR). Values were determined as explained in the legend of
Figure 6 D. The
numbers on the symbols indicate the number of cases tested (denominator) and
those that showed LTP (numerator). Asterisks indicate values significantly
different (p < 0.05) from those at PD 20-30. The # symbol
indicates that values for dark-reared rats were significantly different from
those for normal adults. Bottom traces show superimposed test pathway EPSPs
before (a) and after (b) pairing stimulation in cells
sampled from rats at PD 11 (open circle), PD 23 (filled circle), and PD 61
(gray circle) and dark-reared adult (triangle). B, Examples of
regular-spiking cells at PD 10, 26, and 73, which were identified as pyramidal
cells by neurobiotin staining (confocal images for Cy3). Scale bar, 50 µm.
Action potentials were initiated by an injection of 0.3 (left and center) and
0.5 nA depolarizing currents (right). C, EPSPs reversed around 0 mV
by current injection in cells at PD 8, 28, and 60.
|
|
When rats were reared in darkness from birth, pairing stimulation
frequently produced LTP of EPSPs even in adults
(Fig. 7A). The mean
magnitude for all of the tested cells was the same as in normal rats at PD
20-30 (Fig. 7A). This
result further excludes the possibility that the inability to produce LTP in
normal adults was caused by poor recording quality, because no significant
difference (p > 0.2) was found in the resting membrane potential,
input resistance, or series resistance between normal (-72 ± 2 mV; 95
± 6 M
, 21 ± 2 M
; n = 9) and dark-reared
adults (-75 ± 2 mV; 90 ± 7 M
, 22 ± 3 M
;
n = 8).
In contrast with LTP of EPSPs, LTD of IPSCs and field-LTP were both
consistently produced by TBS in the critical period and adulthood
(Fig. 8A,B),
consistent with the previous report for field-LTP
(Kirkwood et al., 1995
). At
the early stage (PD 13-15 for IPSCs, PD 11-13 for field potentials), these
TBS-induced modifications occurred less frequently, and at a smaller
magnitude, compared with the later two stages
(Fig. 8A,B). The
effect of dark rearing on field-LTP was also quite different from the effect
on LTP of EPSPs (Fig.
8B). No difference was found in field-LTP between normal
and dark-reared adults, as reported previously
(Kirkwood et al., 1995
).

View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 8. Age- and visual experience-dependent changes in TBS-induced synaptic
plasticity. Time course (left graph) and magnitude (right graph) of inhibitory
LTD (A) and field-LTP (B) are shown similarly to
Figure 7A. In the
right graph of A and B, values were determined as explained
in the legend of Figure 6
D, and the numbers on the symbols indicate the number of
cases tested (denominator) and those that showed inhibitory LTD or field-LTP
(numerator). Asterisks indicate values significantly different (p
< 0.05) from those at PD 20-30.
|
|
The NR2B component of NMDAR EPSCs, assessed by ifenprodil sensitivity
(Fig. 9A), declined
with age in a close correlation with the developmental change in LTP of EPSPs
(compare Figs. 9B,
7A). The value
decreased significantly (p < 0.05), both from PD 7-13 to PD 20-30
and from PD 20-30 to PD 60-90. In addition, the component was significantly
larger (p < 0.01) in dark-reared rats, compared with normal adults
(Fig. 9B), as was LTP
production. These results suggest that the change in the NR2B component is an
important factor in the regulation of the capability of LTP. It was reported
that age- and experience-dependent changes in the NR2B component estimated by
ifenprodil were consistent with those estimated biochemically with antibodies
for NR2 subunits in visual cortex (Quinlan
et al., 1999
).

View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 9. Age- and visual experience-dependent changes in NMDAR EPSC. A,
Typical examples of NMDAR EPSCs recorded from visualized pyramidal cells at
+40 mV. Average (n = 12) traces before and after the application of 3
µM ifenprodil are shown superimposed. The numbers on the traces
indicate the age of the rat. DR indicates dark-reared rats.B, NR2B
components assessed from the ifenprodil-induced reduction in NMDAR EPSC peak
amplitude. The numbers on the symbols indicate the number of tested cells.
