| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abteilung Zellphysiologie, Max-Planck Institut für medizinische Forschung, Heidelberg, Germany
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
(Received 8 August 2003;
accepted after revision 7 January 2004;
first published online 14 January 2004)
Corresponding author I. D. Manns: Max-Planck Institut für medizinische Forschung, Abteilung Zellphysiologie, Jahnstrasse 29, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany. Email: ian.manns{at}elf.mcgill.ca
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Layer 5 (L5) neurones of the barrel cortex receive a complex set of inputs, which include all cortical layers as well as several subcortical targets, and their axons give rise to widespread projections both intracortically and subcortically (Wise & Jones, 1977; Killackey et al. 1989; Bernardo et al. 1990a,b; Koralek et al. 1990; Ito, 1992; Hoeflinger et al. 1995; Gottlieb & Keller, 1997). L5 somatosensory cortex is a compound structure, consisting of two cytoarchitectonically discrete sublayers: 5A and 5B (Ito, 1992; Hoeflinger et al. 1995; Gottlieb & Keller, 1997). These have relatively independent sets of afferent and efferent fibres belonging to the so-called paralemniscal and lemniscal sensory pathways and are thought to function in a parallel fashion (Ahissar et al. 2000). Located immediately inferior to the granular L4, L5A pyramidal neurones receive thalamic input from the medial posterior (POm) nucleus and as such are considered to participate in the paralemniscal sensory pathway. L5A pyramidal neurones in turn project to the caudate nucleus, and several intracortical sites including motor and secondary somatosensory cortex (Koralek et al. 1988, 1990; Mercier et al. 1990; Lu & Lin, 1993). Located below L5A, the large L5B pyramidal cells receive thalamic input from the main specific sensory relay the ventral posteromedial (VPM) nucleus and as such are considered to function within the lemniscal sensory pathway. These cells give rise to projections to the superior colliculus, pontine nuclei and spinothalamic tract, and to the trigeminal nucleus with collaterals extending intracortically (Wise & Jones, 1977; Koralek et al. 1988, 1990; Chmielowska et al. 1989; Mercier et al. 1990; Lu & Lin, 1993; Deschenes et al. 1994). In addition, L5 cells, seemingly in both L5A and L5B, project to the POm nucleus (Veinante et al. 2000).
Another fundamental anatomical organizing principle of the cortex is the ‘clustering’ of L5 apical dendrites with those of layer 2/3 (L2/3) pyramidal neurones (Feldman & Peters, 1974; White & Peters, 1993; Lev & White, 1997). With this organization, small groups of cells are vertically orientated in ‘modules.’ In the barrel cortex then, two anatomical structures overlap: the barrels of L4 cells and modules of L5 and L2/3 cells (White & Peters, 1993). Little is known about the function of these modules. One possibility is that they functionally bind neurones across different layers; as such this may compliment the L5 neurones' preferential AP response to coincident inputs at apical and basal dendrites (Larkum et al. 1999; Larkum & Zhu, 2002).
Although several extracellular unit studies have described the AP firing patterns of L5 neurones in response to sensory stimulation (Simons, 1978; Armstrong-James et al. 1992; Ahissar et al. 2000, 2001); only one study has examined L5B cells' receptive field (RF) structure in association with their morphology (Ito, 1992). Despite this, how the RF structure and related cell morphology of L5A is manifest in relation to L5B remains unclear. In the present study, we explored the relationship between sub- and suprathreshold RF properties of L5 neurones, their dendritic and axon arbor morphology, their position in relation to the cytoarchitechtonically defined barrel-column and their potential contribution to cortical modules.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Animals
In each of 45 Wistar rats, aged 26–31 days, one neurone was recorded; however, not all of these cells were recovered, and several recovered cells were not located in L5 of the barrel cortex. In one animal, two cells were recorded with differing cortical depths, both of which were subsequently recovered and thus included in the data set.
Preparation
Experimental procedures were carried out in accordance with the animal welfare guidelines of the Max-Planck-Society. Rats were anaesthetized with urethane (1–1.4 g kg–1; intraperitoneal injection). Access to the barrel cortex was gained by opening a hole in the cranium 
1 mm diameter, posterior 2.5 mm and lateral 5.5 mm from bregma. A small hole in the dura was opened and bathed in Hepes-buffered artificial cerebrospinal fluid (ACSF) solution for subsequent electrode penetration. The depth of anaesthesia was monitored throughout the experiment by assessing hindlimb pinch withdrawal, eyelid reflex, respiration, and vibrissae movements. If vibrissae movements and withdrawal reflexes occurred, additional doses of urethane (20% of initial dose) were given. The respiration rate was between 70 and 100 breaths min–1. Taken together, we considered the depth of anaesthesia to approximate anaesthetic state III-3 (Friedberg et al. 1999).
Whole-cell recording
Recordings were made with long tapered 4–7 M
resistance patch pipettes pulled from borosilicate glass tubing in a four stage pull. Pipettes were filled with 130 mM potassium gluconate, 10 mM sodium gluconate, 10 mM Hepes, 10 mM phosphocreatine, 4 mM MgATP, 2 mM Na2ATP, 0.3 mM GTP, 4 mM NaCl and 0.4% biocytin at pH 7.2.
Pipettes were lowered perpendicularly to the cortical surface and 1000–1500 µm into the barrel cortex in order to target L5 neurones. To avoid tissue and debris blocking the pipette, it was pressurized to 200–300 mbar during the penetration. To establish the whole-cell recording configuration we used conventional voltage clamp (Blanton et al. 1989; Margrie et al. 2002). Series resistances were between 10 and 70 M. All data have been corrected for a +7 mV junction potential.
Sensory stimulation and receptive-field maps
Two principle methods of sensory stimulation were employed. The first of these was single whisker stimulation using a piezoelectric bimorph wafer with an attached glass capillary (Simons, 1983). Steps elicited by the piezoelectric device had a 10–90% rise time of 1 ms. The deflection point of the whisker was chosen to be 8–10 mm from the base of the vibrissa (roughly 6 deg deflection angle) for 200 ms. Care was taken as not to deflect more than one whisker or to cause displacement of neighbouring whisker follicles. Stimuli were delivered at a rate of 1 Hz. The second stimulus was multi-whisker stimulation delivered by an air puff (100 ms), which deflected four to eight whiskers in two to three whisker rows by up to 2 mm.
Data analysis
The postsynaptic potential (PSP) response was taken to be the largest membrane depolarization or hyperpolarization during the initial 100 ms following stimulus onset in averaged traces. The AP count during the 100 ms following stimulus onset was classified as the neurone's suprathreshold response. For PSP latency measurements we determined the time point after whisker deflection onset where the postsynaptic potential reached 5% of its peak amplitude. The directional tuning of the response was quantified by the following equation: (Response in preferred direction – response in opposite direction)/(Response in preferred direction + response in opposite direction). As such, a value of 1 indicates a completely directional response, and zero represents responses without direction preference. Averages are presented throughout followed by ±S.E.M.
Histological procedures and reconstruction
Following the recording, the animals were killed by transcardial perfusion of 4% paraformaldehyde, and their brains were removed. Brains were sectioned in 80 µm or 150 µm sections in either tangential or coronal planes of orientation. Approximately, half of the brains were cut in each orientation. The tangential sections were cut parallel to the surface of the barrel cortex. The coronal sections were cut 45 deg towards the sagittal plane with the medial border being anterior and the lateral border being posterior. This angled-coronal cut was selected to result in sections perpendicular to the barrel rows and parallel to the barrel arcs. Cytochrome oxidase staining (Wong-Riley, 1979) was used to visualize the cortical layering and barrel structure. The recorded cells were revealed with the chromogen 3,3'-diaminobenzidine tetrahydrochloride (DAB) using the avidin–biotin–peroxidase method (Horikawa & Armstrong, 1988). Processed sections were then mounted on slides and coverslipped with moviol.
Subpial depth and laminar distribution of cells
The brown appearance of L4 due to the cytochrome c stain combined with the relatively chromogen-free appearance of L5A provided a very clear demarcation of the L4/L5A border. From histological examination this border occurred in our sections at an average depth of 975 µm. The L5A/L5B border was marked by a gradual increase in brown cytochrome c stain, cell density and the appearance of larger cells. This transition from L5A to L5B generally occurred at an average of 310 µm below the L4/L5A border. The L5B/L6 border was indicated by a relatively chromogen-free stripe between the darker stained L5B and upper layer 6 (L6); this generally occurred at 1575 µm.
Plots of RFs and of dendritic and axonal densities
Smoothed RF plots were generated by linear interpolation. The conversion of reconstructed neurones to 2-D density maps was done according to the method of Brecht & Sakmann (2002a). In brief, to generate 2-D maps of dendritic and axonal densities, the total length of all dendrites or axons within 50 µm voxels was calculated. The resulting 3-D matrix was projected onto either a tangential or coronal plane resulting in a 2-D density matrix. This 2-D density matrix was then low-pass filtered by convolving it with a 2-D Gaussian kernel with a standard deviation of 50 µm. A bicubic interpolation of the filtered 2-D density matrix was preformed to generate the 2-D density map. For averaging dendritic and axonal arborizations across cells, the reconstructions were aligned relative to the centre of the respective barrel.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
10 and 15 mV (up-state) from a relatively flat resting state (down-state), which was taken to be the resting membrane potential (Table 1). These membrane potential fluctuations are similar to those previously described in cortical neurones (Cowan & Wilson, 1994; Anderson et al. 2000; Sachdev & Wilson, 2001; Petersen et al. 2003). Associated with this ongoing subthreshold activity, these cells often fired spontaneous action potentials (APs), on average 0.5 APs s–1 (Table 1).
|
|
|
|
L5 cells responded to deflection of single whiskers with depolarization of the membrane potential, taken to be postsynaptic potentials (PSPs), and less frequently APs (Figs 1B and 2B). The principle whisker (PW), in our case taken to be the whisker evoking the greatest PSP, was determined by systematically deflecting different whiskers (Figs 1 and 2). As illustrated for a L5A neurone in Fig. 1, D2 whisker deflections evoked the largest PSPs, making it the PW, while the next largest PSPs were evoked by the D3 surround whisker (SuW). This L5A cell's RF was relatively sharply tuned, the D3 SuW average PSPs represent less than half the amplitude of the PW, and many whiskers did not evoke detectable PSPs (Fig. 1C). Although the number of APs evoked by whisker stimulation was low, it was greatest again for the PSP-derived PW, D2 (Fig. 1C). PSP size did not necessarily correspond perfectly with number of evoked APs. This is evident for this cell's SuWs. The D3 whisker evoked larger PSPs than the D1; however, the D1 whisker evoked more APs than the D3 whisker due to ongoing spontaneous up- and down-state related AP activity. The anatomical location of this neurone within the D2 barrel (Fig. 1A) demonstrates correspondence between the physiologically derived PW and the cell's anatomical location in the PW barrel-column. This cell's morphology is typical of L5A pyramidal neurones, with several basal dendrites, an apical dendrite with a tuft in layers 1 and 2, and an axon which projects to the white matter as well as bifurcating and projecting intracortically within and beyond the barrel cortex. Figure 2 illustrates the RF properties of a L5B neurone. The E2 PW PSPs for this cell are only marginally larger than the responses of the D2 and E3 SuWs. All whiskers deflected evoked both PSP and AP responses. The anatomical location corresponds to its PSP-derived PW; however, the number of evoked APs was greater for SuWs, reflecting the interaction between evoked PSPs and spontaneous APs occurring as a function of the up- and down-states. This cell's anatomy is common among the large L5B pyramidal neurones, with many dendrites extending beyond the home-barrel column, a relatively thick apical dendrite, and axonal arbors projecting towards the white matter as well as within the barrel cortex.
The neurones' physiologically derived PW corresponded to their anatomical whisker-barrel location in all tangential sections with unequivocal cytochrome c barrel staining (n= 10). We did not identify any of our cells as having their cell body in the L5 septal-related region. To further compare the RF properties of the L5 cells with their anatomical geometries (Table 2), we calculated normalized population RFs and constructed 2-D maps of the average dendritic and axonal densities of our corresponding reconstructed cells in each layer. Tangential reconstructions (L5A: n= 6; L5B: n= 4) were rotated into the coronal orientation to be used in the construction of coronal density maps, whereas coronal reconstructions could not be accurately rotated into the tangential position since barrel borders could not be reliably determined within the rows (e.g. a D1 to D2 barrel/septum/barrel transition would be difficult to determine across sections).
In Fig. 3A1 and A2, the average normalized sub- and suprathreshold L5A RFs, with a superimposed barrel pattern, allow visualization of the discrete PW-evoked PSPs and APs, in addition to the sharp fall-off in SuW-evoked PSPs and APs. Visualized in the 2-D density plots (Fig. 3B and D), the dendritic arborizations compliment the RF excitation pattern by extending throughout the home barrel-column. Most of the dendritic density is confined to L5A. Some dendritic arbors extend laterally into the septa as well as vertically into the other layers. The apical dendrites and their arborizations contribute to the vertical spread into L4 and the prominent tuft in L2/3 and L1. The 2-D projection map of the L5A axonal arbors (Fig. 3C and E) illustrates that the axonal projection extends both laterally throughout L5A and vertically into the superior and inferior layers towards the white matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Different stimuli were used to explore the responsiveness of the L5 neurones.
The directionality of the neurones was tested by deflecting the PW in four different directions (Fig. 11). Figure 11A shows a cell that responds with larger amplitude responses in the forward direction. Both L5A and L5B neurones showed similar directionality preferences with the amplitude of the preferred direction being 40% greater than that of the opposite direction, given by the directionality index (Fig. 11C). One direction always responded best, and for 50% of neurones, this was the backward direction (Fig. 11D). In the cells tested, the best-direction average PSP amplitude was 4.6 ± 0.8 mV; this was significantly greater than the PSP amplitude caused by backward deflection 3.8 ± 0.7 mV (t= 2.4, d.f. = 15, P= 0.03). However, the best-direction average evoked AP activity was 0.11 ± 0.05 APs per stimulus, not greater than that evoked by backward deflection 0.10 ± 0.05 APs per stimulus.
|
|
10 deg) as opposed to simply the PW there was an insignificant increase in the evoked PSP and APs in both L5A and L5B (Fig. 13). In cells where both measures were taken, the L5A cells (n= 16) average multi-whisker response was 1.4 mV greater than that of the PW response, while in L5B cells (n= 9) it was 1.2 mV larger. As such, the L5 multi-whisker evoked PSP was 6.3 ± 0.9 mV with a corresponding 0.19 ± 0.10 APs per stimulus.
|
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Dendrite and axon projection maps, subthreshold RFs and cortical microcircuits
In some cortices RF properties have been considered to acquire complexity in a hierarchal, layer-dependent way, becoming broader in L5 (Kelly & Van Essen, 1974; Simons, 1978; Gilbert & Wiesel, 1979; Armstrong-James et al. 1992). From our work in the barrel cortex, this seems not to be the case where RFs of L5 pyramids are narrower than those of L2/3 pyramids. This result raises the question of how the RFs of L5A and L5B cells are constructed by integrating PSPs from thalamocortical and corticocortical afferents. The origin of the different synaptic inputs can possibly be derived from the dimensions of the 2-D maps of dendritic and axonal arbors of L4, L2/3 and L5 cells and by comparing the dynamic structure of L5 RFs (i.e. the latency and the time-dependent amplitude of PW and SuW responses of L5 cells) with that of L4 and L2/3 cells reported previously under the same experimental conditions (Brecht & Sakmann, 2002a; Brecht et al. 2003).
Innervation of L5A pyramids. Based on previous anatomical work (Koralek et al. 1988; Lu & Lin, 1993), firstly a dense projection of axonal arbors from the POm (paralemniscal input) innervates L5A pyramids via the collaterals of axons that innervate the septum cells and septum-related cells in L4 and L2/3, respectively. Secondly, the axonal arbors of identified and reconstructed cortical cells in L4 and L2/3 overlap extensively with the L5A pyramidal cell dendritic domain, suggesting strong innervation by L4 spiny stellate cells (Brecht & Sakmann, 2002a; Lübke et al. 2003) and L2/3 barrel-related cells (Brecht et al. 2003; Lübke et al. 2003). In addition, here we document extensive overlap of L5A pyramid dendrites and their axonal arbors within L5A. Thirdly, axonal arbors of L2/3 cells of the ipsilateral barrel cortex overlap with L5 pyramid dendrites from the contralateral cortex (White & DeAmicis, 1977; Olavarria et al. 1984; Koralek et al. 1990).
The RF of L5A pyramids is highly dynamic (Fig. 9), suggesting that the different inputs will, depending on poststimulus time, contribute differently to the evoked PSP. The onset latency of the PW-evoked PSP is about 10 ms. Afferents that could generate such a rapid initial response are firstly the input from L4 spiny stellate cells excited by single whisker excitation (SWE) cells of the VPM. Secondly some of the POm cells respond rapidly (Ahissar et al. 2000) and potentially generate the PSP in septum cells at 11 ms poststimulus (Brecht & Sakmann, 2002a). Collaterals of these cells could contribute to the early PSP in L5A. The later part of the PSP in L5A is most likely generated by the L2/3 and L5A input. The input from L2/3 is probably smaller (Reyes & Sakmann, 1999) than that of the strong L5A intralaminar excitation (Schubert et al. 2003). Thirdly the input from contralateral barrel cortex cells may contribute to the late whisker deflection response when both ipsi- and contralateral whiskers are stimulated.
Innervation of L5B pyramids. Anatomical work suggests firstly specific thalamocortical input from the VPM (lemniscal input) to the L5B/L6 boundary (Keller et al. 1985; Jensen & Killackey, 1987; Chmielowska et al. 1989). Secondly the reconstructions of axonal arbors of identified cells in L4 and L2/3 indicate that a only weak or no overlap exists between L4 axon arbors and L5B dendrites, whereas the axonal arbors of L2/3 cells overlap extensively with L5B (Lübke et al. 2003). In addition, input from pyramids within L5B is expected to be strong as ‘thick tufted’ L5B pyramids are highly interconnected (Markram et al. 1997).
The fast onset PSP in L5B pyramids, surprisingly, lags the VPM thalamocortical input to barrel cells in L4 by about 2 ms. One cause for this delay could be that the slow responding multiwhisker excitation cells of the VPM mediate this 10 ms onset PSP (Brecht & Sakmann, 2002a). The later PSP components should be generated by L2/3 barrel-related pyramids (Reyes & Sakmann, 1999; Brecht et al. 2003) and by L5B pyramids (Markram et al. 1997).
Finally when bilateral whisker stimulation occurs as in the case of L5A cells, the ipsilateral whisker is expected to contribute to the late PSP component.
Flow of excitation. Upon deflection of a whisker, two thalamocortical afferent projections are activated, one via the VPM and one via the POm. Both pathways remain, in L4 and L2/3, largely separated (Brecht & Sakmann, 2002a; Brecht et al. 2003). In L4 and L2/3 the representation of a deflection is 2-fold, the lemniscal RFs being narrower than the paralemniscal RFs. In L5 a deflection is also represented in two ways, focally in L5A and more diffusely in L5B. The dual representation in L5 is clearly the result of the convergence (or merging) of VPM and POm pathways. This convergence is indicated by the fact that the input to L5A from L4 spiny stellate cells is presumably stronger, given the similar narrow L4 and L5A RFs, than that of the POm input, given the dissimilar broad POm and narrow L5A RFs (Diamond et al. 1992). The RF of L5B cells is broader than the thalamocortical input from the VPM (Brecht & Sakmann, 2002a). This difference reflects, most likely, the broad late L2/3 RFs of barrel-related pyramids (Brecht et al. 2003) that are likely to contribute to the L5 PSP. Whether and how the paralemniscal inputs (i.e. POm or septum and septum-related cells) contribute to L5B cell RFs is as yet unclear.
Finally one might ask whether and where septum cells and septum-related cell axon arbors converge to form a specific paralemniscal cortical output. Kim & Ebner (1999) noted that selective localization of septal cell terminals in the L5 septal domains were less clear than in those of other layers; although, the axonal arbors of L5 cells located below the septa did show some selective terminal localization in septal domains of the supragranular layers. Moreover, evidence exists for differential corticostriatal projection patterns of L5 neurones located below the barrels and below the septa (Wright et al. 2001). Although we recorded no L5 cells below septa, other studies examining layer 5 projection cells have similarly noted that they lie in preferential register with the periphery of the barrels (Crandall et al. 1986; Ito, 1992). At present many questions remain about the L5 barrel-related versus septum-related functional anatomy. The issue might be resolved by paired recordings from septum cells in L4 and septum-related cells in L2/3 on the one hand and L5 cells on the other.
Previous work. Both anatomical and electrophysiological studies have placed L5A and L5B within the paralemniscal and lemniscal sensory pathways (Koralek et al. 1988; Lu & Lin, 1993; Ahissar et al. 2000, 2001). They are thought to represent general and specific sensory information, respectively. Extracellular unit recordings in the vicinity of L5A have described these cells as having very broad RFs (Armstrong-James et al. 1992). This discrepancy with our data may be due to a selection bias of unit-recording versus whole-cell recording. Broad L5B RFs have been noted both in studies of identified and non-identified neurones (Ito, 1992; Ghazanfar & Nicolelis, 1999). Other studies utilizing whole-cell recordings in the barrel cortex have recorded L5 neurones, but they did not systematically explore the differences between L5A and L5B RFs (Moore & Nelson, 1998; Zhu & Connors, 1999). Some of our results contrast with those of Zhu and Connors, who failed to find any depth- or cell type-specific difference in subthreshold RFs (Zhu & Connors, 1999).
