DIRECT INPUTS TO OFF Α AND G9 GANGLION CELLS FROM AII AMACRINE CELLS IN RABBIT RETINA

In the mammalian retina, AII amacrine cells are essential in the rod pathway for dark-adapted vision. But they also have a “day job”, to provide inhibitory inputs to certain OFF ganglion cells in photopic conditions. This is known as crossover inhibition. Physiological evidence from several different labs implies that AII amacrine cells provide direct input to certain OFF ganglion cells. However, previous EM analysis of the rabbit retina suggests that the dominant output of the AII amacrine cell in sublamina a goes to OFF cone bipolar cells (Strettoi et al., 1992). Two OFF ganglion cell types in the rabbit retina, OFF α and G9, were identified by a combination of morphological criteria such as dendritic field size, dye coupling, mosaic properties and stratification depth. The AII amacrine cells (AIIs) were labeled with an antibody against calretinin and glycine receptors were marked with an antibody against the α1 subunit. This material was analyzed by triple-label confocal microscopy. We found the lobules of AIIs made close contacts at many points along the dendrites of individual OFF α and G9 ganglion cells. At these potential synaptic sites, we also found punctate labeling for the glycine receptor α1 subunit. The presence of a post-synaptic marker such as the α1 glycine receptor at contact points between AII lobules and OFF ganglion cells supports a direct inhibitory input from AIIs. This pathway provides for crossover inhibition in the rabbit retina whereby light onset provides an inhibitory signal to OFF α and G9 ganglion cells. Thus, these two OFF ganglion cell types receive a mixed excitatory and inhibitory drive in response to light stimulation.

Cerebellar cortex contributions to the expression and timing of conditioned eyelid responses.

We used micro-infusions during eyelid conditioning in rabbits to investigate the relative contributions of cerebellar cortex and the underlying deep nuclei (DCN) to the expression of cerebellar learning. These tests were conducted using two forms of cerebellum-dependent eyelid conditioning for which the relative roles of cerebellar cortex and DCN are controversial: delay conditioning, which is largely unaffected by forebrain lesions, and trace conditioning, which involves interactions between forebrain and cerebellum. For rabbits trained with delay conditioning, silencing cerebellar cortex by micro-infusions of the local anesthetic lidocaine unmasked stereotyped short-latency responses. This was also the case after extinction as observed previously with reversible blockade of cerebellar cortex output. Conversely, increasing cerebellar cortex activity by micro-infusions of the GABA(A) antagonist picrotoxin reversibly abolished conditioned responses. Effective cannula placements were clustered around the primary fissure and deeper in lobules hemispheric lobule IV (HIV) and hemispheric lobule V (HV) of anterior lobe. In well-trained trace conditioned rabbits, silencing this same area of cerebellar cortex or reversibly blocking cerebellar cortex output also unmasked short-latency responses. Because Purkinje cells are the sole output of cerebellar cortex, these results provide evidence that the expression of well-timed conditioned responses requires a well-timed decrease in the activity of Purkinje cells in anterior lobe. The parallels between results from delay and trace conditioning suggest similar contributions of plasticity in cerebellar cortex and DCN in both instances.