| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Section of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, Division of Biological Sciences and Ophthalmology Department, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, California 95616
Submitted 13 March 2003; accepted in final form 26 April 2003
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
), has
been implicated in diverse biological functions, including control of
information processing in the visual system
(Cudeiro and Rivadulla 1999;
Goldstein et al. 1996). In the
retina, nitric oxide synthase (NOS), the enzyme synthesizing this messenger
molecule (Marletta 1994), has
been localized to several different cell types, including pigment epithelium
cells (Bredt et al. 1990;
Goureau et al. 1993),
Müller cells (Liepe et al.
1994), amacrine and ganglion cells
(Dawson et al. 1991;
Koistinaho et al. 1993;
Yamamoto et al. 1993a), and
photoreceptors (Yamamoto et al.
1993b).
There is also evidence that NO may play a role in the physiological
regulation of diverse retinal functions, ranging from transduction to the
gating of the output signal. For instance, NO has been reported to modulate
voltage-gated ion channels in rods and cyclic-nucleotide-gated channels in
both rods and cones (Kurenny et al.
1994; Rieke and Schwartz
1994; Savchenko et al.
1997). This is in line with the finding that light stimulation
induces NO release in the retina, but the cell types involved in such
light-induced release are yet to be determined
(Neal et al. 1998). NO has
also been found to decrease electrical coupling in horizontal cells
(DeVries and Schwartz 1989;
Miyachi et al. 1990), and to
modulate cGMP levels in bipolar cells (Nawy and Jahr
1990,
1991;
Shiells and Falk 1990), and to
reduce coupling between AII amacrine cells and ON-cone bipolar
cells (Mills and Massey 1995).
In ganglion cells NO donors have been shown to modulate cGMP-gated
conductances (Ahmad et al.
1994; Kawa and Sterling
2002) and to increase the amplitude of N-type calcium currents
(Hirooka et al. 2000).
In view of the rather extensive literature documenting the myriad effects
of NO on membrane properties of retinal cells, it is surprising that little is
known yet about the effects of this gas on the light-evoked responses of
ganglion cells, the output neurons of the retina. Studies that have relied on
electroretinogram (ERG) and compound action potential recordings from the
optic nerve during application of NO-related compounds reveal that this gas
can modulate retinal activity (Goldstein
et al. 1996; Maynard et al.
1995), although it remains to be established how NO affects the
responses of individual ganglion cells.
In the present study we sought to answer three main questions. First, does NO affect the visual responses of retinal ganglion cells in the dark-adapted retina? Second, can the effects of NO be related to a specific class of retinal ganglion cells defined on the basis of salient morphological properties? Third, is the influence of NO on light responses of ganglion cells mediated by specific rod driven pathways? To address these issues we relied on whole cell patch-clamp recordings from morphologically identified retinal ganglion cells in the isolated retinal preparation. Our results indicate that NO acts to dampen the responses of all three major classes of ganglion cells in the ferret retina. Moreover, we show that OFF responses are more sensitive than ON responses to NO modulation. We also demonstrate that the blockade of responses by NO to light offset is mediated by the DL-2-amino-phosphonobutyric acid (APB)-sensitive OFF retinal pathway, suggesting that inhibition of glycinergic synapses may be involved in this phenomenon.
|
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
850-nm
cut filter. Retinal preparation
Retinas were obtained from ferrets (Marshall Farm USA, North Rose, NY) ranging in age from postnatal day 35 (P35) to P55, with the day of birth denoted as P0. After a lethal dose of barbiturate (Nembutal 200 mg/kg, administered intraperitoneally), the eyes were removed and placed in oxygenated L15 at 37°C for 12 min. The retinas were then carefully peeled from the eyecup and stored at room temperature in Eagle's minimal essential medium (EMEM), continuously bubbled with 95% O2-5% CO2. A small piece of retina was placed ganglion cell layer up in the recording chamber and stabilized with an overlying piece of filter paper. A 2-mm hole in the filter paper provided access for the recording electrode. Cells were visualized through a 40x objective mounted on an upright epifluorescence microscope (Nikon).
