JN Watch the video to learn how APS reaches out to developing nations.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (January 30, 2008). doi:10.1152/jn.01253.2007
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
99/4/1643    most recent
01253.2007v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hyngstrom, A. S.
Right arrow Articles by Heckman, C. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hyngstrom, A. S.
Right arrow Articles by Heckman, C. J.
Submitted on November 13, 2007
Accepted on January 26, 2008

Summation of Excitatory and Inhibitory Synaptic Inputs by Motoneurons with Highly Active Dendrites

Allison S. Hyngstrom1, Michael D. Johnson1, and Charles J. Heckman1*

1 Physiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: c-heckman{at}northwestern.edu.

We investigated summation of steady excitatory and inhibitory inputs in spinal motoneurons using an in vivo preparation, the decerebrate cat, in which neuromodulatory input from the brainstem facilitated a strong persistent inward current (PIC) in dendritic regions. This dendritic PIC amplified both excitatory and inhibitory synaptic currents 2- to 3-fold, but within different voltage ranges. Amplification of excitatory synaptic current peaked at voltage clamp holding potentials near spike threshold (about -55 to -50 mV), whereas amplification of inhibitory current peaked at significantly more depolarized levels (about -45 to -40 mV). Thus, the linear sum of excitatory and inhibitory currents tended to vary from net excitatory to net inhibitory as holding potential was depolarized. The actual summed currents, however, diverged from the predicted linear currents. At the peak of excitation, summation averaged ~15% sub-linear (actual sum was less positive than the linear sum). In contrast, at the peak of inhibition, summation averaged ~18% supra-linear (actual more positive than linear). Moreover, these nonlinear effects were substantially larger in cells where the variation from peak excitation to peak inhibition for linear summation was larger. When descending neuromodulatory input was eliminated by acute spinalization, PIC amplification was not observed and summation tended to be either sub-linear or approximately linear, depending on input source. Overall, in cells with strong PICs, nonlinear summation of excitation and inhibition does occur, but this nonlinearity results in a more consistent relationship between membrane potential and the summed excitatory and inhibitory current.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2008 by the The American Physiological Society.