Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:08:14.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response properties of ganglion cells in the isolated mouse retina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2009

Charlene Stone  and
Lawrence H. Pinto
Charlene Stone
Affiliation:
Department of Neurobiology and Physiology, Northwestern University, Evanston
Lawrence H. Pinto
Affiliation:
Department of Neurobiology and Physiology, Northwestern University, Evanston
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We have studied the organization of receptive fields of ganglion cells in the isolated mouse retina and have shown that the organization is similar to that of the cat. Based upon responses to circular and annular stimuli, most ganglion cells (90%; N = 83) had receptive fields with concentric center-surround organization, either ON or OFF center. The plot of response amplitude vs. stimulus area for these cells increased to a maximum (corresponding to a diameter of 10.0 ± 2.8 deg S.E.M.; N = 13) and then decreased for larger stimuli, demonstrating the presence of an antagonistic surround. The dark-adapted sensitivity (205 ± 43.8 impulses quantum−1 rod−1; mean ± S.E.M.) did not differ from that measured for the intact preparation. We found a subset of OFF-center cells for which the dark discharge was very regular (mean coefficient of variation = 0.30). Using sinusoidal grating stimuli, we classified ganglion cells as X-like (87%) and Y-like (13%) based on spatial summation properties and the presence of subunit activity in the receptive-field center. We found no difference in the spatial-frequency preference between X-like and Y-like cells in the central retina (high cutoff frequency, 0.20 ± 0.014 cycle/deg, mean ± S.E.M.), in contrast to the marked difference between X cells and Y cells in the cat. Thus, ganglion cell receptive fields in the mouse retina resemble those of the cat, although the spatial characteristics of the receptive fields in the central retina are more homogeneous. This homogeneity would simplify the comparison of retinas from normal and mutant strains of the mouse.

Keywords

C57BL/6J miceReceptive fieldLight responseGenetic neurobiologyNormal miceWild-type mice
Type
Research Articles
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 1993 , pp. 31 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balkema, G.W. (1979). A study of visual abnormalities in mutant mice: A retinal sensitivity defect in the mutant mouse pearl. Ph.D. Dissertation, Purdue University.Google Scholar
Balkema, G.W., Mangini, N.J. & Pinto, L.H. (1983). Discrete visual defects in pearl mutant mice. Science 219, 1085–1087.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balkema, G.W. & Pinto, L.H. (1982). Electrophysiology of retina ganglion cells in the mouse: A study of a normally pigmented mouse and a congenic hypopigmentation mutant, pearl. Journal of Neurophysiology 48(4), 968–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, H.B., Fitzhugh, R. & Kuffler, S. (1957). Change of organization in the receptive fields of the cat’s retina during dark adaptation. Journal of Physiology 137(3), 338–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowes, C., van Veen, T. & Farber, D.B. (1988). Opsin, G-protein and 48-kDa protein in normal and rd mouse retinas: Developmental expression of mRNAs and proteins and light/dark cycling of mRNAs. Experimental Eye Research 47, 369–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleland, B.G. & Enroth-Cugell, C. (1968). Quantitative aspects of sensitivity and summation in the cat retina. Journal of Physiology 198, 17–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dräger, U.C. & Olsen, J.F. (1980). Origins of crossed and uncrossed retinal projections in pigmented and albino mice. Journal of Comparative Neurology 191, 383–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enroth-Cugell, C. & Robson, J.G. (1966). The contrast sensitivity of retinal ganglion cells of the cat. Journal of Physiology 187, 517–552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enroth-Cugell, C., Robson, J.G., Schweitzer, D.E. & Watson, A.B. (1983). Spatio-temporal interactions in cat retinal ganglion cells showing linear spatial summation. Journal of Physiology 341, 279–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fukuda, Y., Sumitomo, I., Sugitani, M. & Iwama, K. (1979). Receptive field properties of cells in the dorsal part of the albino rat’s lateral geniculate nucleus. Japanese Journal of Physiology 29, 283–307.Google ScholarPubMed
Hale, P.T., Sefton, A.J. & Dreher, B. (1979). A correlation of receptive field properties with conduction velocity of cells in the rat’s retino-geniculo-cortical pathway. Experimental Brain Research 35, 425–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harding, T.H. & Enroth-Cugell, C. (1978). Absolute dark sensitivity and center size in cat retinal ganglion cells. Experimental Brain Research 153, 157–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hochstein, S. & Shapley, R.M. (1976). Quantitative analysis of retinal ganglion cell classifications. Journal of Physiology 262, 237–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jakiela, H., Enroth-Cugell, C. & Shapley, R. (1976). Adaptation and dynamics in X-cells and Y-cells of the cat retina. Experimental Brain Research 24, 335–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuffler, S.W. (1953). Discharge patterns and functional organization of mammalian retina. Journal of Neurophysiology 16, 37–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lennie, P. & Perry, V.H. (1981). Spatial contrast sensitivity of cells in the lateral geniculate nucleus of the rat. Journal of Physiology 315, 69–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linsenmeier, R., Frishman, L., Jakiela, H. & Enroth-Cugell, C. (1982). Receptive field properties of X and Y cells in the cat retina derived from contrast sensitivity measurements. Vision Research 22, 1173–1183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merrill, E.G. & Ainsworth, A. (1972). Glass-coated platinum-plated tungsten microelectrodes. Medical and Biological Engineering 10, 662–672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchiner, J.C., Pinto, L.H. & Vanable, J.W. Jr, (1976). Visually evoked eye movements in the mouse (Mus musculus). Vision Research 16, 1159–1171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peichl, L. (1989). Alpha and delta ganglion cells in the rat retina. Journal of Comparative Neurology 286, 120–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Remtulla, S. & Hallett, P.E. (1985). A schematic eye for the mouse, and comparisons with the rat. Vision Research 25(1), 21–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robson, J.G. & Troy, J.B. (1987). Nature of the maintained discharge of Q, X, and Y retinal ganglion cells of the cat. Journal of the Optical Society of America 4, 2301–2307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savitzky, A. & Golay, M.J.E. (1964). Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures. Analytical Chemistry 36, 1627–1639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, J. (1971). Conduction velocity as a parameter in the organisation of the afferent relay in the cat’s lateral geniculate nucleus. Experimental Brain Research 32, 454–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stone, J. (1973). Sampling properties of microelectrodes assessed in the cat’s retina. Journal of Neurophysiology 36, 1071–1079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed