| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Department of Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Submitted 1 August 2006; accepted in final form 28 September 2007
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
; Marder and Bucher 2001; Marder et al. 2005; Ramirez et al. 2004). Network modulation results from the local neuronal release of modulatory transmitters and from circulating hormones. Distinct modulatory inputs to a neuronal network can work independently, but there are likely times when their influences overlap. In such cases, one neuromodulator can alter the influence of the co-active one, a condition termed metamodulation (Katz and Edwards 1999). There are, however, few examples documenting the consequences of metamodulation for network activity. Thus far, changes resulting from metamodulation include the generation of distinct motor patterns and/or behaviors and limits on the maximal effect of each co-released modulator on the assayed motor pattern relative to when they act separately (Crisp and Mesce 2004; Edwards et al. 2002; McLean and Sillar 2004; Svensson et al. 2001; Wood et al. 2000). Mechanistically, a metamodulator can act both in series and in parallel with its target modulator (Edwards et al. 2002; McLean and Sillar 2004; Svennson et al. 2001; Wood et al. 2000).
We are addressing the consequences of metamodulation at the circuit level, using the stomatogastric nervous system (STNS) of the crab Cancer borealis (Marder and Bucher 2007; Nusbaum and Beenhakker 2002). The STNS contains two well-defined central-pattern-generating (CPG) circuits in the unpaired stomatogastric ganglion (STG), including the gastric mill (chewing) and pyloric (filtering of chewed food) circuits. These circuits are modulated by a set of projection neurons that innervate the STG from the paired commissural ganglia (CoGs) and unpaired esophageal ganglion (OG). There are also identified peptide hormones that influence these two circuits (Marder and Bucher 2007). Many of these hormones are released into the cardiac chamber from the pericardial organs (POs), from where they are pumped through the ophthalmic artery to influence the STG, which is located within this artery (Li et al. 2003; Skiebe 2001; Turrigiano and Selverston 1990). One of these neuromodulators, crustacean cardioactive peptide (CCAP), influences the STG only as a circulating hormone (Billimoria et al. 2005; Marder and Bucher 2007). CCAP modulates the pyloric rhythm in C. borealis by activating a voltage-dependent, depolarizing current in several pyloric circuit neurons (Swensen and Marder 2000, 2001; Weimann et al. 1997).
In this study, we assessed the CCAP influence on gastric mill rhythms in the isolated STNS (Beenhakker and Nusbaum 2004; Coleman and Nusbaum 1994). CCAP application to the STG did not activate a sustained gastric mill rhythm, but it directly excited several gastric mill neurons including the gastric mill CPG neurons lateral gastric (LG) and interneuron 1 (Int1). CCAP slowed the gastric mill rhythms elicited by modulatory commissural neuron 1 (MCN1) and by coactivation of MCN1 and commissural projection neuron 2 (CPN2), even when applied at low concentrations (10–10 M). It also reduced the threshold firing frequency at which MCN1 activated the gastric mill rhythm. Further, only some gastric mill targets of CCAP exhibited altered activity during these CCAP-modulated rhythms, and the activity of one nontarget was also altered. These results indicate that a peptide hormone can facilitate and alter neuronal modulation of motor circuit activity, thereby expanding the available output patterns of rhythmically active motor circuits.
Some of these data were published in abstract form (Kirby and Nusbaum 2003, 2004).
|
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
Jonah crabs (C. borealis) were obtained from commercial suppliers (Commercial Lobster and Seafood, Boston, MA; Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA). The crabs were housed in commercial tanks containing recirculating, aerated and filtered artificial seawater (10–12°C). Before dissection, the crabs were cold-anesthetized by packing them in ice for 
30 min. The foregut was then removed and maintained in chilled physiological saline while the STNS was dissected from it.
Solutions
Under most experimental conditions, the isolated STNS was maintained in physiological saline (5–10 ml) containing (in mM) 439 NaCl, 26 MgCl2, 13 CaCl2, 11 KCl, 10 Trizma base, and 5 maleic acid (pH 7.4–7.6). In some experiments, transmitter release was eliminated using saline that contained a reduced (0.1x normal) concentration of Ca2+ plus a compensatory addition of Mn2+ ("low-Ca2+ saline") (Blitz and Nusbaum 1997). Low-Ca2+ saline contained (in mM) 439 NaCl, 26 MgCl2, 1.3 CaCl2, 11.7 MnCl2, 11 KCl, 10 Trizma base, and 5 maleic acid (pH 7.4–7.6).
Electrophysiology
All experiments were conducted using the completely isolated STNS (Fig. 1). The preparation was pinned down in a saline-filled silicone elastomer (Sylgard)-lined petri dish (Sylgard 184, KR Anderson, Santa Clara, CA) and superfused continuously (7–12 ml/min) with physiological saline and/or low-Ca2+ saline (10–12°C). Intra- and extracellular recordings of STNS neurons were made using routine methods for this system (Beenhakker and Nusbaum 2004). Glass microelectrodes (15–30 M
) filled with 4 M K-acetate plus 20 mM KCl or 0.6 M K2SO4 plus 10 mM KCl were used for intracellular recording. Intracellular recordings were made with Axoclamp 2 amplifiers (Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, CA). Intracellular current injections were performed in single-electrode discontinuous current-clamp (DCC) mode with sampling rates of 2–5 kHz. To facilitate intracellular recordings, the STNS ganglia were desheathed and visualized with light transmitted through a dark-field condenser (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan).
|
The influence of the neuropeptide CCAP on individual neurons within the STG was tested by direct application of the peptide onto the desheathed STG neuropil during superfusion of low-Ca2+ saline. For these experiments, a recording electrode was filled with a CCAP solution (10–4 or 10–5 M) in low-Ca2+ saline to be consistent with the bath condition. The tip of the electrode was then broken to create an electrode resistance of 1–1.5 M. The CCAP solution was forced from the pipette using a Picospritzer II pressure ejection device (General Valve, Fairfield, NJ). CCAP was applied at 4–6 psi for a duration of 0.5–1.0 s during continual superfusion of low-Ca2+ saline. In between CCAP puffer applications, the CCAP-containing pipette was maintained at a distance away from the STG to prevent the possibility of leak-mediated CCAP actions on STG neurons.
To determine the effects of CCAP on the gastric mill rhythm, a CCAP solution (10–6–10–11 M) was superfused across the STG. The CCAP solution flowed for 10–15 min before any experimental manipulations, ensuring that the CCAP solution had completely displaced the normal saline solution. This time period was verified by determining the time taken for the effects of CCAP on the pyloric circuit to reach steady state (Weimann et al. 1997).
