Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Symposia and Mini-SymposiaM

Developmental Plasticity of Inhibitory Circuitry

Sarah L. Pallas, Peter Wenner, Carlos Gonzalez-Islas, Michela Fagiolini, Khaleel A. Razak, Gunsoo Kim, Dan Sanes and Birgit Roerig
Journal of Neuroscience 11 October 2006, 26 (41) 10358-10361; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3516-06.2006
Sarah L. Pallas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Wenner
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carlos Gonzalez-Islas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michela Fagiolini
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Khaleel A. Razak
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gunsoo Kim
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dan Sanes
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Birgit Roerig
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

In 1949, Donald Hebb proposed a mechanism for use-dependent synaptic plasticity, suggesting that input neurons that reliably activate their postsynaptic target will strengthen their connections (Hebb, 1949). Since then, studies of use-dependent plasticity during development have been almost entirely focused on excitatory synapses, particularly those incorporating NMDA receptors (NMDARs). Neural circuits depend heavily on inhibition, however. Although there have been several in vitro studies of possible synaptic mechanisms underlying inhibitory plasticity (Pitler and Alger, 1992, 1994; Komatsu, 1994; Kano, 1995; Zilberter, 2000; Kreitzer and Regehr, 2001; Wilson and Nicoll, 2001; Kilman et al., 2002; Maffei et al., 2006), little is known at the systems level about use-dependent plasticity of inhibitory synapses. The realization that “inhibitory” neurotransmitters often depolarize immature neurons (Ben-Ari, 2002) further complicates the picture. This issue is important because clinical treatments for epilepsy, sensory dysfunction, or brain damage need to be informed by an understanding of both excitatory and inhibitory components of the circuits they are aimed at influencing. This mini-symposium, presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, will address the roles and mechanisms of inhibitory synaptic plasticity during development of the mammalian CNS, using primarily in vivo approaches to examine circuit-level plasticity in a wide array of model systems. The goal of the mini-symposium is to bring this important research area into the spotlight and to encourage other investigators to participate in developing a better understanding of this underappreciated issue.

Inhibitory plasticity in motor systems

The transient presence of episodic bursts of spontaneous network activity (SNA) is observed throughout the developing CNS. In the spinal cord, SNA is important for axon guidance, motoneuron survival, neurochemical expression, and joint and muscle development (O'Donovan et al., 1998). Despite its importance, the role of SNA in the maturation of spinal connectivity is poorly understood. In the laboratory of Peter Wenner, co-chair of the mini-symposium, postdoctoral fellow Carlos Gonzalez-Islas has been investigating the role of SNA in homeostatic plasticity within the embryonic chick spinal cord. Despite significant developmental challenges to the production of SNA, it is clear that the network is capable of maintaining its activity levels (Chub and O'Donovan, 1998). Wenner and Gonzalez-Islas hypothesized that SNA is maintained through compensatory changes in synaptic strength. To test this hypothesis, they reduced network activity with lidocaine for 2 d in ovo. This increased the strength of both glutamatergic synapses and immature, depolarizing GABAergic synapses (Gonzalez-Islas and Wenner, 2006) and accelerated the modulation of GABAergic synaptic strength normally observed between episodes of SNA. Together, these compensatory responses appeared to increase the excitability of the embryonic spinal cord in an attempt to maintain appropriate SNA levels. Homeostatic regulation of SNA via changes in synaptic strength may therefore drive a coordinated maturation of GABAergic and AMPAergic synaptic strength at a dynamic developmental stage when both transmitters are excitatory.