C, Scatter plot of the weighted decay time constant for NMDAR EPSCs.
The horizontal bar indicates mean values. In both B and C,
the asterisks indicate values significantly different (p < 0.05)
from those at PD 20-30. The # symbol indicates that values for dark-reared
rats were significantly different from those for normal adults.
|
|
A developmental decline in NMDAR EPSC decay was reported for various
synapses (Hestrin, 1992
;
Crair and Malenka, 1995
),
including those in layer 4 cells of visual cortex where dark rearing prevented
the decline (Carmignoto and Vicini,
1992
). Because the duration of NMDAR EPSC may be an important
factor in determining the capability to produce plastic changes, we also
analyzed NMDAR EPSC decay, which was well fit with a double exponential curve,
as described previously (Carmignoto and
Vicini, 1992
). The decay time course was assessed by a time
constant derived from the fast and slow components, weighted depending on
amplitude (Philpot et al.,
2001
; Lu et al.,
2001
). The time constant decreased significantly (p <
0.007) from PD 7-13 to PD 20-30 but insignificantly (p > 0.3) from
PD 20-30 to PD 60-90 (Fig.
9C). We found no significant difference (p >
0.4) in the value between normal and dark-reared adults
(Fig. 9C), which was
different from the result reported for layer 4 synapses of visual cortex
(Carmignoto and Vicini, 1992
).
These results suggest that changes in the NR2B component rather than the decay
time of NMDAR EPSC underlie the age- and experience-dependent changes in
excitatory LTP.
 |
Discussion
|
|---|
The present study demonstrated that TBS produced LTD at inhibitory synapses
but not LTP at excitatory synapses in layer 2/3 pyramidal cells, whereas
pairing stimulation produced the latter modification
(Table 1). Inhibitory LTD
occurred in both developing and mature cortex, whereas excitatory LTP occurred
only during development, and dark rearing prevented this developmental
decline. Pharmacological experiments suggest that NR2A- and NR2B-containing
NMDARs contribute selectively to inhibitory LTD and excitatory LTP induction,
respectively. An intimate relationship between the NR2B component and
excitatory LTP production was suggested by their parallel changes with age and
visual deprivation.
Ineffectiveness of TBS to induce LTP at excitatory synapses
High-frequency stimulation effectively produced NMDAR-dependent LTP of
intracellularly and extracellularly recorded postsynaptic responses in visual
cortex (Artola and Singer,
1987
; Kimura et al.,
1989
; Kirkwood and Bear,
1994
). Therefore it was concluded that high-frequency stimulation
produces LTP at excitatory synapses, as in CA1 pyramidal cells where it is
established. In CA1 pyramidal cells, high-frequency stimulation also produces
NMDAR-dependent LTD at inhibitory synapses
(Stelzer et al., 1987
), which
increases the capability of EPSPs to elicit spikes. This change is reflected
in the relationship between the amplitude of population EPSPs and spikes in
field potentials before and after high-frequency stimulation, revealed using
various test stimulation intensities (Lu
et al., 2000
). In neocortex, however, EPSP and spike components of
field potentials are not clearly separated, making it difficult to know which
form of modification is produced. Thus we addressed this issue by analyzing
isolated excitatory and inhibitory responses and demonstrated that TBS
produced only inhibitory LTD, in contrast to the previous view. Thus it may be
necessary to reconsider cautiously previous studies on synaptic plasticity
using extracellular recording and high-frequency stimulation in neocortex.