During recordings the retina was perfused continuously with EMEM (1.5 ml/min) through a gravity-fed line, heated with a Peltier device, and continuously bubbled with 95% O2 -5% CO2. A calibrated thermocouple monitored the temperature in the recording chamber, maintained at 35°C. Recordings from individual cells usually lasted 30–120 min, and retinal segments from which recordings were made typically remained viable for 8–12 h. Patch electrodes were filled with a solution containing (in mM): KCl, 140; HEPES, 10; EGTA, 0.5; 0.5 mg/ml Nystatin; 2.5 mg/ml Pluronic F-68; 0.5% Lucifer yellow; pH 7.4. By the end of the experiment the soma and the dendritic arborizations were usually completely filled, suggesting that recordings were made in the whole cell configuration. Once complete filling was achieved, the retina was removed and fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde for 6–8 h at 4°C.
Electrophysiology
Patch pipettes with a tip resistance between 3 and 7 M
were pulled
from thick-walled 1.5-mm OD borosilicate glass on a Sutter Instruments puller
(P-97). Current-clamp recordings were made with an Axopatch 200B patch-clamp
amplifier. The data were low-pass filtered at rates between 1 and 2 kHz and
digitized at rates between 1 and 4 kHz before storage on a computer for
subsequent off-line analysis. To attain whole cell access, vitreous and the
outer limiting membrane overlying the recording area were removed by gently
brushing the retinal surface with the tip of a glass pipette. Recordings were
obtained by patching onto cells with clear, nongranular cytoplasm.
High-resistance seals were obtained by moving the patch electrode onto the
cell membrane and applying gentle suction. After formation of a
high-resistance seal between the electrode and the cell membrane, transient
currents caused by pipette capacitance were electronically compensated by the
circuit of the Axopatch 200B amplifier. If the seal resistance dropped below 1
G during the recording the experiment was terminated. The series
resistance was 7–16 M. After attaining whole cell configuration
the resting membrane potential was read off the amplifier. The value of the
resting potential was monitored regularly throughout the recording, and if
significant changes were observed, the recording was terminated.
Light stimulus
Light-evoked responses were obtained by delivering spots of light from
three computer-controlled LEDs (having 
d =463, 569, 651 nm)
through the camera port of the microscope. Spectral power was measured with a
silicon photodiode and linear readout system (United Detector Technology, 81
Optometer) and a spectroradiometer/photometer (Photo Research, PR703-A)
scanning from 390 to 720 nm in 2-nm steps. These instruments were calibrated
relative to standards of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The number of quanta delivered to the retina was specified per receptor
s–1, assuming that the inner segments form the
optical aperture, based on a diameter of 0.315 µm
(Weidman and Greiner 1984).
The photoreceptors were stimulated at very low intensities (9–174 quanta
per receptor s–1), in the scotopic range based on
reasonable assumptions available from other species
(Soucy et al. 1998).
Drug application
L-Arginine (1 or 5 mM; Sigma), D-arginine (1 or 5 mM;
Sigma), S-nitroso-N-acetylpenicillamine (SNAP, 1 mM, Sigma;
Hirooka et al. 2000),
strychnine (50 µM; Sigma), and D-2-amino-phosphonobutyric acid
(APB, 50 µM; Calbiochem) were freshly dissolved in EMEM on the day of the
experiment and administered through a gravity fed line. The solutions were
heated with a Peltier device and continuously bubbled with 95%
O2-5% CO2. A 6-position rotary valve (Western Analytical
Products) was used to switch between bath and drugs solutions. The washout
time for chemicals usually took 6 to 20 min.
Morphological analysis
Recorded cells were visualized and identified as ganglion cells before the
electrode was withdrawn, and only neurons unequivocally identified as retinal
ganglion cells (Wingate et al.
1992) were included in this study. Images of the labeled cells
were taken in the whole-mount configuration with an upright Nikon Eclipse E600
microscope equipped with epifluorescence or a Bio-Rad MRC-1024ES confocal
microscope using a computerized imaging system (Bio-Rad CoMOS, version 7.0),
and cell class was determined from these images.
