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
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log out
  • 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
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Journal Club

Reality of Inhibitory GABA in Neonatal Brain: Time to Rewrite the Textbooks?

Misha Zilberter
Journal of Neuroscience 5 October 2016, 36 (40) 10242-10244; https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2270-16.2016
Misha Zilberter
Neuronal Oscillations Laboratory, Center for Alzheimer's Research, Karolinska Institute, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Misha Zilberter
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

The issue of GABA action in the developing brain has been debated for several years. The accepted axiom has been that, in neonatal brain, GABA exerts a mainly excitatory effect on the network, gradually switching to inhibitory action in the course of brain development (Ben-Ari et al., 2007). This switch was thought to be underlain by the observed developmental change in expression ratio of two major Cl− transporters, NKCC1 (which increases [Cl−]i) and KCC2 (which decreases [Cl−]i), leading to a change from higher [Cl−]i, and therefore to a more depolarized reversal potential for GABA receptor-mediated Cl− currents (EGABA), in immature mice to lower [Cl−]i and hyperpolarized EGABA in mature rodents (Ben-Ari et al., 2007).

The validity of the excitatory GABA hypothesis was questioned, however, because it was based mainly on in vitro slice electrophysiology, which is susceptible to experimental artifacts (for review, see Bregestovski and Bernard, 2012). Furthermore, other mechanisms regulate neuronal [Cl−]i in addition to NKCC1 and KCC2, including bicarbonate-chloride exchangers (Romero et al., 2004), Cl− channels (Duran et al., 2010), and ATP-dependent Cl− pumps (Inoue et al., 1991; Inagaki et al., 2001).

It was therefore important to elucidate the effects of GABA receptor activation in the intact developing brain. Valeeva et al. (2016) provided much needed data in this respect, using the same experimental technique in vivo and in acute brain slices to demonstrate the discrepancy between results obtained under the two conditions.

In postnatal day 3–9 (P3-P9) mice, optogenetic activation of channelrhodopsin-2 (ChR2) expressed in GABAergic interneurons reduced the frequency of EPSCs in cortical neurons, suggesting that GABA exerted an inhibitory effect on the network. These data confirmed the results of another recent study (Kirmse et al., 2015) in which different techniques were used to show that, in P3-P4 animals, the reversal potential of GABA-mediated currents (EGABA) was close to the resting membrane potential (Em) and that GABA application failed to increase neuronal activity, suggesting an overall inhibitory mode of action.

In contrast to the in vivo results, experiments performed on acute slices from P2-P8 animals conclusively showed GABA to increase the EPSC frequency, suggesting an excitatory effect; this differed from results obtained in slices from older P9-P15 animals where a reduction of EPSC frequency upon GABA activation suggested an inhibitory effect. These data confirmed the results from several classic slice studies on which the theory of developmental excitatory/inhibitory switch of GABA signaling was based (for review, see Ben-Ari et al., 2007).

The obvious question, then, is what explains this striking difference between the in vitro and in vivo results, especially because the experimental techniques used for both were nearly identical. The authors investigated potential artifacts by modifying slice experimental conditions. Because animals were anesthetized during in vivo recordings, it was important to rule out any effects of anesthesia itself. Indeed, the authors found that GABA remained excitatory in slices exposed to 10 mm urethane. The authors also modified the slicing procedure (using a choline-based solution), ACSF electrolyte composition (to more closely resemble that of in vivo environment), and temperature (to 36°C), but the excitatory GABA action persisted. The reason for excitatory GABA effects in immature brain slices thus remained unanswered. Nonetheless, several potential mechanisms were not addressed.

It is well known that acute brain slices are not always a reliable experimental model, and one must take care to extrapolate data, including those on mode of GABAergic effects, onto an in vivo situation (Zilberter et al., 2010). There have been a number of studies showing that GABAergic signaling could be affected by conditions and alterations in acute brain slices, those not accounted for by the authors.

Because GABA's inhibitory effects in the adult brain are known to be reversed to excitatory by pathological conditions such as epilepsy and traumatic brain injury, GABA actions in neonatal brain slices might be altered by acute neuronal damage suffered during the slicing procedure (Dzhala et al., 2012). Using a Cl− optical sensor in acute neonatal slices, Dzhala et al. (2012) showed that increased neuronal [Cl−]i (resulting in depolarized EGABA) was correlated with proximity to the slice surface and with neuronal damage, and that GABAA receptor activation by bath-applied isoguvacine was excitatory to the network at depths of 80–100 μm. In contrast, in intact (in toto) neonatal hippocampal preparations, calculated ECl in neurons proximal to the surface was close to or below the assumed Em, and GABA activation by isoguvacine exerted inhibitory effects on spontaneous network activity, basically showing the same discrepancy in EGABA measurements and GABA effects in intact preparations versus brain slices. These results were also consistent with reports from an earlier study showing EGABA in intact immature hippocampus to be close to the neuronal Em (Wong et al., 2005).

Thus, acute brain damage might explain the results of Valeeva et al. (2016), but because the study's main readout of GABA effects was the frequency of EPSCs, which are evoked by hundreds of presynaptic glutamatergic cells converging onto a single recorded neuron, one can assume that a large portion of presynaptic cells were located deeper into the slice and therefore relatively undamaged. In addition, a modified slicing procedure that would presumably increase the “health” of the slice did not change the GABA excitatory mode of action. Thus, the fact that GABA activation still increased total network activity suggests that the main artifact is not attributable to neuronal damage.

Another potential mechanism behind artifactual GABA action measurements in immature slices is insufficient energy metabolism substrates provided by ACSF perfusion. Glucose utilization is limited in the developing rodent brain, at only 20% of the adult levels (Vannucci and Vannucci, 2000) and other energy substrates, such as lactate or ketone bodies (Nehlig, 2004), are used instead. It has been shown that, in immature slices, unlike in mature brains, lactate oxidation in the tricarboxylic acid cycle is 10 times higher than that of glucose (Medina, 1985). Enzymatic systems involved in glucose utilization follow a developmental profile (Prins, 2008), starting to mature right about the time when Valeeva et al. (2016) reported a switch from excitatory to inhibitory GABA effects in slices. This could potentially explain their data, given that HCO3− Cl− exchangers depend on intracellular ATP (Romero et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2008), as do Cl− ATPases (Inoue et al., 1991; Inagaki et al., 2001). Indeed, other studies reported that supplementing ACSF with alternative energy substrates, such as β-hydroxybutyrate (BHB), pyruvate, or lactate, improved the metabolic state of neurons (Ivanov and Zilberter, 2011) and significantly hyperpolarized EGABA, switching the GABA action in immature slices from excitatory to inhibitory; this effect depended on the action of HCO3− Cl− transporters (Holmgren et al., 2010). The effect of lactate on reversing GABA action in neonatal slices was confirmed (Ruusuvuori et al., 2010), although those authors contributed it to acidification, a theory later disproven (Mukhtarov et al., 2011). It is therefore unfortunate that Valeeva et al. (2016) did not consider adding alternative energy substrates in modifying ACSF composition to more closely resemble that of in vivo conditions.

Even if Valeeva et al. (2016) did add lactate or BHB to their ACSF, this may not have been sufficient to reverse the GABA effects, if there was insufficient oxygenation (Hájos et al., 2009). The authors used an ACSF perfusion rate of 2–4 ml/min, but it has been shown that, at these rates, most neurons in neonatal slices are under acute hypoxia (Ivanov et al., 2011), with neurons unable to efficiently use any fuel for mitochondrial respiration and production of ATP needed to sustain physiological [Cl]i.

Despite the failure to identify the cause for differences in GABA effects in vivo and in vitro, the study by Valeeva et al. (2016) is significant in several respects. Most important, the study conclusively shows and confirms the general inhibitory mode of GABAergic action in neonatal brain, helping put to rest years of controversy and suggesting the need to rewrite the textbooks. Quoting another recent study on in vivo inhibitory GABA in neonatal brain (Kirmse et al., 2015), “… an absence of GABA-mediated excitation … could have major implications for a central hypothesis of developmental neurobiology.” The second important finding of the study is that results obtained in vitro and in vivo differ even when the same experimental technique is used to measure GABA effects. The recorded mode of GABA action in acute brain slices was directly opposite to that observed in live animals of the same age. Future work should investigate whether energy metabolism correction (such as addition of lactate or BHB to ACSF together with sufficient oxygenation), which has been reported to reverse GABA action in neonatal brain slices, would lead to similar results using this technique. These results perfectly illustrate that, although acute brain slices are extremely useful for elucidating brain function, they are severely limited in several aspects due to the nature of the preparation, and great care should be taken in extrapolating and interpreting data obtained from such experiments (Zilberter et al., 2010; Kann, 2011).