Inhibitory plasticity in sensory systems

Visual cortical circuits are sculpted by sensory experience during critical periods (CPs) in early life. Even brief monocular occlusion results in a permanent loss of visual acuity through the deprived eye (amblyopia) (Daw, 1995; Prusky and Douglas, 2003). Michela Fagiolini will discuss her work in Takao Hensch's laboratory at the RIKEN Brain Science Institute on the role of inhibition in this ocular dominance plasticity. GABAA receptors incorporating the α1 subunit mediate the competition between the eyes (Fagiolini et al., 2004). Interestingly, the α1 subunits are enriched opposite parvalbumin (PV)-positive synaptic boutons innervating the soma-proximal dendrite (SPD) but not the axon initial segment of pyramidal cells (Klausberger et al., 2002), suggesting highly precise points of information transfer and regulation (Pouille and Scanziani, 2004). To determine whether the SPD exhibits maturational changes predictive of CP onset, Fagiolini and colleagues examined these two sites at high spatial resolution, using laser photo-uncaging. In addition, benzodiazepine sensitivity was investigated in animals lacking the ability to synthesize GABA. The GAD65 knock-out mouse fails to enter the CP but can be made plastic by treating with the GABA agonist diazepam (DZ) (Hensch et al., 1998; Iwai et al., 2003). Natural CP timing can similarly be accelerated with DZ in immature wild-type mice (Fagiolini and Hensch, 2000). Their results reveal a dynamic regulation of GABA receptor number, specifically at the SPD, that is predictive of CP onset. Moreover, complete sensory deprivation and repeated DZ treatment had strikingly similar effects, optimizing somatic GABA receptor number and the induction of CP plasticity. The findings have important implications for the understanding and potential treatment of amblyopia, which is the behavioral consequence of reduced ocular dominance (Daw, 1995; Prusky and Douglas, 2003).

In experiments done in the laboratory of the mini-symposium chair, Sarah Pallas, using dark-reared Syrian hamsters, a species born very early in brain development, it was shown that receptive fields in superior colliculus (SC) could refine normally without visual experience. Refinement was lost in adulthood, however, in the continued absence of light (Carrasco et al., 2005). Reexposure to light in adulthood could not reverse the effects of early dark rearing, but 30 d of exposure to light in juveniles protected against later deprivation (Carrasco and Pallas, 2006). The failure to maintain refinement occurred at least in part through a reduction in surround inhibition (Carrasco et al., 2005). Thus, early sensory experience is required to maintain a balance between inhibitory and excitatory inputs to SC circuits in adulthood.

In another series of studies in the Pallas laboratory, Khaleel Razak examined plasticity of stimulus tuning in the visual system. Velocity tuning is important for visual motion processing, a task that uses the SC of hamsters. In the hamster SC, most neurons depend on surround inhibition for velocity tuning (Razak and Pallas, 2005). Experimentally enlarging the excitatory receptive field (eRF) by chronically blocking NMDAR during development (Huang and Pallas, 2001) increases the relative amount of time that a moving stimulus spends in the eRF versus the inhibitory surround [(inhibitory receptive field (iRF)], predicting that NMDAR blockade should alter velocity tuning. However, this was not the case (Razak et al., 2003), suggesting that changes in the iRF compensate for increases in the eRF size. Razak and Pallas found that the chronic NMDAR blockade increased the strength and extent of the iRF and that the dependence of velocity selectivity on the iRF was greater in the NMDAR-blocked group than in controls. These results show that inhibitory plasticity can maintain homeostatic balance at the circuit level, compensating for developmentally induced changes in excitation.

Velocity tuning is also seen in the auditory system of bats. Khaleel Razak will report on his and Zoltan Fuzessery's work on plasticity of velocity tuning in pallid bats. Most echolocation-sensitive cortical neurons in pallid bats exhibit neural selectivity for the downward rate of the frequency-modulated (FM) sweeps of their echolocation calls, a property akin to velocity tuning in the visual system. These neurons depend on a delayed, high-frequency band of inhibition for their selectivity (Razak and Fuzessery, 2006). At postnatal day 14 (P14), when the bat first hears echolocation frequencies, adult-like FM rate tuning and the underlying inhibitory mechanism are already present, suggesting that the initial development of selectivity is essentially independent of experience. To determine whether maintenance of this tuning requires echolocation experience, bat pups were isolated before P14 and their calls were silenced. This led to a reduction in high-frequency inhibition and an alteration in its timing, resulting in abnormal selectivity. Like the work on dark-reared hamsters, these data suggest that activity driven by experience is necessary for the maintenance of refined tuning in sensory circuits and that plasticity of inhibition is a mechanism through which experience can affect neural selectivity for sensory stimuli.