Gastric mill rhythms were elicited using one of two methods. First, we used extracellular stimulation of one or both dorsal posterior esophageal nerves (dpons), in preparations with the CoGs still connected with the STG, to activate the mechanosensory ventral cardiac neurons (VCNs) (Beenhakker et al. 2004). The VCNs trigger a long-lasting activation of MCN1 and CPN2, producing a long-lasting MCN1/CPN2-elicited gastric mill rhythm (Fig. 2A) (Beenhakker and Nusbaum 2004; Beenhakker et al. 2004). Second, we selectively activated MCN1 and thereby evoked MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythms by extracellular stimulation of one or both inferior esophageal nerves (ions), after their transection to separate them from the CoGs (Fig. 2C) (Bartos and Nusbaum 1997; Bartos et al. 1999). Each ion stimulation (1-ms stimulus duration) elicits a single action potential in MCN1 (Bartos and Nusbaum 1997). Activation of MCN1 action potentials was confirmed by maintaining an intracellular recording of the LG neuron, which receives an electrical EPSP from each MCN1 action potential (Coleman et al. 1995).
|
Individual STNS neurons were identified by their axonal pathways, activity patterns and interactions with other neurons (Beenhakker and Nusbaum 2004; Blitz et al. 1999; Weimann et al. 1991). Data were collected onto a chart recorder (Models No. MT 95000 and Everest: Astromed) and, in parallel, digitized (
5 kHz) and collected onto a PC computer using data-acquisition/analysis tools (Spike2, Cambridge Electronic Design, Cambridge, UK). Figures were made from Spike2 files incorporated into Adobe Photoshop (Adobe, San Jose, CA) and Powerpoint graphics programs (Microsoft, Seattle, WA).
Data analysis was facilitated with a custom-written program for Spike2 that determines the activity levels and burst relationships of individual neurons (freely available at http://www.uni-ulm.de/~wstein/spike2/The_Crab_Analyzer.s2s). Unless otherwise stated, each datum in a data set was derived by determining the average of 10 consecutive gastric mill- or pyloric rhythm-timed impulse bursts. Briefly, burst duration was defined as the duration (s) between the onset of the first and last action potential in an impulse burst (e.g., see LG burst in Fig. 2C). The intraburst firing rate was determined by dividing the number of action potentials minus one by the burst duration. The cycle period of gastric mill and pyloric rhythms was determined by calculating the duration between the onset of two successive LG neuron bursts and two successive pyloric dilator (PD) neuron bursts, respectively (e.g., see Fig. 2C). The burst relationship among gastric mill neurons (phase relationships) was determined for normalized gastric mill cycles in which the onset and offset of a cycle was determined by the onset of successive LG neuron bursts. Specifically, we determined the mean point in a normalized gastric mill cycle at which the burst onset and offset occurred for each gastric mill neuron. To identify these points, we divided the duration from each cycle onset to burst onset (and offset) by its associated cycle period.
In the case of STG neurons (Int1, VD, IC, MG) whose gastric mill rhythm-timed activity was subdivided into pyloric-timed bursts, we determined their gastric mill-related burst duration as the duration of their entire period of activity (i.e., the cumulative duration of all of their pyloric-timed bursts) during a gastric mill cycle. In contrast, for these neurons we analyzed their number of action potentials per burst as well as their intraburst firing frequency based on their individual pyloric-timed bursts.
We determined the MCN1 firing frequency threshold for eliciting the gastric mill rhythm by tonically, and simultaneously, stimulating both ions (60- to 300-s train duration) at a series of constant instantaneous stimulus frequencies in the range of threshold for rhythm activation (2–8 Hz). There was a minimum lag of 1 min between successive stimulus trains. It is noteworthy that the MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm consistently stops immediately when MCN1 stimulation is terminated (Bartos and Nusbaum 1997).
Over the course of any single experiment, repeated activation of the gastric mill rhythm generally resulted in a progressively slower rhythm (see RESULTS). This occurred even when the sequentially activated gastric mill rhythms were each elicited under the same condition, such as during normal saline superfusion. This progressive slowing contrasted with the pyloric rhythm, which is often continuously active for hours in the isolated preparation at a relatively constant cycle period, presumably due to the presence of an endogenously oscillatory pacemaker neuron (Hooper and Marder 1987; Miller and Selverston 1982). There is no such pacemaker neuron within the gastric mill CPG (Bartos et al. 1999; Coleman et al. 1995).
Due to the progressive slowing of the gastric mill rhythm with repeated activation, it was difficult to generate matched control rhythms before and after CCAP application. It was, however, routinely possible to elicit two equivalent gastric mill rhythms (saline 1:saline 2 or S1:S2) with intervals that matched those of the pre-CCAP application and during-CCAP application rhythms (supplementary Tables 1–3;1 see RESULTS). To ensure that any changes that occurred in the gastric mill rhythm during CCAP superfusion were due to the presence of the peptide and not to the progressive slowing of the rhythm within each preparation, we compared two successive gastric mill rhythms during saline superfusion (S1, S2) with intervals comparable to our experimental interval (S, CCAP). We performed these controls in separate preparations from those in which CCAP was applied, so that the rhythms could be elicited at comparable times after the start of each experiment.
To most appropriately represent the results of our experiments, we used a two-stage process for determining which analyzed parameters were significantly different between the control and experimental conditions. In stage 1, we used a paired Student's t-test to obtain each within-group comparison (S1 vs. S2; S vs. CCAP). If, for any particular parameter (i.e., cycle period) a significant change was found in the S:CCAP data set, we progressed to stage 2.
The stage 2 test was used to determine whether a change in activity induced by the addition of CCAP was significantly different from the condition when saline was applied during consecutively elicited gastric mill rhythms. We determined the difference between S1 and S2 for each experiment (S2 minus S1) to measure the change in a particular gastric mill parameter induced by no intervention. For each experiment where saline was followed by an application of CCAP, we again determined the difference between values (CCAP minus saline). We then performed an unpaired Student's t-test to determine whether the change induced by CCAP across preparations was significantly different from the change, if any, induced in the experiments when saline was applied during both gastric mill rhythms. In some cases, where noted, we instead used the Mann-Whitney rank sum test in our stage 2 analysis. We used this alternative test when the variance between the data sets was unequal. In the text, any result for which a significant difference is noted during CCAP application represents the results of our stage 2 analysis.
To determine whether CCAP consistently increased the gastric mill cycle period during MCN1 stimulation, regardless of the value of the control cycle period, we used a sliding window analysis of the complete data set. Specifically, we compared the control (S1, S2) and experimental (S, CCAP) data within successive 4-s-duration windows. After each set of comparisons, these 4-s-duration windows were shifted 0.5 s to the right, and the analysis was performed again, until all possible windows were analyzed.
For each window, we used our stage 2 analysis (see preceding text) to compare the change induced in the gastric mill cycle period by the presence of CCAP with the change induced in the S1:S2 condition. The result (significant change or no change) was then assigned to the value at the center of each window (i.e., a significant change was assigned to 6 s for the 4-s-duration window that spanned cycle periods of 4–8 s). We note the distinction between significant and nonsignificant changes at the center of the 4-s-duration window encompassing the largest values of cycle period that showed a significant difference between S:CCAP and S1:S2.
