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
Brief Communications

Functional and Morphological Differences among Intrinsically Photosensitive Retinal Ganglion Cells

Tiffany M. Schmidt and Paulo Kofuji
Journal of Neuroscience 14 January 2009, 29 (2) 476-482; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4117-08.2009
Tiffany M. Schmidt
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paulo Kofuji
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Additional Files
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Morphological characteristics of M1 and M2 cells. A1, B1, Whole-mount retinas of M1 and M2 cells filled with Neurobiotin (green) and immunostained for ChAT (red), a cholinergic amacrine cell marker. A1, M1 cell with dendrites stratifying solely in sublamina a of the IPL. A2, Tracings of M1 cells to show dendritic morphology. B1, M2 cell with dendrites stratifying solely in the sublamina b of the IPL. B2, Tracings of M2 cells to show dendritic morphology. C, Dendritic field diameter and total dendritic length of M1 (red; n = 16) and M2 (black; n = 13) cells. Mean dendritic field diameter and total dendritic length of M1 (green) and M2 (blue) cells are shown. D, Soma diameter of M1 (red: n = 16) and M2 (black: n = 13) cells. Mean soma diameter of M1 (red bar) and M2 (black bar) cells. E, F, M1 (green) and M2 (magenta) dendrites of neighboring M1 (yellow arrow) and M2 (white arrow) cells filled with Neurobiotin. ChAT, Choline acetyl transferase, IPL, inner plexiform layer. Scale bars: 50 μm.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Intrinsic light responses of M1 and M2 cells in whole-mount Opn4-EGFP mouse retinas. All light responses recorded in the presence of synaptic blockers and TTX. A, Left, EGFP signal under epifluorescent illumination of M1 (gray arrow) and M2 (white arrow) cell targeted for dual whole-cell current-clamp recordings. Right, Responses in current-clamp mode of M1 (gray trace) and M2 (black trace) cells shown in left panel to a 30 s white light stimulus. B, Left, EGFP signal under epifluorescent illumination of M1 (gray arrow) and M2 (white arrow) cell targeted for dual whole-cell voltage-clamp recordings. Right, Responses in voltage-clamp mode of M1 (gray trace) and M2 (black trace) cells shown in the left panel to a 30 s white light stimulus. C, Maximum depolarization evoked by single 30 s white light stimulus measured in current-clamp mode of M1 (gray; n = 17) and M2 (black; n = 19) cells. Mean depolarization of M1 (gray bar) and M2 (black bar) cells. D, Maximum current evoked by single 30 s white light stimulus measured in voltage-clamp mode of M1 (gray; n = 13) and M2 (black; n = 19) cells. Mean maximum current of M1 (gray bar) and M2 (black bar) cells. E, Brightness (in AUs) of epifluorescence of EGFP signal for pairs containing one M1 and one M2 cell. F, Irradiance response curves for M1 (gray; IR50 ∼ 3.25 × 1012 photons · cm−2 · s−1) and M2 (black; IR50 ∼ 3.44 × 1013 photons · cm−2 · s−1) generated by stimulating cells with increasing intensities of a 5 s 480 nm light stimulus. G, Nucleated patch recordings were made in control solution from M2 cells (n = 5). H, I, Average of 5–7 light responses recorded from nucleated patches of two cells (cell 1, left panels; cell 2, right panels) in current-clamp mode to a fixed, bright 5 s (H) or 30 s (I) white light stimulus. J, Expanded view of first 1 s of 30 s light stimulation for cell 1 (left panel) and cell 2 (right panel). Scale bars: 50 μm. IR50, Irradiance yielding half-maximal response.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Responses of M1 and M2 cells to hyperpolarizing current pulses. Recordings were performed in the presence of synaptic blockers. A, B, Responses of M1 (A) and M2 (B) cells to 1 s hyperpolarizing current injection. Values to the right of the steps indicate the maximum current injection shown. C, RN and Vm of M1 (red; n = 23) and M2 (black; n = 25) cells. Mean RN and Vm shown for M1 (green bars) and M2 (blue bars) cells. D, Mean ± SE voltage response of M1 (red, n = 15) and M2 (black, n = 12) cells to hyperpolarizing current steps. Current injections were divided by capacitance of the cells to facilitate averaging (bin = 0.5 pA/pF). Points were fit with linear regression. RN, Input resistance; Vm, resting membrane potential.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Responses of M1 and M2 cells to depolarizing current pulses. Recordings were performed in the presence of synaptic blockers. A, B, Representative response of M1 (A) and M2 (B) cells to 1 s depolarizing current injection. Values to the right of the current steps indicate maximum current injection shown. C, Instantaneous frequency of the first interspike interval for M1 cell in A (gray) and M2 cell in B (black). D, Average firing rate for duration of 1 s depolarizing steps for M1 cell in A (gray) and M2 cell in B (black). E, Instantaneous frequency over time for M1 cell in A. F, Instantaneous frequency over time for M2 cell in B. G, Mean ± SE instantaneous frequency of the first interspike interval (circles) and mean ± SE firing rate (squares) during current injection for M1 (gray, n = 15) and M2 (black, n = 12) cells. Current injection for each cell was divided by its capacitance (bin = 0.5 pA/pF) to facilitate averaging.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Supplemental Data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • supplemental material - Supplemental Material
    • supplemental material - Supplemental Figure 1
    • supplemental material - Supplemental Figure 2
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 29 (2)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 29, Issue 2
14 Jan 2009
  • 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.
Functional and Morphological Differences among Intrinsically Photosensitive Retinal Ganglion Cells
(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
Functional and Morphological Differences among Intrinsically Photosensitive Retinal Ganglion Cells
Tiffany M. Schmidt, Paulo Kofuji
Journal of Neuroscience 14 January 2009, 29 (2) 476-482; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4117-08.2009

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
Functional and Morphological Differences among Intrinsically Photosensitive Retinal Ganglion Cells
Tiffany M. Schmidt, Paulo Kofuji
Journal of Neuroscience 14 January 2009, 29 (2) 476-482; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4117-08.2009
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • 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

  • Heteromodal Cortical Areas Encode Sensory-Motor Features of Word Meaning
  • Pharmacologically Counteracting a Phenotypic Difference in Cerebellar GABAA Receptor Response to Alcohol Prevents Excessive Alcohol Consumption in a High Alcohol-Consuming Rodent Genotype
  • Neuromuscular NMDA Receptors Modulate Developmental Synapse Elimination
Show more Brief Communications
  • 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.