In the mammalian auditory brainstem, the lateral superior olive (LSO) is a binaural nucleus that uses interaural sound intensity differences to report sound location. In adults, it receives tonotopically organized excitatory inputs from the ipsilateral cochlear nucleus and inhibitory inputs from the contralateral side via the medial nucleus of the trapezoid body (MNTB). The topography of the MNTB–LSO projection becomes refined during development (Sanes and Siverts, 1991; Sanes et al., 1992; Kim and Kandler, 2003) and thus serves as a model system for studying the development of inhibitory circuits. Gunsoo Kim will present his evidence from Karl Kandler's laboratory supporting the idea that cochlea-generated spontaneous activity is crucial for the topographic refinement of the MNTB–LSO pathway. Before hearing onset, cholinergic efferent neurons in the brainstem suppressed spontaneous firing of inner hair cells in the cochlea (Glowatzki and Fuchs, 2000) and contributed to burst-like activity (Walsh and McGee, 1997). Kim and Kandler investigated how disruption of this cholinergic inhibition influences the refinement of inhibitory sound localization circuits. Using electrophysiological mapping of MNTB–LSO connectivity, they found that the topographic refinement of developing GABA/glycinergic connections was significantly impaired in rats subjected to surgical lesion of the efferent pathway and in α9 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor knock-out mice in which inner hair cells lack cholinergic responses (Vetter et al., 1999). These results indicate that the early, transient cholinergic innervation of cochlear hair cells plays an important role in the establishment of the precise organization of this auditory inhibitory circuit, likely by modulating spontaneous activity.

Deprivation or abnormal experience often perturbs response properties of excitatory sensory neurons. Evidence from the Sanes laboratory demonstrates that inhibitory neurons react similarly. Sanes pioneered investigations into the plasticity of inhibitory synapses in the 1980s using the auditory brainstem of gerbils (Sanes and Rubel, 1988), a rodent species with an audiogram that primarily overlaps that of humans. He will report on two studies done in collaboration with Carmen Vale and Vibhakar Kotak showing how hearing loss alters inhibitory synaptic function. They found that, after bilateral hearing loss, inhibitory synaptic strength was profoundly reduced in inferior colliculus (IC) and auditory cortex (A1) neurons recorded in brain slice preparations. One cause of this change is the disruption of chloride homeostasis. In the IC of deafened animals, synaptically released GABA could not hyperpolarize the postsynaptic neurons (Vale et al., 2003). The synaptic release properties were also disrupted; paired-pulse facilitation was nearly eliminated after hearing loss (Vale and Sanes, 2000). In A1, intracortical inhibitory synaptic potentials were decreased in amplitude after hearing loss (Kotak et al., 2005). Receptor trafficking may account in part for this effect: GABAA receptor isoforms were membrane associated in hearing animals but intracellular in deafened animals. In both IC and A1, the loss of inhibitory drive was accompanied by enhanced excitatory responses (Vale and Sanes, 2002; Kotak et al., 2005). Thus, changes in synaptic properties after deafness may reflect an attempt by the central auditory system to maintain homeostasis of cortical excitability. Together, results from the Sanes and Kandler laboratories emphasize the dynamic nature of inhibitory gain and suggest that endogenous activity regulates inhibitory synaptic strength during development in the auditory system.

Inhibitory neuronal morphology can be regulated by dopamine

GABAergic and dopaminergic neurons interact closely in regulating prefrontal cortical function, and alterations in these transmitter systems underlie a number of neuropsychiatric disorders (Abi-Dargham et al., 2002). Despite the importance of inhibitory interneurons in shaping cortical response properties and network behavior, however, little is known about the factors regulating postnatal development of different interneuron types. Birgit Roerig, who unfortunately will be unable to attend the meeting, investigated the effect of a dopamine D2 receptor (D2R) null mutation on the development of a class of PV-containing GABAergic interneurons (Celio, 1986; Hendry et al., 1989; Soriano et al., 1992; del Rio et al., 1994; Kawaguchi and Kubota, 1997) in the mouse prefrontal cortex. She found a dramatic reduction in the number of PV-immunoreactive neurons and in the frequency and amplitude of IPSCs. Dendritic differentiation of D2R-expressing layer 5 pyramidal cells was also impaired in the D2R null animal, indicating that D2 receptor signaling is involved in dendritic growth and refinement. In view of these results, the D2 null mutant represents an interesting model system to study how the absence of a single neuromodulatory transmitter receptor affects the development of selective cell populations and the structure and function of synaptic circuits in the prefrontal area. In addition to its potential relevance for understanding the cellular mechanisms of mental diseases, it also provides information on the regulation of the development of different interneuron populations, an essentially unexplored area.