We did not see any change in the results using time increments <0.5 s (
0.25 s; not shown). We also obtained the same results with 4- and 5-s-duration windows (not shown). We did not use a 3-s-duration window because it often resulted in too few data points to enable an accurate determination of significant changes.
Statistical analyses were performed with SigmaStat 3.0 and SigmaPlot 8.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL). Data are expressed as means ± SE except where explicitly noted to be expressed as means ± SD.
Gastric mill model
We implemented a computational model modified as indicated in the following text from an existing conductance-based model of the gastric mill circuit (Beenhakker et al. 2005; Nadim et al. 1998). We retained all aspects of the model implemented by Beenhakker et al. (2005), including modeled versions of the LG, Int1, and MCN1 neurons having multiple compartments separated by an axial resistance, with each compartment possessing intrinsic and/or synaptic conductances, as documented originally by Nadim et al. (1998). The voltage-dependent trajectory of the MCN1 input to LG was based on the neuropeptide-activated current in pyloric neurons in C. borealis (Golowasch and Marder 1992; Swensen and Marder 2000). The only parameters that were altered from the model version presented in Beenhakker et al. (2005) were an increase in the maximal conductance value for the inhibitory synapse from Int1 to LG, from the previously used value of 1.4 to 2.1 nS, and elimination of the gastro-pyloric receptor (GPR) synapses onto MCN1 and Int1 in the STG.
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
The gastric mill rhythm (cycle period: 5–20 s) controls the rhythmic protraction and retraction chewing movements of the teeth in the gastric mill stomach compartment (Heinzel et al. 1993). Thus this rhythm is composed of alternating impulse bursts of protractor and retractor motor neurons, plus a single retractor phase interneuron (Int1; Fig. 2) (Marder and Bucher 2007). Several gastric mill neurons also exhibit rhythmic impulse bursts that are time-locked to the pyloric rhythm, which is a faster rhythm (cycle period: 0.5–2 s) that controls the filtering of chewed food in the pylorus, immediately posterior to the gastric mill (Weimann et al. 1991). The neurons exhibiting this dual rhythmic pattern during the gastric mill rhythms studied in this paper include the inferior cardiac (IC), medial gastric (MG), and ventricular dilator (VD) neurons as well as Int1 (e.g., Fig. 2, A and C). The LG neuron also exhibits pyloric-timed activity during a distinct version of the gastric mill rhythm (Wood et al. 2004). All gastric mill neurons are present as single neurons in the C. borealis STG except the protractor gastric mill (GM) neuron, which is present as four apparently equivalent neurons.
There are several distinct versions of the gastric mill rhythm in C. borealis, including one driven by selective activation of the projection neuron MCN1 and one triggered by the mechanosensory VCNs, which activate the rhythm via their excitation of MCN1 and CPN2 (Fig. 2) (Beenhakker and Nusbaum 2004; Beenhakker et al. 2004; Coleman and Nusbaum 1994). These two rhythms share several features, including the presence of alternating protractor and retractor phases (Fig. 2, A and C). Both rhythms also include rhythmic alternating bursting of the CPG neurons LG and Int1 and, in both cases, the retractor neurons VD and DG are coactive with Int1. Distinctions between these rhythms include the relative timing of the impulse bursts in the IC and MG neurons as well as the level of participation of the GM and anterior median (AM) neurons. For example, as shown in Fig. 2, IC neuron activity is distinct during the MCN1- and VCN-elicited gastric mill rhythms while GM neuron bursting occurs only during the VCN-elicited rhythm.
The projection neuron MCN1 excites all of the gastric mill neurons (Fig. 2B) (Bartos and Nusbaum 1997; Coleman and Nusbaum 1994; Coleman et al. 1995; Stein et al. 2007). However, its influence on the GM and AM neurons is modest, particularly when they are inactive prior to MCN1 stimulation. Consequently, GM and AM are generally silent or only weakly active during the MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm. During this version of the gastric mill rhythm, the core CPG includes the gastric mill neurons LG and Int1 plus the STG terminals of MCN1 (Bartos et al. 1999; Coleman et al. 1995).
During the VCN-triggered gastric mill rhythm, MCN1 is active during both phases but it fires tonically during protraction and is pyloric-timed during retraction (Beenhakker and Nusbaum 2004). The projection neuron CPN2 is also tonically active during the protractor phase but exhibits reduced or no activity during retraction (Beenhakker and Nusbaum 2004; Norris et al. 1994). CPN2 excites the LG and GM neurons but inhibits the IC and MG neurons, thereby shifting the activity of the latter two neurons during the VCN-triggered rhythm (Beenhakker and Nusbaum 2004; Norris et al. 1994) (Fig. 2, A and B). CPN2 also inhibits the retractor neuron DG (Norris et al. 1994) (Fig. 2B).
CCAP directly excites a subset of gastric mill neurons
Swensen and Marder (2000, 2001) showed previously that three of the seven pyloric circuit neurons, including the anterior burster (AB), lateral pyloric (LP) and IC neurons, are direct targets of CCAP in C. borealis. We determined whether CCAP had any direct actions on the gastric mill circuit neurons. To this end, we pressure ejected CCAP (10–4 or 10–5 M) onto the desheathed STG neuropil under conditions where neurotransmitter release was suppressed (low-Ca2+ saline, see METHODS) while recording intracellularly from each gastric mill neuron.
In low-Ca2+ saline, CCAP excited a subset of the gastric mill neurons. For example, as shown in Fig. 3, brief (1 s) pressure application of CCAP in low-Ca2+ saline caused a depolarization and action potential burst in the LG neuron (n = 19/19) and Int1 (n = 9/11). For both of these neurons, their response to CCAP outlasted its application by many seconds (Fig. 3, A and B). There was also an excitatory response in the MG (n = 11/11), IC (n = 13/13), and AM (n = 7/7) neurons, although the MG neuron response tended to be weaker than that of the other neurons. In contrast, the DG (n = 13/13; Fig. 3C) and GM (n = 20/20) neurons never responded to CCAP application in low-Ca2+ saline.
|
; Coleman and Nusbaum 1994), that there was no change in the membrane potential at the STG terminals of the MCN1 and CPN2 projection neurons in response to CCAP application (MCN1: pre-CCAP, –45.7 ± 7.8 (SD) mV; CCAP, –46.7 ± 7.4 mV; n = 6, P = 0.20; CPN2: pre-CCAP, –56.0 ± 8.8 mV; CCAP, –54.0 ± 7.4 mV; n = 4, P = 0.18). Additionally, CCAP never elicited action potentials in either projection neuron (MCN1: n = 7; CPN2, n = 6). The LG, IC, and MG neurons are electrically coupled in C. borealis (M. P. Beenhakker, M. S. Kirby, M. P. Nusbaum, unpublished data). Therefore to obtain a more accurate assessment of whether each of them was a direct target of CCAP, we performed additional experiments in which we hyperpolarized two of them during any particular CCAP application. These current injections consistently suppressed activation of spiking in the hyperpolarized neurons in response to CCAP but never caused a hyperpolarization of >5 mV in the uninjected neuron (n = 12/12). When the LG and IC neurons were hyperpolarized, the MG neuron failed to respond to pressure applied CCAP (n = 9/9). Moreover, under these conditions MG remained unresponsive even when it was depolarized to spike threshold via intracellular current injection (n = 9). In contrast, when LG and MG were hyperpolarized, the IC neuron consistently responded as vigorously as when no neurons were hyperpolarized (n = 10/10). Similarly, the LG neuron exhibited an unchanged excitatory response when both the IC and MG neurons were hyperpolarized (n = 6/6). Thus four of the eight types of gastric mill neurons (LG, IC, Int1, AM) appeared to be direct targets of CCAP. The remaining neurons (DG, VD, MG, GM) as well as the STG terminals of the projection neurons MCN1 and CPN2 were not directly responsive to this peptide. Last, no gastric mill neurons ever responded to CCAP application in low-Ca2+ saline with an inhibitory response.
