Inputs to parasol ganglion cells in the primate retina

Retinal ganglion cells carry signals from the eye to the brain. One of the most common types of ganglion cells is parasol cells. They have larger dendritic trees, somas and axons than other ganglion cells. While much was known about parasol cell light responses, little was known about how these responses are formed. One possibility is that they receive input from a unique set of local circuit neurons that have similar responses. The goal was to identify these presynaptic neurons and study their synaptic connectivity.^ Ganglion cells receive input from bipolar and amacrine cells, but there are numerous subtypes of each. To determine which of these were most likely to provide input to parasol cells, the parasol cells were intracellularly-injected and then various bipolar and amacrine cells were immunolabeled and the tissue analyzed using a confocal microscope. DB3 bipolar cells labeled with antibodies to calbindin made extensive contacts with OFF parasol cells. Antibodies to recover in labeled flat midget bipolar cells (FMB). They made only random contacts with OFF parasol cells, and they are not expected to provide significant input. Type DB2 bipolar cells and FMB cells labeled with antibodies to excitatory amino acid transporter-2 made extensive contacts with OFF parasol cells. This suggests that DB2 bipolar cells are likely to provide input to parasol cells.^ Two types of amacrine cells were labeled in material containing injected parasol cells. Cholinergic amacrine cells were labeled with antibodies to choline acetyltransferase, and they made extensive contacts with ON parasol cells. The large amacrine cells labeled with antibodies to a precursor of cholecystokinin were among the amacrine cells that are tracer-coupled to parasol cells.^ From electron microscopic (EM) analysis, most of the synapses made by DB3 axons were found on varicosities. Some postsynaptic and presynaptic amacrine cells resembled AII amacrine cells. Others were relatively electron-lucent and may be cholinergic amacrine cells or cholecystokinin-containing amacrine cells. Gap junctions were found between neighboring DB3 axons. They occurred whenever two axons contacted each other, and the junctions were as large as the area of contact. In double-label EM experiments, DB3 axons made synapses onto OFF parasol cells. ^

Effect of nonnormal random components on level and power in group-randomized trials

The use of group-randomized trials is particularly widespread in the evaluation of health care, educational, and screening strategies. Group-randomized trials represent a subset of a larger class of designs often labeled nested, hierarchical, or multilevel and are characterized by the randomization of intact social units or groups, rather than individuals. The application of random effects models to group-randomized trials requires the specification of fixed and random components of the model. The underlying assumption is usually that these random components are normally distributed. This research is intended to determine if the Type I error rate and power are affected when the assumption of normality for the random component representing the group effect is violated. ^ In this study, simulated data are used to examine the Type I error rate, power, bias and mean squared error of the estimates of the fixed effect and the observed intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) when the random component representing the group effect possess distributions with non-normal characteristics, such as heavy tails or severe skewness. The simulated data are generated with various characteristics (e.g. number of schools per condition, number of students per school, and several within school ICCs) observed in most small, school-based, group-randomized trials. The analysis is carried out using SAS PROC MIXED, Version 6.12, with random effects specified in a random statement and restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation specified. The results from the non-normally distributed data are compared to the results obtained from the analysis of data with similar design characteristics but normally distributed random effects. ^ The results suggest that the violation of the normality assumption for the group component by a skewed or heavy-tailed distribution does not appear to influence the estimation of the fixed effect, Type I error, and power. Negative biases were detected when estimating the sample ICC and dramatically increased in magnitude as the true ICC increased. These biases were not as pronounced when the true ICC was within the range observed in most group-randomized trials (i.e. 0.00 to 0.05). The normally distributed group effect also resulted in bias ICC estimates when the true ICC was greater than 0.05. However, this may be a result of higher correlation within the data. ^