Summary

A growing body of evidence suggests that plasticity at GABAergic synapses is of critical importance during development and aging. A balance between excitation and inhibition maintains homeostasis at the neuronal and circuit levels, and inhibitory plasticity can function to drive a perturbed system toward homeostasis. Activity-dependent modification of inhibitory synaptic strength must be non-Hebbian, however, because the interaction between an inhibitory neuron and its target prevents them from firing together. Mechanisms that may underlie inhibitory plasticity will be discussed, including the possibility that it is limited to the early period when GABA/glycine release is excitatory (Ben-Ari, 2002) or that corelease of another substance alters synapses that produce inhibition (Gillespie et al., 2005). Alternatively, inhibitory synapses may decline in strength through long-term depression (Kotak et al., 2001; Chang et al., 2003), or an as-yet undiscovered mechanism may be responsible. Whatever the mechanism, it is clear that inhibitory plasticity plays an important role in activity-dependent modification of developing circuits.

Footnotes

  • This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants NS046510 (P.W.), EY12696 (S.L.P.), EY12702 (B.R.), DC006864 (D.S.), DC05202 (to Zoltan Fuzessery), and DC4199 (to Karl Kandler), and National Science Foundation Grants IBN-0078110 (S.L.P.) and IOB-0616097 (P.W.).

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Sarah L. Pallas, Graduate Program in Neurobiology and Behavior, Department of Biology, Georgia State University, 24 Peachtree Center Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303. spallas{at}gsu.edu

References

  1. ↵
    1. Abi-Dargham A,
    2. Mawlawi O,
    3. Lombardo I,
    4. Gil R,
    5. Martinez D,
    6. Huang Y,
    7. Hwang DR,
    8. Keilp J,
    9. Kochan L,
    10. Van Heertum R,
    11. Gorman JM,
    12. Laruelle M
    (2002) Prefrontal dopamine D1 receptors and working memory in schizophrenia. J Neurosci 22:3708–3719.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Ben-Ari Y
    (2002) Excitatory actions of GABA during development: the nature of the nurture. Nat Rev Neurosci 3:728–739.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Carrasco MM,
    2. Pallas SL
    (2006) Early visual experience prevents but cannot reverse deprivation-induced loss of refinement in adult superior colliculus. Vis Neurosci, in press.
  4. ↵
    1. Carrasco MM,
    2. Razak KA,
    3. Pallas SL
    (2005) Visual experience is necessary for maintenance but not development of refined retinotopic maps in superior colliculus. J Neurophysiol 94:1962–1970.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Celio MR
    (1986) Parvalbumin in most gamma-aminobutyric acid-containing neurons of the rat cerebral cortex. Science 231:995–997.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Chang EH,
    2. Kotak VC,
    3. Sanes DH
    (2003) Long-term depression of synaptic inhibition is expressed postsynaptically in the developing auditory system. J Neurophysiol 90:1479–1488.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Chub N,
    2. O'Donovan MJ
    (1998) Blockade and recovery of spontaneous rhythmic activity after application of neurotransmitter antagonists to spinal networks of the chick embryo. J Neurosci 18:294–306.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Daw N
    (1995) Visual development (Plenum, New York).
  9. ↵
    1. del Rio JA,
    2. de Lecea L,
    3. Ferrer I,
    4. Soriano E
    (1994) The development of parvalbumin-immunoreactivity in the neocortex of the mouse. Brain Res Dev Brain Res 81:247–259.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Fagiolini M,
    2. Hensch TK
    (2000) Inhibitory threshold for critical-period activation in primary visual cortex. Nature 404:183–186.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Fagiolini M,
    2. Fritschy J-M,
    3. Löw K,
    4. Möhler H,
    5. Rudolph U,
    6. Hensch TK
    (2004) Specific GABAA circuits for visual cortical plasticity. Science 303:1681–1683.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Gillespie DC,
    2. Kim G,
    3. Kandler K
    (2005) Inhibitory synapses in the developing auditory system are glutamatergic. Nat Neurosci 8:332–338.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Glowatzki E,
    2. Fuchs PA
    (2000) Cholinergic synaptic inhibition of inner hair cells in the neonatal mammalian cochlea. Science 288:2366–2368.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Gonzalez-Islas C,
    2. Wenner P
    (2006) Spontaneous network activity in the embryonic spinal cord regulates AMPAergic and GABAergic synaptic strength. Neuron 49:563–575.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Hebb DO
    (1949) The organization of behavior (Wiley, New York).
  16. ↵
    1. Hendry SH,
    2. Jones EG,
    3. Emson PC,
    4. Lawson DE,
    5. Heizmann CW,
    6. Streit P
    (1989) Two classes of cortical GABA neurons defined by differential calcium binding protein immunoreactivities. Exp Brain Res 76:467–472.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Hensch TK,
    2. Fagiolini M,
    3. Mataga N,
    4. Stryker MP,
    5. Baekkeskov S,
    6. Kash SF
    (1998) Local GABA circuit control of experience-dependent plasticity in developing visual cortex. Science 282:1504–1508.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Huang L,
    2. Pallas SL
    (2001) NMDA antagonists in the superior colliculus prevent developmental plasticity but not visual transmission or map compression. J. Neurophysiol 86:1179–1194.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Iwai Y,
    2. Fagiolini M,
    3. Obata K,
    4. Hensch TK
    (2003) Rapid critical period induction by tonic inhibition in visual cortex. J Neurosci 23:6695–6702.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Kano M
    (1995) Plasticity of inhibitory synapses in the brain: a possible memory mechanism that has been overlooked. Neurosci Res 21:177–182.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Kawaguchi Y,
    2. Kubota Y
    (1997) GABAergic cell subtypes and their synaptic connections in rat frontal cortex. Cereb Cortex 7:476–486.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Kilman V,
    2. van Rossum MC,
    3. Turrigiano GG
    (2002) Activity deprivation reduces miniature IPSC amplitude by decreasing the number of postsynaptic GABAA receptors clustered at neocortical synapses. J Neurosci 22:1328–1337.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Kim G,
    2. Kandler K
    (2003) Elimination and strengthening of glycinergic/GABAergic connections during tonotopic map formation. Nat Neurosci 6:282–290.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Klausberger T,
    2. Roberts JD,
    3. Somogyi P
    (2002) Cell type- and input-specific differences in the number and subtypes of synaptic GABAA receptors in the hippocampus. J Neurosci 22:2513–2521.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Komatsu Y
    (1994) Age-dependent long-term potentiation of inhibitory synaptic transmission in rat visual cortex. J Neurosci 14:6488–6499.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  26. ↵
    1. Kotak VC,
    2. DiMattina C,
    3. Sanes DH
    (2001) GABAB and Trk receptor signaling mediates long-lasting inhibitory synaptic depression. J Neurophysiol 86:536–540.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Kotak VC,
    2. Fujisawa S,
    3. Lee FA,
    4. Karthikeyan O,
    5. Aoki C,
    6. Sanes DH
    (2005) Hearing loss raises excitability in the auditory cortex. J Neurosci 25:3908–3918.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Kreitzer AC,
    2. Regehr WG
    (2001) J Neurosci, Cerebellar depolarization-induced suppression of inhibition is mediated by endogenous cannabinoids. (1–5) 21, p RC174.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Maffei A,