It remains possible that we obtained a false negative result regarding the neurons that were unresponsive to CCAP in low-Ca2+ saline because CCAP might also influence a Ca2+ current or Ca2+-sensitive current in these neurons. Such a current would have been minimal or absent due to the 10-fold reduced Ca2+ concentration in the low-Ca2+ saline. Although the presence of an additional, Ca2+-sensitive current remains a possibility, previous work indicated that CCAP influenced only a single ionic current in C. borealis pyloric neurons, and this current persisted in low-Ca2+ saline (Golowasch and Marder 1992; Swensen and Marder 2000).
CCAP elicits a transient, incomplete gastric mill rhythm
The reciprocally inhibitory neurons LG and Int1 are key gastric mill CPG neurons (Bartos et al. 1999; Coleman et al. 1995). Because both of these neurons were directly excited by CCAP application, we determined whether application of this peptide in normal saline would activate the gastric mill rhythm. CCAP superfusion (10–6 or 10–7 M) to the isolated STG often elicited a gastric mill rhythm (n = 30/38), but this rhythm never included the DG retractor neuron nor did it persist for the duration of the application. This rhythm did, however, include coordinated bursting of several gastric mill neurons, including LG and Int1 (Fig. 4, A and B). These CCAP elicited rhythms persisted for 7.4 ± 3.5 (SD) min (n = 19). Generally this rhythm gave way to intermittent spiking or inactivity in LG and the return to exclusively pyloric-timed activity in the other participating neurons before the end of each CCAP application (Fig. 4C). During these CCAP-elicited rhythms, not every gastric mill neuron participated. As mentioned in the preceding text, the DG neuron was never activated under these conditions (Fig. 4, B and C). The lack of DG participation in the CCAP-elicited rhythm was not a consequence of damage during dissection, because DG was effectively activated subsequently during the MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm (Fig. 4D).
|
As noted in METHODS, we found that repeated activation of the gastric mill rhythm with sufficiently long inter-stimulus intervals resulted in increased gastric mill cycle periods even without CCAP application. For example, in a sampling of 15 preparations where we superfused CCAP (10–7 M), the initial MCN1-elicited gastric mill cycle period during saline superfusion was 9.6 ± 0.6 s. After a 1-h washout of CCAP, the gastric mill rhythm had slowed (cycle period: 10.7 ± 0.9 s, P < 0.001, paired Student's t-test). Similarly, when we elicited consecutive gastric mill rhythms in normal saline with intervals (1.5 h) that mimicked the duration of the application and washout of CCAP, the gastric mill cycle period of the postinterval rhythm was prolonged relative to the preinterval rhythm (saline, pre-interval: 9.5 ± 1.3 s; saline, post-interval: 11.9 ± 1.9 s; n = 8; P < 0.05, paired Student's t-test).
In contrast to the gradual slowing of gastric mill rhythms during saline superfusion that occurred across intervals of 1 h or more, the MCN1-elicited rhythms in saline were equivalent when they had an interval comparable to the one occurring between a control rhythm and the rhythm elicited in CCAP. Comparison of these matched controls revealed that none of the studied parameters differed between consecutively elicited gastric mill rhythms in saline (supplementary Table 1, Table 2). For the VCN-triggered gastric mill rhythms, the only parameter that was distinct between the consecutively elicited rhythms in saline was the burst onset phase of the GM neuron (n = 10, P < 0.05; Fig. 5, supplementary Table 3). For example, there was no change in the VCN-triggered gastric mill cycle period (S1: 9.8 ± 0.6 s; S2: 9.8 ± 0.7 s; n = 11, P = 0.98, paired Student's t-test).
|
We analyzed the response of the gastric mill rhythm triggered by mechanosensory (VCN neurons)-mediated coactivation of MCN1 and CPN2 to CCAP application (Fig. 2A) (Beenhakker and Nusbaum 2004; Beenhakker et al. 2004). The VCN-triggered rhythm requires the CoGs to remain connected to the STG because this rhythm requires properly timed synaptic feedback from STG neurons onto MCN1 and CPN2 (Beenhakker and Nusbaum 2004). Consequently, in these experiments, we used a petroleum jelly wall to separate the STG from the anterior ganglia and selectively superfused CCAP onto the STG while the anterior compartment was continually superfused with normal saline.
CCAP slowed the MCN1/CPN2-elicited gastric mill rhythm by prolonging the protractor (LG burst) phase (Fig. 5; supplementary Table 3). This was a consistent effect across preparations, regardless of the control cycle period which ranged from 7 to 14 s in different preparations (Fig. 5B). During saline superfusion, the mean gastric mill cycle period was 10.4 ± 0.5 s, whereas during superfusion of CCAP (10–7 M), the cycle period increased to 11.9 ± 0.6 s (n = 15; P < 0.001; Fig. 5C). In parallel, the LG burst duration was consistently increased by the presence of CCAP (10–7 M; Fig. 5C; supplementary Table 3). This increase in LG neuron burst duration was accompanied by increases in the number of LG neuron action potentials per burst and LG intraburst firing frequency (Fig. 5C; supplementary Table 3).
There were additional CCAP (10–7 M)-mediated changes in the activity of gastric mill neurons during the VCN-triggered rhythm. These included increased activity in the DG and AM neurons (supplementary Table 3). The DG neuron, despite not being a direct target of CCAP, exhibited an increase in its burst duration (P < 0.05, n = 13). The AM neuron, which was directly excited by CCAP, also showed an increased burst duration (P < 0.05, n = 7) and number of action potentials per burst (P < 0.01, n = 7). The activity of both DG and AM were unchanged in the sequentially triggered, saline control rhythms (supplementary Table 3). The activity (burst duration, number of spikes per burst, and intraburst firing frequency) of the other gastric mill neurons was unchanged by the presence of CCAP during the VCN-triggered gastric mill rhythm (supplementary Table 3).
