Knockdown of GABAARs in these cells enhanced the depolarizing res

Knockdown of GABAARs in these cells enhanced the depolarizing response to light decrements (Figure 7E). In contrast, knockdown of GABABRs suppressed the depolarizing response to decrements and made the hyperpolarizing response less sustained (Figure 7F). These effects were indistinguishable from those caused by pharmacological block of the same receptors (Figure 7C). Thus, the effect of GABABRs on the shape of L2 cell responses to light decrements and increments is mediated via receptors on either L2 or photoreceptors, or both. The difference between the combined

effect of high throughput screening GABAAR and GABABR antagonists and the genetic knockdown of both receptors may be explained by the cancellation of opposing effects of individual receptor knockdowns on decrement selleck chemical responses. This is also consistent with the

notion that the effect of pharmacological block of GABAARs is due to receptors distinct from those in L2 cells and photoreceptors. Overall, these results demonstrate that GABAergic circuits play a significant role in regulating the amplitude and kinetics of L2 responses to both light increments and decrements applied to the RF center, in addition to mediating surround responses. These results implied that GABAergic inputs might enable L2 to balance responses to light increments and decrements. To test this hypothesis, we examined whether the linearity of L2 responses to sinusoidal contrast changes was affected by the application of GABAR antagonists. Indeed, this manipulation significantly altered the responses,

as the responses to the brightening and darkening phases of this stimulus below were no longer similar in amplitude (Figures 8A–8C). In particular, the hyperpolarizing response to light increments became significantly larger, while the depolarizing response to decrements failed to track the darkening input and displayed saturation (Figure 8A). We quantified this deviation from linearity by computing the differences between measured responses and sinusoids with matched amplitudes. Larger deviations were found following addition of GABAR antagonists (Figures 8B and 8C). The same effect on linearity was observed in response to stimuli moving around either the pitch or yaw axes (Figures S7A–S7C). However, knockdown of GABARs in L2 and photoreceptors increased the linearity of responses to sinusoidal gratings (Figures S7D–S7F). Nevertheless, both application of GABAR antagonists and knockdown of GABARs in L2 cells and photoreceptors suppressed the differences between the amplitudes of responses to gratings moving around the pitch and yaw axes (Figures S7G and S7H). Thus, as the knockdown of GABARs mediates surround effects but does not affect contrast polarity sensitivity, these observations suggest that, under these stimulus conditions, surround effects decrease the linearity of L2 responses to contrast.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>