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
Effects of NO on light-evoked responses of retinal ganglion cells
Recordings were made from 55 cells to flashing spots of light, before, during, and after addition of either D-arginine or L-arginine to the bath solution. In every instance, when D-arginine (the biologically inactive stereoisomer of arginine) was applied to the bath solution, there was no appreciable change in the visual responses. By contrast, the visual responses of all but a few ganglion cells (47 of 55) were affected by L-arginine application. In all cases, the introduction of L-arginine, the precursor of NO, produced a decreased responsiveness in the light-evoked responses, but the magnitude of this effect differed for ON and OFF discharges.
In the majority of neurons that responded only to light onset (n = 37), L-arginine was found to significantly decrease ON discharges (29 of 37). Two examples of this effect are shown in Fig. 1. One of these cells responded to light with a transient discharge (Fig. 1A), whereas the other yielded a more sustained response (Fig. 1B). Note that in both cases, there was a significant decrease in responsiveness after application of the L-arginine and that the light-evoked responses remained stable after D-arginine application.
|
Figure 2 (left side) shows the magnitude of this effect expressed in terms of the average peak firing rate at onset of light stimulation. The average peak firing rate was calculated by counting the number of spikes within a window that encompassed the highest firing rate and dividing the spike number by the duration of the window. As may be seen, L-arginine decreased the peak firing rate by about 40% from 206.3 ± 19.3 to 120 ± 23.8 spikes/s (mean ± SE, n = 29, P < 0.05, 2-tailed t-test).
|
Most cells manifested spontaneous activity (i.e., action potentials not evoked by the light), and L-arginine usually reduced the frequency of these discharges (Fig. 2, right side). For the overall sample, this effect was significant (28.2 ± 3.3 to 18.6 ± 1.1 spikes/s; mean ± SE, n = 29, P < 0.05, two-tailed t-test). The reduced discharges observed to light onset, however, were not always associated with a decrease in spontaneous activity levels because in some cells (n = 5) L-arginine caused a decrease in light-evoked responses without affecting spontaneous activity.
Application of L-arginine affected the responses of all cells that yielded only OFF discharges. In most cases (5 of 8) the introduction of this drug completely blocked OFF responses, as shown in Fig. 3A. In the three remaining cells, OFF responses were reduced in peak firing frequency by 22.5, 36.7, and 43.1% of their controls (the peak firing frequency in bath solution).
|
The differential effect of L-arginine on ON and OFF discharges was also apparent in the 10 ganglion cells that responded to both light onset and offset (Fig. 3B). In this sample, OFF responses were completely blocked by L-arginine in 6 cases and decreased in 4 others (by 27.7, 33.2, 48.2, and 52.6% of control values). By contrast, responses to light onset were decreased in 8 cases (ranging from 22.3 to 54.2%) and unaffected in 2 other cells (<5% of the control values). In no case were ON responses completely blocked by NO.
We typically used a concentration of L-arginine of 1 mM, although in a number of instances we also tested the effects of a 5 mM concentration. There was no indication that the differential effects described above on ON and OFF discharges were dependent on the concentration of L-arginine. This may be seen in Fig. 4A, which shows the percentage of ON and OFF responses that were either not changed appreciably (i.e., within 5% of control values), reduced in peak firing frequency (ranging from 11 to 70% of control values) or completely blocked (responses inhibited 100%) after either 1 or 5 mM application of L-arginine. Note that none of the ON responses was blocked when the higher concentration of L-arginine was applied (depicted with hashed bars in Fig. 4A) and that 44.4% of the OFF responses were completely blocked at the lower concentration. Thus it seems unlikely that the differential effects of L-arginine on ON and OFF responses of retinal ganglion cells reflect a drug dosage effect. Figure 4B illustrates the distributions of ON and OFF responses with respect to the degree of response inhibition observed after L-arginine application. The ON and OFF responses presented in Fig. 4, A and B include all responses from ON cells, OFF cells, and ON-OFF cells that were tested with L-arginine.