Footnotes

  • Editor's Note: These short, critical reviews of recent papers in the Journal, written exclusively by graduate students or postdoctoral fellows, are intended to summarize the important findings of the paper and provide additional insight and commentary. For more information on the format and purpose of the Journal Club, please see http://www.jneurosci.org/misc/ifa_features.shtml.

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Misha Zilberter, Neuronal Oscillations Laboratory, Center for Alzheimer's Research, Karolinska Institute, Retzius Vag 8, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden. Misha.zilberter{at}ki.se

References

  1. ↵
    1. Ben-Ari Y,
    2. Gaiarsa JL,
    3. Tyzio R,
    4. Khazipov R
    (2007) GABA: a pioneer transmitter that excites immature neurons and generates primitive oscillations. Physiol Rev 87:1215–1284, doi:10.1152/physrev.00017.2006, pmid:17928584.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Bregestovski P,
    2. Bernard C
    (2012) Excitatory GABA: how a correct observation may turn out to be an experimental artifact. Front Pharmacol 3:65, doi:10.3389/fphar.2012.00065, pmid:22529813.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Chen LM,
    2. Haddad GG,
    3. Boron WF
    (2008) Effects of chronic continuous hypoxia on the expression of SLC4A8 (NDCBE) in neonatal versus adult mouse brain. Brain Res 1238:85–92, doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2008.08.033, pmid:18775686.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Duran C,
    2. Thompson CH,
    3. Xiao Q,
    4. Hartzell HC
    (2010) Chloride channels: often enigmatic, rarely predictable. Annu Rev Physiol 72:95–121, doi:10.1146/annurev-physiol-021909-135811, pmid:19827947.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Dzhala V,
    2. Valeeva G,
    3. Glykys J,
    4. Khazipov R,
    5. Staley K
    (2012) Traumatic alterations in GABA signaling disrupt hippocampal network activity in the developing brain. J Neurosci 32:4017–4031, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5139-11.2012, pmid:22442068.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Hájos N,
    2. Ellender TJ,
    3. Zemankovics R,
    4. Mann EO,
    5. Exley R,
    6. Cragg SJ,
    7. Freund TF,
    8. Paulsen O
    (2009) Maintaining network activity in submerged hippocampal slices: importance of oxygen supply. Eur J Neurosci 29:319–327, doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06577.x, pmid:19200237.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Holmgren CD,
    2. Mukhtarov M,
    3. Malkov AE,
    4. Popova IY,
    5. Bregestovski P,
    6. Zilberter Y
    (2010) Energy substrate availability as a determinant of neuronal resting potential, GABA signaling and spontaneous network activity in the neonatal cortex in vitro. J Neurochem 112:900–912, doi:10.1111/j.1471-4159.2009.06506.x, pmid:19943846.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Inagaki C,
    2. Hattori N,
    3. Kitagawa K,
    4. Zeng XT,
    5. Yagyu K
    (2001) Cl(−)-ATPase in rat brain and kidney. J Exp Zool 289:224–231, doi:10.1002/1097-010X(20010401/30)289:4%3C224::AID-JEZ3%3E3.0.CO;2-R, pmid:11241393.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Inoue M,
    2. Hara M,
    3. Zeng XT,
    4. Hirose T,
    5. Ohnishi S,
    6. Yasukura T,
    7. Uriu T,
    8. Omori K,
    9. Minato A,
    10. Inagaki C
    (1991) An ATP-driven Cl− pump regulates Cl− concentrations in rat hippocampal neurons. Neurosci Lett 134:75–78, doi:10.1016/0304-3940(91)90512-R, pmid:1667680.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Ivanov A,
    2. Zilberter Y
    (2011) Critical state of energy metabolism in brain slices: the principal role of oxygen delivery and energy substrates in shaping neuronal activity. Front Neuroenerg 3:9, doi:10.3389/fnene.2011.00009, pmid:22232599.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Ivanov A,
    2. Mukhtarov M,
    3. Bregestovski P,
    4. Zilberter Y
    (2011) Lactate effectively covers energy demands during neuronal network activity in neonatal hippocampal slices. Front Neuroenerg 3:2, doi:10.3389/fnene.2011.00002, pmid:21602909.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Kann O
    (2011) The energy demand of fast neuronal network oscillations: insights from brain slice preparations. Front Pharmacol 2:90, doi:10.3389/fphar.2011.00090, pmid:22291647.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Kirmse K,
    2. Kummer M,
    3. Kovalchuk Y,
    4. Witte OW,
    5. Garaschuk O,
    6. Holthoff K