A recent study using whole-cell recordings in visual cortex observed that the stimulus orientation sensitivity of depolarizing responses is increased in L5 cells, so that their subthreshold RF narrows in comparison to those in superficial layers (Martinez et al. 2002) in accord with our results.
Functional and anatomical determinants of cortical output from L5
Spontaneous and evoked APs.
The spontaneous AP activity of L5 cells (0.5 APs s–1) is higher than that of cells in L4 or L2/3 (0.05 and 0.07 APs s–1, respectively (Brecht & Sakmann, 2002a; Brecht et al. 2003). This ongoing activity may affect the RFs of such cells. For instance, compared to L5A, L5B cells have a slightly higher rate of spontaneous firing that may contribute to their larger suprathreshold versus subthreshold RF. Spontaneous AP activity occurs during the up-state, and whisker-evoked AP responses vary due to the ongoing subthreshold up- and down-state activity (Sachdev & Wilson, 2001; Petersen et al. 2003). This variation will influence the suprathreshold RFs. Extracellular recordings also indicate that L5 cells have higher spontaneous AP activity than other layers (Armstrong-James & Fox, 1987; Huang et al. 1998). These findings together suggest that L5 is a major constituent of ongoing cortical output activity. This is probably due to a collection of factors. The first may be the relatively depolarized resting membrane potential of the L5 cells, on average 10 mV more depolarized than that of L4 and L2/3 neurones (Brecht & Sakmann, 2002a; Brecht et al. 2003). Since they rest relatively close to AP threshold, they will tend to fire more often and can be fired by smaller PSPs. This combined with L5 recurrent excitation via the intralaminar connections (Figs 3 and 4) (Chagnac-Amitai et al. 1990; Markram, 1997; Markram et al. 1997) may act to boost the rate of both ongoing and evoked APs.
The average L5 PW PSP is only about 5 mV, while unitary connections arising from other L5 and L2/3 cells are 0.3 and 0.1 mV, respectively (Reyes & Sakmann, 1999). Since these cells are thought to receive approximately 5000–15 000 synapses (Larkman, 1991), L5 responses should be assembled from relatively few presynaptic cells, indicating sparse presynaptic activity, as has been postulated for the PSP responses in L4 and L2/3 neurones (Brecht & Sakmann, 2002a; Brecht et al. 2003).
Cortical barrels and modules. An anatomical organizing principle of sensory cortices is the modules of L5 pyramids, often in combination with L2/3 pyramids (White & Peters, 1993). In the barrel cortex the somata of L5 pyramids are preferentially located underneath the somata of the L4 spiny cells that form the barrels. The dendrites and axons of L4 cells are orientated towards the barrel hollows and respect the borders of barrels whereas the dendrites of L5 cells extend well across borders of barrel-columns. Thus the barrel-column organization in L4 and L2/3 is replaced in L5 by an organization of smaller, more frequent modules. Functionally these modules convey the signals of a single or a few barrel columns with which they are associated.
Number of APs per deflection.
How many L5 axons carry the AP output signalling that a whisker deflection has occurred? The distance between apical dendrite clusters of L5 cells forming modules is about 50 µm (White & Peters, 1993). Thus single-column-like excitation of L5 cells would mean that 100 cortical modules can be activated by a deflection. Each module comprises about 20–50 L5 cells, implying that they represent 2000–5000 L5 cells in a column (White & Peters, 1993). Although only about half of the cells increased their firing with a deflection, the average number of APs per stimulus in L5 cells is close to 0.1. Otherwise stated, on average 10% of cells will fire an AP on any given stimulus. As such, the AP output is conveyed by about 200–500 pyramids of L5; meaning that, on average, 2–5 APs per module originate from L5 cells signalling that a deflection has occurred.
Output from the barrel cortex is also mediated by APs in L2/3 pyramids, which in primary sensory areas co-cluster with L5 cells (White & Peters, 1993). The number of APs in L2/3 pyramids of a barrel-column has been estimated to be about 120 (Brecht et al. 2003). If the L2/3 cells contribute to the modules' output, a total of 300–600 APs per deflection are conveyed out of the barrel cortex. On average then, the number of APs generated in a module might exceed 5.
Bilateral representation. Recent work has implicated L5 in mediating discrimination of bilateral stimuli (Shuler et al. 2001, 2002). Our results indicate that both L5A and L5B cells receive a relatively small and longer-onset latency ipsilateral whisker input, while both L4 and L2/3 appear devoid of such input (Brecht & Sakmann, 2002a; Brecht et al. 2003). Such bilateral sensory representation presents an additional important example of how sensory signals are integrated by the cortex (Berlucchi et al. 1967; Hubel & Wiesel, 1967; Iwamura, 2000).