|
We also employed an alternate means for increasing NO production by introducing into the bath solution the NO donor SNAP. A total of 7 cells were tested (4 ON and 3 OFF). SNAP caused a decrease in the responses of 4 ON cells (ranging from 19.2 to 53.4%) and the complete block of OFF responses in 2 cells, with one OFF cell showing a response decrease (38.5%). Figure 5 illustrates the effect of SNAP application for an ON (Fig. 5A) and an OFF cell (Fig. 5B). As was the case with L-arginine, SNAP application had a more pronounced effect on the OFF pathway.
|
The resting membrane potential of the cells we recorded was –57.4 ± 4.6 mV (n = 73). In most cells, there was no appreciable change in the membrane potential after application of L-arginine or SNAP (61 of 73). In some cells (12 of 73), the membrane potential initially became more hyperpolarized (by 2–5 mV at its peak) followed by a period of depolarization. The effects of the light-evoked responses did not appear to be related to these effects on the membrane potential of the recorded cells.
Morphologically identified cell classes
The cells from which recordings were made were filled with Lucifer yellow, allowing us to establish their morphological class (Fig. 6). This revealed that NO influenced the visual responses of all three major cell classes found in the ferret retina. The percentage of alpha, beta, and gamma cells affected by NO was 75% (6 of 8), 88.5% (23 of 26), and 75% (9 of 12), respectively. (Note that the number of filled cells from which recordings were made is lower than the overall sample because in some cases we could not recover the labeled neurons, although these were identified as ganglion cells by the presence of a labeled axon before the electrode was removed.) The 8 cells insensitive to NO were encountered in experiments in which other neurons from the same retina were found to be sensitive to this gas. We could not distinguish these neurons from the overall sample on the basis of their salient morphological properties.
|
Effects of NO on current-evoked responses of retinal ganglion cells
The effects of NO on light-evoked responses of retinal ganglion cells could be mediated by presynaptic and/or postsynaptic mechanisms. To assess the possibility that NO could influence the visual responses of retinal ganglion cells by affecting the excitable membrane properties of these neurons, we examined the effects of NO on current-evoked responses. In all but a few cases, responses to direct current injections were not affected (25 out of 30), even though the visual responses of these neurons were altered by NO. In this sample, 19 were ON cells, 5 were OFF cells, and 6 were ON-OFF cells. In the majority of ON cells (14 of 19) the visual responses were decreased by L-arginine (ranging from 18.4 to 58.5%), and for 2 of the 14 cells firing patterns to current injection changed after L-arginine application from a maintained to a rapidly adapting pattern (Fig. 7). For a given cell, several current levels were used (typically in 10 steps, ranging from 10 to 180 pA) and the rapidly adapting feature was evident at several different current levels, indicating the robustness of the effect.
|
All OFF cells were affected by NO (4 had completely blocked responses and one was reduced by 36.7% of control value), with the current-evoked firing pattern changing from maintained to rapidly adapting in 2 of the blocked cells. For 6 ON-OFF cells, the ON responses were reduced in 5 cases (ranging from 29.7 to 47.6%), whereas the OFF responses were blocked in 4 cases and reduced in 2 others (by 27.7 and 48.2%, respectively). In one of the ON-OFF cells the current-evoked firing pattern was altered by L-arginine in the manner described above. In this neuron the ON response was decreased and the OFF response was blocked by application of the drug.
If changes in excitable membrane properties are involved in mediating the
effects of NO on the visual responses of retinal ganglion cells, then the
discharge patterns evoked by current injection should change after NO
application in these neurons. For the vast majority of cells this was not the
case; there was no clear relation between the effects of NO on light-evoked
responses and current-evoked responses. The fact that NO changed
current-evoked discharge patterns of some ganglion cells suggests that these
neurons might be a functionally distinct subgroup with membrane excitability
sensitive to NO. This may relate to the fact that some ganglion cells with
their dendrites arborizing in ON and OFF layers of IPL
show increased cGMP in response to NO donors
(Blute et al. 1998).