Finally, CCAP (10–7 M) superfusion changed several aspects of the phase relationships among the gastric mill neurons during the VCN-triggered rhythm (supplementary Table 3). Phase relationships represent the fraction of a normalized cycle during which each neuron fires its burst of action potentials (see METHODS). Because the normalized gastric mill cycle is designated as extending from the onset of successive LG neuron bursts, the protractor neurons are generally active during approximately the first half of each cycle while the retractor neurons fire during the latter half of the cycle (i.e., Fig. 2). During the VCN-triggered rhythm, CCAP (10–7 M) superfusion altered the active phase of one protractor neuron (MG) and one retractor neuron (DG). Specifically, the onset phase of MG neuron activity was significantly delayed by CCAP superfusion (P < 0.05, n = 8) with no corresponding change in MG offset phase (P = 0.11, n = 8). Further, CCAP delayed both the onset (P < 0.05, n = 13) and offset phase (P < 0.05, n = 13) of DG activity.
CCAP reduces the MCN1 firing frequency threshold for gastric mill rhythm activation
Because CCAP effectively influenced the VCN-triggered gastric mill rhythm when applied selectively to the STG, we aimed to study these influences in more detail in a further reduced preparation. To this end, we removed the CoGs by transecting the ions and superior esophageal nerves (sons) and studied the CCAP actions on the MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm by selectively stimulating MCN1 extracellularly (see METHODS).
CCAP reduced the threshold MCN1 firing frequency for eliciting the gastric mill rhythm (Fig. 6, A and B). With the isolated STG superfused with normal saline, the mean threshold MCN1 firing frequency that elicited the gastric mill rhythm was 5 Hz (4.7 ± 0.4 Hz; n = 10). During CCAP superfusion (10–7 M), this threshold firing rate was reduced to 3 Hz (2.9 ± 0.2 Hz; n = 10; P < 0.01; Fig. 6B). This effect of CCAP on the threshold MCN1 firing frequency for activating the gastric mill rhythm was effective even at CCAP concentrations as low as 10–10 M [saline: 5.4 ± 0.3 Hz; CCAP (10–10 M): 4.3 ± 0.3 Hz; P < 0.05, n = 10; Fig. 6B]. At lower concentrations (10–11 M), CCAP had no effect on this parameter (P = 0.60, n = 7). In control experiments in which CCAP was not present during the second activation of the gastric mill rhythm, there was no change in the threshold firing frequency at which MCN1 elicited the gastric mill rhythm (saline 1: 6.6 ± 0.6 Hz; saline 2: 6.2 ± 0.4 Hz; P = 0.20, paired Student's t-test, n = 9; Fig. 6B).
|
Previous work showed that CCAP also influences the pyloric rhythm (Weimann et al. 1997), and the pyloric rhythm regulates the MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm (Bartos et al. 1999). Therefore the possibility existed that the CCAP influence on the gastric mill rhythm was a secondary consequence of the peptide action on the pyloric rhythm. We tested this possibility by superfusing the STG with CCAP (10–7 M) while suppressing the pyloric rhythm via intracellular hyperpolarizing current injection into the two PD neurons which, along with the AB neuron, are members of the electrically coupled pyloric pacemaker group (Fig. 7). As shown previously, the MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm was slower when the pyloric rhythm was suppressed (Bartos et al. 1999).
|
With the pyloric rhythm suppressed, CCAP (10–7 M) still altered the MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm (Fig. 7). Under this condition, the CCAP-elicited changes included prolonging the cycle period of the rhythm (saline: 18.8 ± 1.2 s; CCAP: 22.6 ± 1.4 s; n = 10, P < 0.01) and the LG neuron burst duration (saline: 9.7 ± 0.8 s; CCAP: 11.4 ± 1.0 s; n = 10, P < 0.05), and increasing the number of LG spikes per burst (saline: 88.9 ± 10.1 spike; CCAP: 111.1 ± 12.5 spike; n = 10, P < 0.01). There were also increases in the DG neuron burst duration (saline: 9.3 ± 1.0 s; CCAP: 12.0 ± 1.0 s; n = 8, P < 0.01) and the number of DG spikes per burst (saline: 113.9 ± 13.0 spike; CCAP: 136.9 ± 12.9 spike; n = 8, P < 0.05).
CCAP modifies the MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm
We also examined the MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm response to CCAP application when the pyloric rhythm remained active. In these experiments, we delayed MCN1 stimulation until after any CCAP-elicited gastric mill rhythmicity had ended. At these times, CCAP influenced the MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm in a manner comparable to its effects on the VCN-triggered rhythm, including prolonging the gastric mill cycle period (Fig. 8). Across preparations, the gastric mill cycle period increased from 9.6 ± 0.6 s during saline superfusion to 10.5 ± 0.5 s in the presence of CCAP (10–7 M; n = 27, P < 0.05). However, there was no significant change in the duration of either the protractor (saline: 6.4 ± 0.5 s; CCAP: 7.1 ± 0.4 s; n = 27, P = 0.07) or retractor phase (saline: 3.2 ± 0.2 s; CCAP: 3.4 ± 0.2 s; n = 27, P = 0.15) of this rhythm.
|
).
Our current understanding of the mechanisms underlying the generation of the MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm include the periodic buildup and decay of a slowly developing excitation of LG by MCN1 (Fig. 9) (Beenhakker et al. 2005; Coleman et al. 1995). This slow excitation, which is mediated by the MCN1 peptide co-transmitter C. borealis tachykinin-related peptide Ia (CabTRP Ia) (Stein et al. 2007; Wood et al. 2000), appears to build continuously during each retractor phase (LG interburst) of the gastric mill rhythm until it overcomes the contemporaneous Int1 inhibition of LG and enables LG burst onset. During the LG burst, the excitatory response in LG from MCN1 decays due to LG inhibition of the STG terminals of MCN1, until the LG burst terminates and the next retractor phase begins (Fig. 9) (Bartos et al. 1999; Beenhakker et al. 2005; Coleman et al. 1995).
|
). Thus for a constant MCN1 firing frequency, increasing the Int1 inhibition of LG prolongs the time needed for the MCN1-activated current to enable LG to reach burst threshold (Fig. 9B). Prolonging the retractor phase in this manner prolongs the subsequent protractor phase due to the apparently unchanged decay rate of the MCN1 excitation of LG (Beenhakker et al. 2005).
In the pyloric circuit neurons of C. borealis, several neuropeptides including CCAP and CabTRP Ia selectively activate the same, voltage-dependent inward current (Swensen and Marder 2000, 2001). Because CCAP and CabTRP Ia converge to activate the same ionic current in pyloric neurons, we tested the hypothesis that there was a similar convergence in the gastric mill neurons and this convergence limited CCAP, at the concentrations used (10–7 M), to only influencing relatively fast gastric mill rhythms. As suggested in the preceding text, we anticipated that this limitation resulted from a given CCAP concentration activating a relatively constant amount of the aforementioned peptide-activated current whereas the amount of this current contributed by MCN1 would be larger when the retractor phase was prolonged, as occurs during slower gastric mill rhythms (i.e., Fig. 9). Thus the impact of the CCAP action would be proportionally larger during the faster rhythms.