Functional significance
How the PW-specific L5A output will affect its target cells in other cortical areas and in subcortical nuclei is as yet unclear. Whisker stimulation evokes short-latency APs in motor cortex neurones dependent on somatosensory cortex afferents (Farkas et al. 1999), which may originate in part from L5A neurones (Koralek et al. 1990). Similarly, L5A whisker-specific input would signal to the secondary somatosensory cortex (S2) in decision-making processes related to stimulus properties (Romo et al. 2002). In addition it may influence movement preparation encoded by the caudate nucleus in response to sensory stimuli (Mercier et al. 1990; Romo & Schultz, 1992; Schultz & Romo, 1992). Behavioural experiments have recently shown that L5A has the lowest electrical stimulation thresholds for evoking motor responses (Krauss et al. 2003), emphasizing the importance of the downstream effects of L5A's intracortical and subcortical projections in generating behavioural responses.
L5B output could increase the excitation for whisker-directed behaviours in areas receiving whisker-specific information directly from different parts of the trigeminal nucleus, such as the pontine nuclei, superior colliculus and the facial nucleus (Killackey & Erzurumlu, 1981; Swenson et al. 1984; Rhoades et al. 1989; Dauvergne et al. 2001, 2002).
Conclusions
Our description of the dynamic sub- and suprathreshold RFs of cortical neurones in L4 and L2/3 (Brecht & Sakmann, 2002a; Brecht et al. 2003), in combination with the RFs reported here for pyramids in L5, suggest that in each layer of the barrel cortex a whisker deflection is represented in at least two ways by anatomically segregated ensembles of neurones. In L4, the cortical recipient layer, the thalamocortical inputs segregate into barrel cells, representing focal excitation, and septum cells, representing more diffuse excitation. This segregation is maintained in L2/3. In L5, the cortical output layer, a deflection is represented by focal excitation in L5A and more diffuse excitation in L5B. The 2-D projection maps of dendritic and axonal arbors of identified cells in granular, supra- and infragranular layers indicate a mixing of the two afferent pathways at the level of L5. How exactly the dual representation in L5 is established, i.e. what are the most efficacious inputs, remains to be elucidated by paired recordings from different presynaptic cells targeting L5A or L5B cells and determining their unitary EPSPs.
Finally it is yet to be elucidated whether the behaviourally relevant cortical output of L5 is ‘layer specific’ or ‘module specific’. A layer specific patterning of output effects has recently been demonstrated in the rat vibrissa motor cortex (Brecht et al. 2004). In barrel cortex it remains to be determined whether stimulus properties are signalled independently either by cells in L5A or cells in L5B, or whether it is the pattern of APs in L5A and L5B across an ensemble of modules that is relevant for initiating behavioural responses.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Ahissar E, Sosnik R & Haidarliu S (2000). Transformation from temporal to rate coding in a somatosensory thalamocortical pathway. Nature 406, 302–306.[CrossRef][Medline]
Anderson J, Lampl I, Reichova I, Carandini M & Ferster D (2000). Stimulus dependence of two-state fluctuations of membrane potential in cat visual cortex. Nat Neurosci 3, 617–621.[CrossRef][Medline]
Armstrong-James M & Fox K (1987). Spatiotemporal convergence and divergence in the rat S1 ‘barrel’ cortex. J Comp Neurol 263, 265–281.[CrossRef][Medline]
Armstrong-James M, Fox K & Das-Gupta A (1992). Flow of excitation within rat barrel cortex on striking a single vibrissa. J Neurophysiol 68, 1345–1358.
Berlucchi G, Gazzaniga MS & Rizzolatti G (1967). Microelectrode analysis of transfer of visual information by the corpus callosum. Arch Ital Biol 105, 583–596.[Medline]
Bernardo KL, McCasland JS & Woolsey TA (1990a). Local axonal trajectories in mouse barrel cortex. Exp Brain Res 82, 247–253.[Medline]
Bernardo KL, McCasland JS, Woolsey TA & Strominger RN (1990b). Local intra- and interlaminar connections in mouse barrel cortex. J Comp Neurol 291, 231–255.[CrossRef][Medline]
Blanton MG, Lo Turco JJ & Kriegstein AR (1989). Whole cell recording from neurons in slices of reptilian and mammalian cerebral cortex. J Neurosci Meth 30, 203–210.[CrossRef][Medline]
Brecht M, Roth A & Sakmann B (2003). Dynamic receptive fields of reconstructed pyramidal cells in layers 3 and 2 of the rat somatosensory cortex. J Physiol, 553, 243–265.