NO blocks the APB-sensitive OFF retinal pathway
In the dark-adapted retina OFF responses in retinal ganglion
cells can be mediated by two different pathways. One of these is APB-sensitive
and involves rod bipolar cells and glycinergic synapses between AII amacrine
cells and OFF-cone bipolar cells
(Sharpe and Stockman 1999). In
this pathway, APB hyperpolarizes rod bipolar cells, thereby preventing their
release of glutamate (Bolz et al.
1984; Müller et al.
1988; Slaughter and Miller
1981). The other OFF retinal pathway is APB-resistant
and involves a direct input from rods to OFF-cone bipolar cells
(Hack et al. 1999;
Soucy et al. 1998;
Wang et al. 2001). The
presynaptic modulation of OFF responses in retinal ganglion cells
could be mediated by one or both of these pathways. To establish the retinal
circuitry underlying the blockade of OFF responses by NO, we
compared the effects of NO, strychnine, a glycinergic receptor blocker, and
APB. SNAP, strychnine, and APB all were found to block OFF
responses in 7 of 11 cells tested (see Fig.
8). In the other four OFF cells studied, APB,
strychnine, and SNAP all failed to abolish OFF responses (see
Fig. 9). Collectively, our data
suggest that in the dark-adapted retina total blockade of ganglion cell
OFF responses by NO is mediated by the APB-sensitive rod pathway,
whereas the APB-insensitive pathway is involved in the reduction of
OFF responses.
|
|
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
It should be emphasized that the results cannot be attributed to nonspecific or toxic effects of the drugs we employed. This claim is supported by the fact that D-arginine, the biologically inactive stereoisomer of arginine, had no effect on visual responses. Both L-arginine and SNAP yielded similar results, and increasing the dosage of L-arginine from 1 to 5 mM did not change the differential sensitivity of ON and OFF pathways. Perhaps the most compelling demonstration of the specificity of the effects is evident in those cases where NO differentially affected the ON and OFF responses within a single ON-OFF cell.
Possible sites of action for NO modulation of visual responses
In studies using dissociated cells NO has been shown to affect the channel
properties of photoreceptors (Kurenny et
al. 1994; Rieke and Schwartz
1994; Savchenko et al.
1997), horizontal cells
(DeVries and Schwartz 1989;
Miyachi et al. 1990), bipolar
cells (Nawy and Jahr,1990,
1991;
Shiells and Falk 1990), and
ganglion cells (Ahmad et al.
1994; Hirooka et al.
2000; Kawa and Sterling
2002). NO donors have also been shown to increase cGMP in a
variety of retinal cells including photoreceptors, horizontal cells, different
types of amacrine cells, bipolar cells, and ganglion cells
(Baldridge and Fischer 2001;
Blute et al. 1998). Thus
multiple action sites could contribute to the effects of NO on visual
responses of ganglion cells.
Although the precise site of NO action on the visual responses of ganglion
cells remains to be established, our results indicate that this gas affects
the intrinsic membrane properties of relatively a small proportion of these
neurons. The current-evoked discharges of only a few ganglion cells were
influenced by NO. These observations imply that there may be a population of
neurons with membrane properties that are NO sensitive within the major three
cell classes defined on the basis of their salient morphometric properties. A
subgroup of alpha ganglion cells was previously documented on the basis of
somatostatin immunoreactivity (White and
Chalupa 1991). It also seems unlikely that the differential
effects of NO on ON and OFF responses could reflect
photoreceptor action. Thus the primary influence of NO appears to be on
retinal circuitry presynaptic to ganglion cells.
One or both of two retinal OFF pathways could have been involved
in mediating the effects of NO on OFF ganglion cell responses: an
APB-sensitive pathway and an APB-resistant pathway. The APB-sensitive pathway
transmits rod signals by rod bipolar cells to AII amacrine cells, then to
OFF-cone bipolar cells by glycinergic synapses, which innervate the
dendrites of OFF ganglion cells
(Sharpe and Stockman 1999;
Soucy et al. 1998). APB blocks
this pathway by hyperpolarizing rod bipolar cells. Strychnine, the glycinergic
receptor blocker, also blocks this pathway by inhibiting glycinergic synapses
(Müller et al. 1988).
Recently, an APB-resistant OFF pathway was discovered
(Hack et al. 1999;
Soucy et al. 1998). This
involves rod photoreceptors that synapse directly on OFF-cone
bipolar cells, which in turn connect with OFF ganglion cells. We
previously showed that this pathway is functional in the dark-adapted ferret
retina (Wang et al. 2001).
There is another APB-resistant pathway that involves the gap junction between
rod and cone, then to cone bipolar cells. This pathway has been reported
operating at mesopic rather than scotopic intensities
(Daw et al. 1990;
Smith et al. 1986;
Steinberg 1969). Whether this
pathway is functional in the ferret retina under scotopic intensities remains
to be established. Because NO inhibits glycine release in the retina
(Neal et al. 1997), our
results can be taken to suggest that the inhibition of glycinergic synapses
could be the mechanism by which NO blocks ganglion cell OFF
responses. Other sites of action could also be involved. For instance, NO
could decrease endogenous dopamine release in the retina by a cGMP-independent
mechanism (Bugnon et al. 1994).
Consistent with this notion, dopamine has been found to enhance the responses
of OFF cone bipolar cells
(Maguire and Werblin
1994).
We have not attempted to establish the sites of NO action on ON
ganglion cell responses, but the available literature suggests several
possibilities that would be worth pursuing in future studies. For example, NO
has been reported to decouple gap junctions in the retina
(DeVries and Schwartz 1989;
Miyachi et al. 1990), and in
particular, NO has been shown to effectively reduce coupling between AII
amacrine cells and ON-cone bipolar cells
(Mills and Massey 1995).
Another target of NO, the cGMP-gated channel, has been localized to
ON bipolar cells (Nawy and
Jahr,1990,
1991;
Shiells and Falk 1990), but
this serves to increase light responses in ON bipolar cells, so it
is unlikely to play a role in the reduction we observed in ganglion cell light
responses.
Role of retinal NO in visual information processing
The results of the present study demonstrate that NO can provide a powerful
effect on the visual responses of retinal output neurons, especially to light
offset. In all but a small proportion of ganglion cells (86%) NO dampens
visual responses, and in many cases OFF discharges were completely
blocked by the actions of this gas. By contrast, in the dorsal lateral
geniculate nucleus, blocking NO synthesis has been reported to reduce the
visual responses of virtually all X and Y cells
(Cudeiro et al. 1994). This
effect could be reversed by application of L-arginine, but
L-arginine administration alone had no appreciable effect on visual
responses. In the cortex, manipulations of the NO system have been reported to
produce reductions as well as enhancements of visual responses (Cudiero et al.
1997). Thus the available evidence indicates that NO can modulate visual
responses in different ways along the retino-geniculo-cortical pathway. The
significance of such diverse modulation by NO to the processing of visual
information remains to be established.
|
|
DISCLOSURES |
|---|
|
|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Address for reprint requests: G. Wang, Section of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, UC Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
Baldridge WH and Fischer AJ. Nitric oxide donor stimulated increase of cyclic GMP in the goldfish retina. Vis Neurosci 18: 849–856, 2001.[Web of Science][Medline]
Blute TA, Velasco P, and Eldred WD. Functional localization of soluble guanylate cyclase in turtle retina: modulation of cGMP by nitric oxide donors. Vis Neurosci 15: 485–498, 1998.[Web of Science][Medline]
Bolz J, Wässle H, and Thier P. Pharmacological modulation of on and off ganglion cells in the cat retina. Neuroscience 12: 875–885, 1984.[Web of Science][Medline]
Bredt DS, Hwang PM, and Snyder SH. Localization of nitric oxide synthase indicating a neural role for nitric oxide. Nature 347: 768–770, 1990.[Medline]
Bugnon O, Schaad NC, and Schorderet M. Nitric oxide modulates endogenous dopamine release in bovine retina. Neuroreport 5: 401–404, 1994.[Web of Science][Medline]
Cudeiro J and Rivadulla C. Sight and insight— on the physiological role of nitric oxide in the visual system. Trends Neurosci 22: 109–116, 1999.[Web of Science][Medline]
Cudeiro J,
Rivadulla C, Rodriguez R, Grieve KL, Martinez-Conde S, and Acuna C.
Actions of compounds manipulating the nitric oxide system in the cat primary
visual cortex. J Physiol 504:
467–478, 1997.
Cudeiro J,
Rivadulla C, Rodriguez R, Martinez-Conde S, Acuna C, and Alonso JM.
Modulatory influence of putative inhibitors of nitric oxide synthesis on
visual processing in the cat lateral geniculate nucleus. J
Neurophysiol 71:
146–149, 1994.
Daw NW, Jensen RJ, and Brunken WJ. Rod pathways in mammalian retinae. Trends Neurosci 13: 110–115, 1990.[Web of Science][Medline]
Dawson TM,
Bredt DS, Fotuhi M, Hwang PM, and Snyder SH. Nitric oxide synthase and
neuronal NADPH diaphorase are identical in brain and peripheral tissues.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88:
7797–7801, 1991.
DeVries SH and
Schwartz EA. Modulation of an electrical synapse between solitary pairs of
catfish horizontal cells by dopamine and second messengers. J
Physiol 414:
351–375, 1989.
Goldstein IM, Ostwald P, and Roth S. Nitric oxide: a review of its role in retinal function and disease. Vision Res 36: 2979–2994, 1996.[Web of Science][Medline]
Goureau O,
Lepoivre M, Becquet F, and Courtois Y. Differential regulation of
inducible nitric oxide synthase by fibroblast growth factors and transforming
growth factor beta in bovine retinal pigmented epithelial cells: inverse
correlation with cellular proliferation. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 90:
4276–4280, 1993.
Hack I, Peichl
L, and Brandstatter JH. An alternative pathway for rod signals in the
rodent retina: rod photoreceptors, cone bipolar cells, and the localization of
glutamate receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
96: 14130–14135,
1999.
Hirooka K,
Kourennyi DE, and Barnes S. Calcium channel activation facilitated by
nitric oxide in retinal ganglion cells. J Neurophysiol
83: 198–206,
2000.
Kawa F and Sterling P. cGMP modulates spike responses of retinal ganglion cells via a cGMP-gated current. Vis Neurosci 19: 373–380, 2002.[Web of Science][Medline]
Koistinaho J, Swanson RA, de Vente J, and Sagar SM. NADPH-diaphorase (nitric oxide synthase)-reactive amacrine cells of rabbit retina: putative target cells and stimulation by light. Neuroscience 57: 587–597, 1993.[Web of Science][Medline]
Kurenny DE, Moroz LL, Turner RW, Sharkey KA, and Barnes S. Modulation of ion channels in rod photoreceptors by nitric oxide. Neuron 13: 315–324, 1994.[Web of Science][Medline]
Liepe BA, Stone C, Koistinaho J, and Copenhagen DR. Nitric oxide synthase in Müller cells and neurons of salamander and fish retina. J Neurosci 14: 7641–7654, 1994.[Abstract]
Maguire G and Werblin F. Dopamine enhances a glutamate-gated ionic current in OFF bipolar cells of the tiger salamander retina. J Neurosci 14: 6094–6101, 1994.[Abstract]
Marletta MA. Approaches toward selective inhibition of nitric oxide synthase. J Med Chem 37: 1899–1907, 1994.[Web of Science][Medline]
Maynard KI, Yanez P, and Ogilvy CS. Nitric oxide modulates light-evoked compound action potentials in the intact rabbit retina. Neuroreport 6: 850–852, 1995.[Web of Science][Medline]
Mills SL and Massey SC. Differential properties of two gap junctional pathways made by AII amacrine cells. Nature 377: 734–737, 1995.[Medline]
Miyachi E, Murakami M, and Nakaki T. Arginine blocks gap junctions between retinal horizontal cells. Neuroreport 1: 107–110, 1990.[Medline]
Müller F,
Wässle H, and Voigt T. Pharmacological modulation of the rod pathway
in the cat retina. J Neurophysiol
59: 1657–1672,
1988.