There was indeed a cycle period-dependent influence of CCAP on the MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm (Fig. 10). As shown in Fig. 10Ai, CCAP (10–7 M) appeared to more consistently increase the cycle period during relatively fast gastric mill rhythms. We confirmed this qualitative observation by using a sliding window analysis to analyze 4-s-duration windows of the data from these 27 preparations relative to controls (see METHODS). We thereby determined that CCAP consistently increased the gastric mill cycle period when the control cycle period was 9.0 s (0.001 < P < 0.05 for each window between 4 and 8 and 7 and 11 s). Overall, when the control gastric mill cycle period was 9.0 s, CCAP (10–7 M) increased the cycle period from 6.9 ± 0.3 s in saline to 8.5 ± 0.4 s in CCAP (n = 12, P < 0.001; Fig. 10Aii). At the level of individual experiments, the presence of CCAP increased the gastric mill cycle period in 10/12 preparations with control cycle periods of 9 s, whereas the cycle period increase occurred in only 5/15 preparations with longer-duration control cycle periods (Fig. 10Ai).
|
Because we compared the results of S:CCAP to the results of a set of control experiments (S1, S2), we separated the control data sets into those with fast (9.0 s) and slow (>9.0 s) cycle periods to match them to the cycle-period-dependent actions of CCAP. All of the analyzed parameters were equivalent for the slow group, and nearly all parameters were equivalent for the fast group (supplementary Table 1, Table 2). For example, the gastric mill cycle period was unchanged in both control groups (fast group: S1, 6.5 ± 0.5 s; S2, 6.7 ± 0.4 s; n = 10, P = 0.20, paired Student's t-test; slow group: S1, 11.2 ± 0.6 s; S2, 11.3 ± 0.5 s; n = 11, P = 0.77, paired Student's t-test) as were the LG burst duration, intraburst firing frequency, and number of spikes per burst (Fig. 10; supplementary Tables 1, Tables 2). There were two parameters that were distinct for the S1 versus S2 controls in the fast group, including MG neuron burst duration (P < 0.01, n = 4) and the phase off of the MG neuron burst (P < 0.01, n = 4; supplementary Table 1).
The CCAP-mediated slowing of these relatively fast rhythms resulted largely from its causing a prolongation of the protractor (LG neuron active) phase (Figs. 8 and 10 and supplementary Table 1). For example, the LG neuron burst duration increased during CCAP (10–7 M) application to these fast rhythms (saline: 4.4 ± 0.3 s; CCAP: 5.6 ± 0.4 s; n = 12, P < 0.001; Fig. 10B). There was no change in LG burst duration during the slower rhythms (saline: 8.0 ± 0.5 s; CCAP: 8.3 ± 0.4 s; n = 15, P = 0.30). In contrast to the cycle-period-dependent actions of CCAP on the gastric mill cycle period and LG burst duration, CCAP caused an increase in the number of LG neuron action potentials per gastric mill cycle and in its intraburst firing frequency during both fast and slow rhythms (Fig. 10, C and D; supplementary Table 1, Table 2).
Based on the preceding information, we reasoned that if CCAP was providing a smaller fraction of the total excitation to LG when the rhythm was slow, then providing a higher CCAP concentration to slow rhythms would increase its influence on LG relative to the contribution from MCN1 and therefore effectively influence these rhythms in a manner comparable to the lower CCAP concentrations on faster rhythms. Consistent with this hypothesis, application of CCAP (10–6 M) to slow rhythms did cause an increased cycle period (saline: 10.8 ± 0.3 s; CCAP: 13.6 ± 1.1 s; n = 8, P < 0.05) and increased LG burst duration (saline: 7.6 ± 0.5 s; CCAP: 10.4 ± 1.2 s; n = 8, P < 0.05; Fig. 11).
|
CCAP also did not alter the activity of any of the retractor neurons during these fast rhythms, including Int1, DG, and VD (supplementary Table 1). The absence of increased activity in Int1 was surprising because it was directly excited by focally applied CCAP (10–5 M; Fig. 3). Moreover, the pyloric-timed firing frequency of Int1 was consistently increased by CCAP (10–7 M) superfusion prior to each MCN1 stimulation (saline: 6.4 ± 1.1 Hz; CCAP: 8.8 ± 1.3 Hz; n = 7, P < 0.05; Fig. 12). Unlike Int1, the retractor neuron AM was not activated during CCAP (10–7 M) application (n = 7) despite the fact that AM was directly excited by higher concentrations of focally applied CCAP (see preceding text). Aside from the LG neuron, none of the recorded gastric mill neurons exhibited altered activity when CCAP was applied during slow gastric mill rhythms (supplementary Table 2).
|
CCAP influence on the gastric mill rhythm is dose-dependent
We also determined the threshold concentration at which CCAP influenced the MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm. For these experiments, we used only preparations with relatively fast control cycle periods (9.0 s). As we found with the CCAP influence on the MCN1 firing frequency threshold necessary to generate the gastric mill rhythm, superfusion of CCAP concentrations as low as 10–10 M (n = 7) slowed the MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm (Fig. 13A). There was a comparable increase in the LG burst duration and intraburst firing frequency for this same range of CCAP concentrations (Fig. 13, B and C). As in the preceding text, none of the studied parameters were different in the matched saline controls (S1, S2; Fig. 13).
|
The MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm also regulates the pyloric rhythm. Specifically, the pyloric rhythm is slowed and weakened during each protractor (LG burst) phase (Bartos and Nusbaum 1997). This effect results from the presynaptic inhibition of the STG terminals of MCN1 by the LG neuron, which reduces the MCN1 influence on the pyloric rhythm during the protractor phase (Bartos and Nusbaum 1997; Coleman and Nusbaum 1994). Therefore we determined whether the influence of the gastric mill rhythm on the pyloric rhythm was altered in the presence of CCAP. Relative to saline superfusion, CCAP application (10–7 M) did not alter the pyloric cycle period during either the LG neuron burst (saline: 1.2 ± 0.0 s; CCAP: 1.2 ± 0.1 s; n = 11, P = 0.20) or interburst (saline: 1.0 ± 0.0 s; CCAP: 1.1 ± 0.0 s; n = 11, P = 0.22). Additionally, as shown originally by Bartos and Nusbaum (1997), in our experiments, the pyloric cycle period retained its longer duration during the LG burst, relative to the LG interburst, during saline superfusion (LG burst: 1.2 ± 0.0 s; LG interburst: 1.0 ± 0.0 s, n = 11, P < 0.001). This relationship persisted in the presence of CCAP (10–7 M; LG burst: 1.2 ± 0.1 s; LG interburst: 1.1 ± 0.1 s, n = 11, P < 0.001).