    (2015) GABA depolarizes immature neurons and inhibits network activity in the neonatal neocortex in vivo. Nat Commun 6:7750, doi:10.1038/ncomms8750, pmid:26177896.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Medina JM
    (1985) The role of lactate as an energy substrate for the brain during the early neonatal period. Biol Neonate 48:237–244, doi:10.1159/000242176, pmid:3904842.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Mukhtarov M,
    2. Ivanov A,
    3. Zilberter Y,
    4. Bregestovski P
    (2011) Inhibition of spontaneous network activity in neonatal hippocampal slices by energy substrates is not correlated with intracellular acidification. J Neurochem 116:316–321, doi:10.1111/j.1471-4159.2010.07111.x, pmid:21083663.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Nehlig A
    (2004) Brain uptake and metabolism of ketone bodies in animal models. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 70:265–275, doi:10.1016/j.plefa.2003.07.006, pmid:14769485.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Prins ML
    (2008) Cerebral metabolic adaptation and ketone metabolism after brain injury. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 28:1–16, doi:10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600543, pmid:17684514.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Romero MF,
    2. Fulton CM,
    3. Boron WF
    (2004) The SLC4 family of HCO3− transporters. Pflugers Arch 447:495–509, doi:10.1007/s00424-003-1180-2, pmid:14722772.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Ruusuvuori E,
    2. Kirilkin I,
    3. Pandya N,
    4. Kaila K
    (2010) Spontaneous network events driven by depolarizing GABA action in neonatal hippocampal slices are not attributable to deficient mitochondrial energy metabolism. J Neurosci 30:15638–15642, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3355-10.2010, pmid:21084619.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Valeeva G,
    2. Tressard T,
    3. Mukhtarov M,
    4. Baude A,
    5. Khazipov R
    (2016) An optogenetic approach for investigation of excitatory and inhibitory network GABA actions in mice expressing channelrhodopsin-2 in GABAergic neurons. J Neurosci 36:5961–5973, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3482-15.2016, pmid:27251618.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Vannucci RC,
    2. Vannucci SJ
    (2000) Glucose metabolism in the developing brain. Semin Perinatol 24:107–115, doi:10.1053/sp.2000.6361, pmid:10805166.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Wong T,
    2. Zhang XL,
    3. Asl MN,
    4. Wu CP,
    5. Carlen PL,
    6. Zhang L
    (2005) Postnatal development of intrinsic GABAergic rhythms in mouse hippocampus. Neuroscience 134:107–120, doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.04.019, pmid:15961234.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Zilberter Y,
    2. Zilberter T,
    3. Bregestovski P
    (2010) Neuronal activity in vitro and the in vivo reality: the role of energy homeostasis. Trends Pharmacol Sci 31:394–401, doi:10.1016/j.tips.2010.06.005, pmid:20633934.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 36 (40)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 36, Issue 40
5 Oct 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
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.
Reality of Inhibitory GABA in Neonatal Brain: Time to Rewrite the Textbooks?
(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
Reality of Inhibitory GABA in Neonatal Brain: Time to Rewrite the Textbooks?
Misha Zilberter
Journal of Neuroscience 5 October 2016, 36 (40) 10242-10244; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2270-16.2016

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
Reality of Inhibitory GABA in Neonatal Brain: Time to Rewrite the Textbooks?
Misha Zilberter
Journal of Neuroscience 5 October 2016, 36 (40) 10242-10244; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2270-16.2016
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • 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

  • Obesity and Gut–Brain Communication: The Cholinergic-Endocannabinoid Link
  • Unraveling Pallido-Retrorubral Circuits Linking the Basal Ganglia to Limbic Areas
  • µ-Opioid Receptor Control of Glutamate/GABA Coreleasing SUM and VTA Projections to the Dentate Gyrus
Show more Journal Club
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • 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 Notice
  • Contact
  • Accessibility
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 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.