This regional difference in the effect of high-frequency stimulation may be
ascribed, at least partly, to the difference in frequency-dependent
modification of EPSPs. Unlike CA1 pyramidal cells, EPSPs are depressed during
high-frequency stimulation in neocortical pyramidal cells, and this depression
is attributed to a reduction in transmitter release
(Thomson and Deuchars, 1994
;
Castro-Alamancos and Connors,
1997
). Excitatory LTP occurred far more frequently when
postsynaptic depolarization was paired with presynaptic stimulation at low
than at high frequency, despite fewer total stimuli with low-frequency (100
pulses) than high-frequency stimulation (240 pulses). Therefore, it is likely
that low-frequency stimulation can more effectively activate NMDARs and hence
induce excitatory LTP in layer 2/3 pyramidal cells, in such a condition that
postsynaptic cells fire in association with presynaptic spikes
(Feldman, 2000
). On the other
hand, TBS consistently produced inhibitory LTD, suggesting that inhibitory LTD
requires NMDAR activation and a resultant intracellular
Ca2+ elevation both at a level considerably lower than
does excitatory LTP in visual cortex.
Differential contribution of NR2 subunits to synaptic plasticity
NMDARs seem to be composed mainly of three subunit combinations, NR1/NR2A,
NR1/NR2B and NR1/NR2A/NR2B, in cerebral cortex
(Sheng et al., 1994
;
Luo et al., 1997
;
Vicini et al., 1998
;
Tovar and Westbrook, 1999
).
Ifenprodil blocks the NR1/NR2B-type NMDARs but seems only weakly effective for
NR1/NR2A- or NR1/NR2A/NR2B-type NMDARs
(Cull-Candy et al., 2001
).
Thus, it is likely that NR2A and NR2B components, discriminated by ifenprodil,
represent the NR1/NR2A- and NR1/NR2A/NR2B-type and NR1/NR2B-type NMDARs,
respectively. The differential contribution of NR2A and NR2B components to
inhibitory LTD and excitatory LTP might be explained merely by the difference
in the intracellular Ca2+ level required for these
modifications. Because NMDAR EPSCs decay faster when NMDARs contain more NR2A
than NR2B subunits (Flint et al.,
1997
; Vicini et al.,
1998
), those containing more of the former may allow less
Ca2+ entry and hence only the production of inhibitory
LTD. However, this explanation is unlikely, because two forms of modifications
were affected very differently by ifenprodil and D-APV using doses
at which both antagonists reduced NMDAR EPSCs by approximately half. In
addition, age- and experience-dependent changes in NMDAR EPSC decay were
clearly different from those in the NR2B component and excitatory LTP
production. Such dissociated developmental change was also found between the
NR2B component and NMDAR EPSC decay at thalamocortical synapses of barrel
cortex (Barth and Malenka,
2001
), and NMDAR EPSC decay can be regulated by mechanisms other
than NR2 subunit alteration (Shi et al.,
2000
).
A more plausible explanation for the differential contribution of NR2
subunits is suggested by a study using gene-targeted mice expressing NR2
subunits lacking the intracellular C-terminal domain
(Sprengel et al., 1998
). The
mice expressing any of the truncated NR2 subunits showed functional
impairments similar to those lacking that subunit totally, although
Ca2+ entry through truncated NR2 subunit-containing
NMDARs was normal. Because NMDAR activation may produce a high level of
intracellular Ca2+ elevation mostly in the vicinity of
the receptors (Regehr and Tank,
1994
), NMDARs containing each type of NR2 subunit could activate
separate downstream signal transduction molecules, leading to different
cellular responses, via the physical link made by a specific interaction of
these molecules and the C-terminal domain of each NR2 subunit
(Husi et al., 2000
). In CA1
pyramidal cells, high-frequency activation of excitatory synapses produces
homosynaptic LTP at excitatory synapses through the activation of protein
kinases (Bliss and Collingridge,
1993
; Malenka and Nicoll,
1999
) but heterosynaptic LTD at inhibitory synapses through the
activation of protein phosphatases (Lu et
al., 2000
). Thus in layer 2/3 pyramidal cells, NR2A and NR2B
subunits might contribute to the induction of these two forms of modification,
respectively, through their selective linkage to different downstream
molecules. Together with NMDAR activation, the activation of inhibitory
synapses may be necessary for the induction of inhibitory LTD, because LTD
seemed to occur only at inhibitory synapses activated by TBS, as was
demonstrated for NMDAR-dependent LTD of GABAergic synaptic transmission in
neonatal CA3 pyramidal cells (Caillard et
al., 1999
). When a direct postsynaptic depolarization produces
postsynaptic Ca2+ entry through voltage-gated
Ca2+ channels, inhibitory synapses undergo a transient
depression called depolarization-induced suppression of inhibition in
cerebellar Purkinje cells and hippocampal pyramidal cells
(Llano et al., 1991
;
Pitler and Alger, 1992
;
Maejima et al., 2001
). In
contrast to inhibitory LTD, it is unlikely that this transient depression
requires the activation of inhibitory synapses for induction.