In contrast to its lack of influence on the pyloric cycle period, CCAP (10–7 M) did alter the activity of the pyloric neuron LP in a gastric mill phase-dependent manner. In saline, the LP neuron produced more action potentials per pyloric-timed burst during the retractor phase (LG interburst) than during the protractor phase (LG burst: 7.5 ± 0.4 spike; LG interburst: 7.9 ± 0.4 spike; n = 13, P < 0.05, paired Student's t-test). As reported originally by Weimann et al. (1997), the presence of CCAP (10–7 M) increased the number of LP action potentials per burst. Moreover, during the MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm, the number of LP action potentials per burst became larger during the LG burst phase of the gastric mill rhythm relative to the LG interburst phase (LG burst: 11.1 ± 0.5 spike; LG interburst: 10.2 ± 0.4 spike; n = 13, P < 0.05, paired Student's t-test).
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
; Coleman et al. 1995). CCAP similarly prolongs motor neuron burst durations in the crab pyloric system and cardiac ganglion as well as in the crayfish swimmeret system (Fort et al. 2007; Mulloney et al. 1997; Weimann et al. 1997). In contrast, although the retractor half of this gastric mill CPG pair (Int1) was also directly excited by CCAP, this peptide application did not alter Int1 activity during these gastric mill rhythms (Fig. 14). These results suggest that, despite its multiple targets, the primary site of action by which CCAP modulates the gastric mill rhythm is the LG neuron (see following text).
|
; Katz and Edwards 1999; McLean and Sillar 2004; Mesce 2002; Parker and Grillner 1999; Svensson et al. 2001). Although metamodulation is likely to be a common phenomenon, there are currently few examples of its consequences for motor circuit activity, and, in most cases, it has not been possible to assess the studied metamodulatory actions on identified circuit neurons. For example, application of either substance P or serotonin to the isolated lamprey spinal cord has long-lasting actions on spinal interneurons involved in the lamprey swim motor pattern, including modifying NMDA-mediated synaptic actions (Parker and Grillner 1999). Further, either serotonin or dopamine application alters these substance P-mediated actions (Svensson et al. 2001). None of the previous studies on metamodulation involved the release of a neuromodulator from an identified neuron. However, recent work by McLean and Sillar (2004) showed that pharmacological manipulation of the nitric oxide (NO) system influences a neuronal source of NO in a manner comparable to that of exogenously applied NO donors on noradrenergic modulation of the amphibian spinal locomotor system.
The phase-specific influence of CCAP on the MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm was surprising given that CCAP had a balanced, direct excitatory influence on protractor (LG, IC) and retractor (Int1, AM) neurons. The unbalanced influence of CCAP on these neurons during this rhythm might have resulted from this peptide having distinct dose-response effects on these different neurons, perhaps with Int1 and AM being more weakly affected at lower CCAP concentrations than LG and IC. Alternatively, the CCAP modulation of these rhythms might have resulted from its enabling increased transmitter release from MCN1. This latter possibility remains to be directly examined, but it appears to be an unlikely explanation. Specifically, when MCN1 transmitter release is enhanced by directly increasing MCN1 firing frequency, the gastric mill cycle period is decreased instead of increased, and it is associated with a decreased retractor phase duration instead of an increased protractor phase duration (Bartos et al. 1999). CCAP also produces phase specific modulation in the crayfish swimmeret system by increasing the activity of power stroke motor neurons without changing the activity of the return stroke motor neurons (Mulloney et al. 1997).
Despite the apparent lack of direct CCAP action on the STG terminals of MCN1, what are likely to be hormonally relevant concentrations of CCAP (see following text) did facilitate the ability of MCN1 to activate the gastric mill rhythm by reducing its threshold firing frequency for rhythm activation. This CCAP action was likely to result from the same convergent activation of the aforementioned voltage-dependent inward current by this peptide and MCN1-released CabTRP Ia in the LG neuron that likely underlies the CCAP influence on the gastric mill cycle period. Although a direct excitatory action of CCAP onto MCN1 could have also facilitated MCN1 activation of the gastric mill rhythm, the aforementioned previous studies suggest that the resulting cycle period would have been reduced instead of increased, due to a reduced retractor phase duration instead of an increased protractor phase duration (Bartos et al. 1999; Beenhakker et al. 2005).
It remains to be determined why Int1 activity was not altered during the gastric mill rhythm despite its continued responsiveness to CCAP at least when applied at 10–7 M. The lack of change in Int1 activity when CCAP was applied during MCN1 stimulation was not likely to be an occlusion effect resulting from the known convergent activation by different peptide transmitters of the same ionic current in STG neurons (Swensen and Marder 2000, 2001). This possible mechanism is unlikely because MCN1 influences Int1 exclusively by a picrotoxin-sensitive, ionotropic GABAergic excitation (Stein et al. 2007; Swensen et al. 2000).
Interestingly, the proprioceptor neuron GPR also effectively excites Int1 in the absence of the MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm, yet Int1 activity is not altered when GPR is stimulated during this rhythm (Beenhakker et al. 2005). The GPR excitation of Int1 also appears to be ionotropic, but unlike the MCN1 action, it is not a GABAergic action but is likely cholinergic (Beenhakker 2004, 2005; Katz et al. 1989; Swensen et al. 2000). The fact that the Int1 response to both CCAP application and GPR stimulation is gated out during the gastric mill rhythm suggests a common underlying mechanism. One possible mechanism is a ceiling effect wherein the Int1 firing frequency is already maximal during the gastric mill rhythm. Testing this hypothesis awaits further experiments.
Although the most obvious and pronounced effects of CCAP were its influence on LG neuron activity and the resulting slowing of the gastric mill rhythms, CCAP did also influence additional gastric mill neurons during these rhythms (Fig. 14). However, in neither of the two studied gastric mill rhythms did CCAP alter the activity of all four gastric mill neurons that responded directly to its application. Additionally, DG neuron activity was altered by CCAP during the VCN-triggered gastric mill rhythm despite its not being directly influenced by this peptide. The lack of congruence between direct targets of CCAP and those neurons the activity of which was altered during the gastric mill rhythm reinforces previous work documenting that, due to unanticipated circuit interactions, it is not sufficient to simply identify the individual targets of neuromodulation to understand neuronal circuit modulation (Ayali and Harris-Warrick 1999; Hooper and Marder 1987; Thirumalai et al. 2006).
Surprisingly, the cycle-period dependent action of CCAP on the MCN1-elicited gastric mill rhythm was eliminated when the pyloric rhythm was suppressed as CCAP effectively prolonged the cycle period of these slow rhythms. The mechanistic explanation for this discrepancy awaits further experiments. However, it is noteworthy that the pyloric-timed depolarizations in LG during each retractor phase are a pivotal mechanism underlying the natural cycle period of this gastric mill rhythm (Bartos et al. 1999). Thus when the pyloric rhythm is absent, the relative influence of each remaining circuit synapse on gastric mill rhythm generation may be altered, enabling CCAP to have an enhanced influence on these long cycle periods.