Brecht M & Sakmann B (2002a). Dynamic representation of whisker deflection by synaptic potentials in spiny stellate and pyramidal cells in the barrels and septa of layer 4 rat somatosensory cortex. J Physiol 543, 49–70.
Brecht M & Sakmann B (2002b). Whisker maps of neuronal subclasses of the rat ventral posterior medial thalamus, identified by whole-cell voltage recording and morphological reconstruction. J Physiol 538, 495–515.
Brecht M, Schneider M, Sakmann B & Margrie T (2004). Whisker movements evoked by stimulation of single pyramidal cells in rat motor cortex. Nature 427, 704–710.[CrossRef][Medline]
Chagnac-Amitai Y, Luhmann HJ & Prince DA (1990). Burst generating and regular spiking layer 5 pyramidal neurons of rat neocortex have different morphological features. J Comp Neurol 296, 598–613.[CrossRef][Medline]
Chmielowska J, Carvell GE & Simons DJ (1989). Spatial organization of thalamocortical and corticothalamic projection systems in the rat SmI barrel cortex. J Comp Neurol 285, 325–338.[CrossRef][Medline]
Cowan RL & Wilson CJ (1994). Spontaneous firing patterns and axonal projections of single corticostriatal neurons in the rat medial agranular cortex. J Neurophysiol 71, 17–32.
Crandall JE, Korde M & Caviness VS Jr (1986). Somata of layer V projection neurons in the mouse barrelfield cortex are in preferential register with the sides and septa of the barrels. Neurosci Lett 67, 19–24.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dauvergne C, Pinganaud G, Buisseret P, Buisseret-Delmas C & Zerari-Mailly F (2001). Reticular premotor neurons projecting to both facial and hypoglossal nuclei receive trigeminal afferents in rats. Neurosci Lett 311, 109–112.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dauvergne C, Zerari-Mailly F, Buisseret P, Buisseret-Delmas C & Pinganaud G (2002). The sensory trigeminal complex projects contralaterally to the facial motor and the accessory abducens nuclei in the rat. Neurosci Lett 329, 169–172.[CrossRef][Medline]
Deschenes M, Bourassa J & Pinault D (1994). Corticothalamic projections from layer V cells in rat are collaterals of long-range corticofugal axons. Brain Res 664, 215–219.[CrossRef][Medline]
Diamond ME, Armstrong-James M & Ebner FF (1992). Somatic sensory responses in the rostral sector of the posterior group (POm) and in the ventral posterior medial nucleus (VPM) of the rat thalamus. J Comp Neurol 318, 462–476.[CrossRef][Medline]
Farkas T, Kis Z, Toldi J & Wolff JR (1999). Activation of the primary motor cortex by somatosensory stimulation in adult rats is mediated mainly by associational connections from the somatosensory cortex. Neuroscience 90, 353–361.[CrossRef][Medline]
Feldman ML & Peters A (1974). A study of barrels and pyramidal dendritic clusters in the cerebral cortex. Brain Res 77, 55–76.[CrossRef][Medline]
Friedberg MH, Lee SM & Ebner FF (1999). Modulation of receptive field properties of thalamic somatosensory neurons by the depth of anesthesia. J Neurophysiol 81, 2243–2252.
Ghazanfar AA & Nicolelis MA (1999). Spatiotemporal properties of layer V neurons of the rat primary somatosensory cortex. Cereb Cortex 9, 348–361.
Gilbert CD & Wiesel TN (1979). Morphology and intracortical projections of functionally characterised neurones in the cat visual cortex. Nature 280, 120–125.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gottlieb JP & Keller A (1997). Intrinsic circuitry and physiological properties of pyramidal neurons in rat barrel cortex. Exp Brain Res 115, 47–60.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hoeflinger BF, Bennett-Clarke CA, Chiaia NL, Killackey HP & Rhoades RW (1995). Patterning of local intracortical projections within the vibrissae representation of rat primary somatosensory cortex. J Comp Neurol 354, 551–563.[CrossRef][Medline]
Horikawa K & Armstrong WE (1988). A versatile means of intracellular labeling: injection of biocytin and its detection with avidin conjugates. J Neurosci Meth 25, 1–11.[CrossRef][Medline]
Huang W, Armstrong-James M, Rema V, Diamond ME & Ebner FF (19