LTP at thalamocortical synapses in barrel cortex is restricted to the first
postnatal week and blocked by ifenprodil
(Crair and Malenka, 1995
;
Lu et al., 2001
).
Developmental changes in that LTP production paralleled NR2B component
reduction (Barth and Malenka,
2001
), as shown here in layer 2/3 synapses, suggesting that
alteration in NR2 subunit composition contributes to the determination of the
critical period of LTP in sensory cortex. Furthermore, the present study
demonstrated that dark rearing maintained high levels of LTP production and
NR2B components. However, it was reported that in NR2A-lacking mutant mice,
the critical period for LTP production at thalamocortical synapses ended at
the same time as in wild-type mice, despite the maintenance of a high NR2B
level beyond that period (Lu et al.,
2001
). Therefore, it is likely that NR2B components are necessary
for LTP induction at excitatory synapses of sensory cortex, but it is not the
sole molecule determining the ability to produce LTP. Multiple steps of LTP
molecular mechanisms may be regulated developmentally and by experience.
Functional roles of two forms of synaptic plasticity
The two NMDAR-dependent modifications shown here may play different
functional roles. Although both excitatory LTP and inhibitory LTD cause
excitatory inputs to produce larger outputs, the latter may affect the
input-output relationship in a more generalized manner, depending on the
subcellular location of modified synapses. The difference in age dependence
suggests that excitatory LTP contributes to experience-dependent refinement of
developing cortical circuits, whereas inhibitory LTD contributes to plastic
changes occurring even in mature cortex
(Gilbert, 1998
).
The susceptibility of ocular dominance preference to monocular deprivation
in rat visual cortex is small around the time of eye opening, peaks around 4
weeks, and disappears in adults (Fagiolini
et al., 1994
). The decline of ocular dominance plasticity
coincides well with the later developmental phase of excitatory LTP.
Furthermore, when considered together, the previous studies
(Cynader and Mitchell, 1980
;
Fagiolini et al., 1994
) and
present findings indicate that dark rearing similarly delays both processes,
supporting the hypothesis that this LTP contributes to ocular dominance
plasticity. However, a disagreement in the initial phase is evident, because
LTP incidence was highest before eye opening. The NR2B component also
decreased after eye opening in rats, as shown here, and in ferrets
(Roberts and Ramoa, 1999
).
Thus one may argue that NR2B-dependent LTP is not directly involved in ocular
dominance plasticity; however, we could not rule out the possibility that this
LTP contributes to spontaneous activity as well as visual input-dependent
plasticity. Spontaneous activity of retinal ganglion cells occurring before
eye opening is thought to be indispensable for the segregation of inputs to
cortical cells from two eyes (Katz and
Shatz, 1996
).
It has been suggested that TBS-induced field-LTP could be the basis of
ocular dominance plasticity (Kirkwood et
al., 1995
). Such LTP in layer 2/3 exhibited age- and
experience-dependent changes in parallel with ocular dominance plasticity when
stimulation was applied to white matter but not layer 4
(Kirkwood et al., 1995
). These
authors proposed that the maturation of cortical inhibition is responsible for
the changes in white matter stimulation-induced field-LTP and ocular dominance
plasticity. Indeed, experimental modulation of GABAergic inhibition affected
the critical period of ocular dominance plasticity and age-dependent decline
of field-LTP (Hensch et al.,
1998a
; Huang et al.,
1999
). However, experiments using mutant mice lacking protein
kinases demonstrated an inconsistent relationship between field-LTP and ocular
dominance plasticity (Gordon et al.,
1996
; Kirkwood et al.,
1997
; Hensch et al.,
1998b
). The present finding of two forms of NMDAR-dependent
synaptic plasticity, which can be distinguished pharmacologically, may
contribute to the clarification of unresolved synaptic mechanisms underlying
the experience-dependent development of visual cortex.