    2. Nataraj K,
    3. Nelson SB,
    4. Turrigiano GG
    (2006) Potentiation of cortical inhibition by visual deprivation. Nature 443:81–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. O'Donovan MJ,
    2. Chub N,
    3. Wenner P
    (1998) Mechanisms of spontaneous activity in developing spinal networks. J Neurobiol 37:131–145.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Pitler TA,
    2. Alger BE
    (1992) Postsynaptic spike firing reduces synaptic GABAA responses in hippocampal pyramidal cells. J Neurosci 12:4122–4132.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  32. ↵
    1. Pitler TA,
    2. Alger BE
    (1994) Depolarization-induced suppression of GABAergic inhibition in rat hippocampal pyramidal cells: G protein involvement in a presynaptic mechanism. Neuron 13:1447–1455.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Pouille F,
    2. Scanziani M
    (2004) Routing of spike series by dynamic circuits in the hippocampus. Nature 429:717–723.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Prusky GT,
    2. Douglas RM
    (2003) Developmental plasticity of mouse visual acuity. Eur J Neurosci 17:167–173.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Razak KA,
    2. Fuzessery ZM
    (2006) Neural mechanisms underlying selectivity for the rate and direction of frequency modulated sweeps in the auditory cortex. J Neurophysiol 96:1303–1319.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Razak KA,
    2. Pallas SL
    (2005) Neural mechanisms of stimulus velocity tuning in the superior colliculus. J Neurophysiol 94:3573–3589.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Razak KA,
    2. Huang L,
    3. Pallas SL
    (2003) Chronic NMDA receptor blockade increases receptive field size without affecting stimulus velocity or size tuning of superior colliculus neurons. J Neurophysiol 90:110–119.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Sanes DH,
    2. Rubel EW
    (1988) The ontogeny of inhibition and excitation in the gerbil lateral superior olive. J Neurosci 8:682–700.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  39. ↵
    1. Sanes DH,
    2. Siverts V
    (1991) Development and specificity of inhibitory terminal arborizations in the central nervous system. J Neurobiol 22:837–854.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Sanes DH,
    2. Song J,
    3. Tyson J
    (1992) Refinement of dendritic arbors along the tonotopic axis of the gerbil lateral superior olive. Brain Res Dev Brain Res 67:47–55.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Soriano E,
    2. Del Rio JA,
    3. Ferrer I,
    4. Auladell C,
    5. De Lecea L,
    6. Alcantara S
    (1992) Late appearance of parvalbumin-immunoreactive neurons in the rodent cerebral cortex does not follow an “inside-out” sequence. Neurosci Lett 142:147–150.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Vale C,
    2. Sanes DH
    (2000) Afferent regulation of inhibitory synaptic transmission in the developing auditory midbrain. J Neurosci 20:1912–1921.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Vale C,
    2. Sanes DH
    (2002) The effect of bilateral deafness on excitatory synaptic strength in the auditory midbrain. Eur J Neurosci 16:2394–2404.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Vale C,
    2. Schoorlemmer J,
    3. Sanes DH
    (2003) Deafness disrupts chloride transporter function and inhibitory synaptic transmission. J Neurosci 23:7516–7524.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    1. Vetter DE,
    2. Liberman MC,
    3. Mann J,
    4. Barhanin J,
    5. Boulter J,
    6. Brown MC,
    7. Saffiote-Kolman J,
    8. Heinemann SF,
    9. Elgoyhen AB
    (1999) Role of alpha9 nicotinic ACh receptor subunits in the development and function of cochlear efferent innervation. Neuron 23:93–103.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Lewis ER,
    2. Long GR,
    3. Lyon RF,
    4. Narins PM,
    5. Steele CR,
    6. Hecht-Poinar E
    1. Walsh EJ,
    2. McGee J
    (1997) in Diversity in auditory mechanics, Does activity in the olivocochlear bundle affect development of the auditory periphery? eds Lewis ER, Long GR, Lyon RF, Narins PM, Steele CR, Hecht-Poinar E (World Scientific, Singapore), pp 376–385.
  47. ↵
    1. Wilson RI,
    2. Nicoll RA
    (2001) Endogenous cannabinoids mediate retrograde signalling at hippocampal synapses. Nature 410:588–592.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Zilberter Y
    (2000) Dendritic release of glutamate suppresses synaptic inhibition of pyramidal neurons in rat neocortex. J Physiol (Lond) 528:489–496.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 26 (41)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 26, Issue 41
11 Oct 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Developmental Plasticity of Inhibitory Circuitry
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Developmental Plasticity of Inhibitory Circuitry
Sarah L. Pallas, Peter Wenner, Carlos Gonzalez-Islas, Michela Fagiolini, Khaleel A. Razak, Gunsoo Kim, Dan Sanes, Birgit Roerig
Journal of Neuroscience 11 October 2006, 26 (41) 10358-10361; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3516-06.2006

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Developmental Plasticity of Inhibitory Circuitry
Sarah L. Pallas, Peter Wenner, Carlos Gonzalez-Islas, Michela Fagiolini, Khaleel A. Razak, Gunsoo Kim, Dan Sanes, Birgit Roerig
Journal of Neuroscience 11 October 2006, 26 (41) 10358-10361; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3516-06.2006
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Inhibitory plasticity in motor systems
    • Inhibitory plasticity in sensory systems
    • Inhibitory neuronal morphology can be regulated by dopamine
    • Summary
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Nutrition, Brain Aging, and Neurodegeneration
  • Functional Properties of Synaptic Transmission in Primary Sense Organs
  • The Brain in Its Body: Motor Control and Sensing in a Biomechanical Context
Show more Symposia and Mini-Symposia
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.