Nawy S and Jahr CE. Suppression by glutamate of cGMP-activated conductance in retinal bipolar cells. Nature 346: 269–271, 1990.[Medline]
Nawy S and Jahr CE. cGMP-gated conductance in retinal bipolar cells is suppressed by the photoreceptor transmitter. Neuron 7: 677–683, 1991.[Web of Science][Medline]
Neal M,
Cunningham J, and Matthews K. Nitric oxide enhancement of cholinergic
amacrine activity by inhibition of glycine release. Invest
Ophthalmol Vis Sci 38:
1634–1639, 1997.
Neal M,
Cunningham J, and Matthews K. Selective release of nitric oxide from
retinal amacrine and bipolar cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis
Sci 39:
850–853, 1998.
Rieke F and Schwartz EA. A cGMP-gated current can control exocytosis at cone synapses. Neuron 13: 863–873, 1994.[Web of Science][Medline]
Savchenko A, Barnes S, and Kramer RH. Cyclic-nucleotide-gated channels mediate synaptic feedback by nitric oxide. Nature 390: 694–698, 1997.[Medline]
Sharpe LT and Stockman A. Rod pathways: the importance of seeing nothing. Trends Neurosci 22: 497–504, 1999.[Web of Science][Medline]
Shiells RA and Falk G. Glutamate receptors of rod bipolar cells are linked to a cyclic GMP cascade via a G-protein. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 242: 91–94, 1990.[Medline]
Slaughter MM and Miller RF. 2-Amino-4-phosphonobutyric acid: a new pharmacological tool
for retina research. Science
211: 182–185,
1981.
Smith RG, Freed MA, and Sterling P. Microcircuitry of the dark-adapted cat retina: functional architecture of the rod-cone network. J Neurosci 6: 3505–3517, 1986.[Abstract]
Snyder SH and Bredt DS. Biological roles of nitric oxide. Sci Am 266: 68–71, 74–67, 1992.[Web of Science][Medline]
Soucy E, Wang Y, Nirenberg S, Nathans J, and Meister M. A novel signaling pathway from rod photoreceptors to ganglion cells in mammalian retina. Neuron 21: 481–493, 1998.[Web of Science][Medline]
Steinberg RH. Rod and cone contributions to S-potentials from the cat retina. Vision Res 9: 1319–1329, 1969.[Web of Science][Medline]
Wang GY, Liets
LC, and Chalupa LM. Unique functional properties of on and off pathways in
the developing mammalian retina. J Neurosci
21: 4310–4317,
2001.
Weidman TA and Greiner JV. Histology of the ferret retina. Anat Anz 157: 329–341, 1984.[Web of Science][Medline]
White CA and Chalupa LM. Subgroup of alpha ganglion cells in the adult cat retina is immunoreactive for somatostatin. J Comp Neurol 304: 1–13, 1991.[Web of Science][Medline]
Wingate RJ, Fitzgibbon T, and Thompson ID. Lucifer yellow, retrograde tracers, and fractal analysis characterise adult ferret retinal ganglion cells. J Comp Neurol 323: 449–474, 1992.[Web of Science][Medline]
Yamamoto R, Bredt DS, Dawson TM, Snyder SH and Stone RA. Enhanced expression of nitric oxide synthase by rat retina following pterygopalatine parasympathetic denervation. Brain Res 631: 83–88, 1993b.[Web of Science][Medline]
Yamamoto R, Bredt DS, Snyder SH, and Stone RA. The localization of nitric oxide synthase in the rat eye and related cranial ganglia. Neuroscience 54: 189–200, 1993a.[Web of Science][Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  B. Hoffpauir, E. McMains, and E. Gleason Nitric Oxide Transiently Converts Synaptic Inhibition to Excitation in Retinal Amacrine Cells J Neurophysiol, May 1, 2006; 95(5): 2866 - 2877. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