 |
Footnotes
|
|---|
Received Apr. 2, 2003;
revised May. 16, 2003;
accepted May. 23, 2003.
This study was supported by grants from the Japanese Ministry of Education,
Culture, Science, Sports and Technology (12053228, 13480265, 13035018, and
13780652) and the Hori Information Science Promotion Foundation. We thank Dr.
E. M. Callaway for critical reading of this manuscript.
Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Yumiko Yoshimura, Department of
Visual Neuroscience, Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Nagoya
University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan. E-mail:
yyumiko{at}riem.nagoya-u.ac.jp.
Copyright © 2003 Society for Neuroscience
0270-6474/03/236557-10$15.00/0
 |
References
|
|---|
Artola A, Singer W (1987) Long-term potentiation and
NMDA receptors in rat visual cortex. Nature
330: 649-652.[Medline]
Barth AL, Malenka RC (2001) NMDAR EPSC kinetics do not
regulate the critical period for LTP at thalamocortical synapses. Nat
Neurosci 4:
235-236.[ISI][Medline]
Bear MF, Press WA, Connors BW (1992) Long-term
potentiation in slices of kitten visual cortex and the effects of NMDA
receptor blockade. J Neurophysiol 67:
841-851.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Bliss TVP, Collingridge GL (1993) A synaptic model of
memory: long-term potentiation in the hippocampus. Nature
361: 31-39.[Medline]
Buller AL, Monaghan DT (1997) Pharmacological
heterogeneity of NMDA receptors: characterization of NR1a/NR2D heteromers
expressed in Xenopus oocytes. Eur J Pharmacol
320: 87-94.[ISI][Medline]
Caillard O, Ben-Ari Y, Gaïarsa J-L (1999)
Mechanism of induction and expression of long-term depression at GABAergic
synapses in the neonatal rat hippocampus. J Neurosci
19: 7568-7577.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Carmignoto G, Vicini S (1992) Activity-dependent
decrease in NMDA receptor responses during development of the visual cortex.
Science 258:
1007-1011.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Castro-Alamancos MA, Connors BW (1997) Distinct forms
of short-term plasticity at excitatory synapses of hippocampus and neocortex.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:
4161-4166.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Chenard BL, Menniti FS (1999) Antagonists selective
for NMDA receptors containing NR2B subunit. Curr Pharm Des
5: 381-404.[ISI][Medline]
Connors BW, Gutnick MJ (1990) Intrinsic firing
patterns of diverse neocortical neurons. Trends Neurosci
13: 99-104.[ISI][Medline]
Crair MC, Malenka RC (1995) A critical period for
long-term potentiation at thalamocortical synapses. Nature
375: 325-328.[Medline]
Cull-Candy S, Brickley S, Ferrant M (2001) NMDA
receptor subunits: diversity, development and disease. Curr Opin
Neurobiol 11:
327-335.[ISI][Medline]
Cynader M, Mitchell DE (1980) Prolonged sensitivity to
monocular deprivation in dark-reared cats. J Neurophysiol
43: 1026-1040.[Free Full Text]
Fagiolini M, Pizzorusso T, Berardi N, Domenici L, Maffei L
(1994) Functional postnatal development of the rat primary visual
cortex and the role of visual experience: dark rearing and monocular
deprivation. Vision Res 34:
709-720.[ISI][Medline]
Feldman DE (2000) Timing-based LTP and LTD at vertical
inputs to layer II/III pyramidal cells in rat barrel cortex.
