HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 102/4/2288    most recent 00082.2009v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Routh, B. N. Articles by Chitwood, R. A. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Routh, B. N. Articles by Chitwood, R. A.

RESEARCH-ARTICLE

Anatomical and Electrophysiological Comparison of CA1 Pyramidal Neurons of the Rat and Mouse

Center for Learning and Memory, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

Submitted 29 January 2009; accepted in final form 7 August 2009

ABSTRACT

The study of learning and memory at the single-neuron level has relied on the use of many animal models, most notably rodents. Although many physiological and anatomical studies have been carried out in rats, the advent of genetically engineered mice has necessitated the comparison of new results in mice to established results from rats. Here we compare fundamental physiological and morphological properties and create three-dimensional compartmental models of identified hippocampal CA1 pyramidal neurons of one strain of rat, Sprague–Dawley, and two strains of mice, C57BL/6 and 129/SvEv. We report several differences in neuronal physiology and anatomy among the three animal groups, the most notable being that neurons of the 129/SvEv mice, but not the C57BL/6 mice, have higher input resistance, lower dendritic surface area, and smaller spines than those of rats. A surprising species-specific difference in membrane resonance indicates that both mouse strains have lower levels of the hyperpolarization-activated nonspecific cation current I_h. Simulations suggest that differences in I_h kinetics rather than maximal conductance account for the lower resonance. Our findings indicate that comparisons of data obtained across strains or species will need to account for these and potentially other physiological and anatomical differences.