Neuron 27:
45-56.[ISI][Medline]
Fischer G, Mutel V, Trube G, Malherbe P, Kew JNC, Mohacsi E, Heitz
MP, Kemp JA (1997) Ro 25-6981, a highly potent and selective
blocker of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors containing the
NR2B subunit. Characterization in vitro. J Pharmacol Exp
Ther 283:
1285-1292.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Flint AC, Maisch US, Weishaupt JH, Kriegstein AR, Monyer H
(1997) NR2A subunit expression shortens NMDA receptor synaptic
currents in developing neocortex. J Neurosci
17: 2469-2476.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Fox K, Daw NW (1993) Do NMDA receptors have a critical
function in visual cortical plasticity? Trends Neurosci
16: 116-122.[ISI][Medline]
Frégnac Y, Imbert M (1984) Development of
neuronal selectivity in primary visual cortex of cat. Physiol
Rev 64:
325-434.[Free Full Text]
Gilbert CD (1998) Adult cortical dynamics.
Physiol Rev 78:
467-485.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Gordon JA, Cioffi D, Silva AJ, Stryker MP (1996)
Deficient plasticity in the primary visual cortex of
-calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II mutant mice.
Neuron 17:
491-499.[ISI][Medline]
Hensch TK, Fagiolini M, Mataga N, Stryker MP, Baekkeskov S, Kash SF
(1998a) Local GABA circuit control of experience-dependent
plasticity in developing visual cortex. Science
282: 1504-1508.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Hensch TK, Gordon JA, Brandon EP, McKnight GS, Idzerda RL, Stryker
MP (1998b) Comparison of plasticity in vivo and in
vitro in the developing visual cortex of normal and protein kinase A
RI
-deficient mice. J Neurosci 18:
2108-2117.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Hestrin S (1992) Developmental regulation of NMDA
receptor-mediated synaptic currents at a central synapse.
Nature 357:
686-689.[Medline]
Huang ZJ, Kirkwood A, Pizzorusso T, Porciatti V, Morales B, Bear
MF, Maffei L, Tonegawa S (1999) BDNF regulates the maturation of
inhibition and the critical period of plasticity in mouse visual cortex.
Cell 98:
739-755.[ISI][Medline]
Husi H, Ward MA, Choudhary JS, Blackstock WP, Grant SGN
(2000) Proteomic analysis of NMDA receptor-adhesion protein
signaling complexes. Nat Neurosci 3:
661-669.[ISI][Medline]
Katz LC, Shatz CJ (1996) Synaptic activity and the
construction of cortical circuits. Science
274: 1133-1138.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Kimura F, Nishigori A, Shirokawa T, Tsumoto T (1989)
Long-term potentiation and N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors
in the visual cortex of young rats. J Physiol (Lond)
414: 125-144.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Kirkwood A, Bear MF (1994) Hebbian synapses in visual
cortex. J Neurosci 14:
1634-1645.[Abstract]
Kirkwood A, Lee H-K, Bear MF (1995) Co-regulation of
long-term potentiation and experience-dependent synaptic plasticity in visual
cortex by age and experience. Nature
375: 328-331.[Medline]
Kirkwood A, Silva A, Bear MF (1997) Age-dependent
decrease of synaptic plasticity in the neocortex of
CaMKII mutant mice.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:
3380-3383.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Komatsu Y (1994) Age-dependent long-term potentiation
of inhibitory synaptic transmission in rat visual cortex. J
Neurosci 4:
6488-6499.
Komatsu Y, Iwakiri M (1993) Long-term modification of
inhibitory synaptic transmission in developing visual cortex.
NeuroReport 4:
907-910.[ISI][Medline]
Komatsu Y, Nakajima S, Toyama K (1991) Induction of
long-term potentiation without participation of
N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors in kitten visual cortex.
J Neurophysiol 65:
20-32.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Llano I, Leresche N, Marty A (1991) Calcium entry
increases the sensitivity of cerebellar Purkinje cells to applied GABA and
decreases inhibitory synaptic currents. Neuron
6: 565-574.