There is no information available regarding the circulating levels of CCAP during feeding. However, CCAP release in behaving crabs (Carcinus maenas L., Orconectes limosus) occurs during ecdysis (molting) behavior, a time when crabs are explicitly not feeding. During ecdysis, CCAP in the hemolymph rises to an average value of 10–9 M, whereas the average CCAP concentration during the intermolt period is nearly 100-fold less (3 x 10–11 M) (Phlippen et al. 2000). In the study by Phlippen et al. (2000), hemolymph samples were collected from the ventral abdominal sinus (O. limosus) and hypobranchial sinus (C. maenas). These sites are downstream from the ophthalmic artery, which is a major artery exiting the heart and inside of which the STG is located. These sinuses also contain a larger volume of hemolymph than the ophthalmic artery. Therefore the concentration of CCAP at the STG was likely to be higher than the molt- and intermolt-related values reported by Phlippen et al. (2000; see also Fort et al. 2007). Thus even the steady-state CCAP concentration of the intermolt period was likely to be at or above threshold for both our reported CCAP actions on the gastric mill circuit (>10–11 M) and for the previously reported CCAP actions on the pyloric circuit (Weimann et al. 1997). Additionally, a rise in hormone levels is not unexpected in relation to feeding. For example, Turrigiano and Selverston (1990) showed that levels of a cholecystokinin-like peptide, again assayed downstream from the ophthalmic artery, rise to >10–9 M in the hour after feeding.
In conclusion, the ability of the peptide hormone CCAP to modulate the MCN1-influenced gastric mill rhythms indicates that hormonal modulation can expand the flexibility of rhythmically active motor circuits to levels beyond those provided by neuronal modulation. Additionally, despite having multiple targets within the gastric mill circuit, CCAP may well be altering the gastric mill rhythm largely via its influence on a single, pivotal CPG neuron.
|
|
GRANTS |
|---|
|
|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
1 The online version of this article contains supplemental data. 
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: M. P. Nusbaum, Dept. of Neuroscience, 215 Stemmler Hall, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6074 (E-mail: nusbaum{at}mail.med.upenn.edu)
|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
Ayali A, Harris-Warrick RM. Monoamine control of the pacemaker kernel and cycle frequency in the lobster pyloric network. J Neurosci 19: 6712–6722, 1999.
Bartos M, Manor Y, Nadim F, Marder E, Nusbaum MP. Coordination of fast and slow rhythmic neuronal circuits. J Neurosci 19: 6650–6660, 1999.
Bartos M, Nusbaum MP. Intercircuit control of motor pattern modulation by presynaptic inhibition. J Neurosci 17: 2247–2256, 1997.
Beenhakker MP. Sensory Regulation of Rhythmically Active Neuronal Networks (PhD thesis). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 2004.
Beenhakker MP, Blitz DM, Nusbaum MP. Long-lasting activation of rhythmic neuronal activity by a novel mechanosensory system in the crustacean stomatogastric nervous system. J Neurophysiol 91: 78–91, 2004.
Beenhakker MP, DeLong ND, Saideman SR, Nadim F, Nusbaum MP. Proprioceptor regulation of motor circuit activity by presynaptic inhibition of a modulatory projection neuron. J Neurosci 25: 8794–8806, 2005.
Beenhakker MP, Nusbaum MP. Mechanosensory activation of a motor circuit by coactivation of two projection neurons. J Neurosci 24: 6741–6750, 2004.
Billimoria CP, Li L, Marder E. Profiling of neuropeptides released at the stomatogastric ganglion of the crab, Cancer borealis with mass spectrometry. J Neurochem 95: 191–199, 2005.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Blitz DM, Christie AE, Coleman MJ, Norris BJ, Marder E, Nusbaum MP. Different proctolin neurons elicit distinct motor patterns from a multifunctional neuronal network. J Neurosci 19: 5449–5463, 1999.
Blitz DM, Nusbaum MP. Motor pattern selection via inhibition of parallel pathways. J Neurosci 17: 4965–4975, 1997.
Coleman MJ, Meyrand P, Nusbaum MP. A switch between two modes of synaptic transmission mediated by presynaptic inhibition. Nature 378: 502–505, 1995.[CrossRef][Medline]
Coleman MJ, Nusbaum MP. Functional consequences of compartmentalization of synaptic input. J Neurosci 14: 6544–6552, 1994.[Abstract]
Crisp KM, Mesce KA. A cephalic projection neuron involved in locomotion is dye coupled to the dopaminergic neural network in the medicinal leech. J Exp Biol 207: 4535–4542, 2004.
Edwards DH, Yeh SR, Musolf BE, Antonsen BL, Krasne FB. Metamodulation of the crayfish escape circuit. Brain Behav Evol 60: 360–369, 2002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Fort TJ, Garcia-Crescioni K, Agricola H-J, Brezina V, Miller MW. Regulation of the crab heartbeat by crustacean cardioactive peptide (CCAP): central and peripheral actions. J Neurophysiol 97: 3407–3420, 2007.
Golowasch J, Marder E. Proctolin activates an inward current whose voltage dependence is modified by extracellular Ca2+. J Neurosci 12: 810–817, 1992.[Abstract]
Harris-Warrick RM, Johnson BR, Peck JH, Kloppenburg P, Ayali A, Skarbinski J. Distributed effects of dopamine modulation in the crustacean pyloric network. Ann NY Acad Sci 860: 155–67, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Heinzel HG, Weimann JM, Marder E. The behavioral repertoire of the gastric mill in the crab, Cancer pagurus: an in situ endoscopic and electrophysiological examination. J Neurosci 13: 1793–1803, 1993.[Abstract]
Hooper SL, Marder E. Modulation of the lobster pyloric rhythm by the peptide proctolin. J Neurosci 7: 2097–2112, 1987.[Abstract]
Katz PS, Edwards DH. Metamodulation: the control and modulation of neuromodulation. In: Beyond Neurotransmission: Neuromodulation and its Importance for Information Processing, edited by Katz PS. New York: Oxford, 1999, p. 349–381.
Katz PS, Eigg MH, Harris-Warrick RM. Serotonergic/cholinergic muscle receptor cells in the crab stomatogastric nervous system. I. Identification and characterization of the gastropyloric receptor cells. J Neurophysiol 62: 558–570, 1989.
Kirby MS, Nusbaum MP. Hormonal modulation of neuronal modulation. Soc Neurosci Abstr 33: 604.12, 2003.
Kirby MS, Nusbaum MP. Hormonal modulation of neuronal circuit modulation. Soc Neurosci Abstr 34: 657.3, 2004.
Li L, Kelley WP, Billimoria CP, Christie AE, Pulver SR, Sweedler JV, Marder E. Mass spectrometric investigation of the neuropeptide complement and release in the pericardial organs of the crab, Cancer borealis. J Neurochem 87: 642–656, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Marder E, Bucher D. Central pattern generators and the control of rhythmic movements. Curr Biol 11: R986–R996, 2001.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Marder E, Bucher D. Understanding circuit dynamics using the stomatogastric nervous system of lobsters and crabs. Annu Rev Physiol 69: 291–316, 2007.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Marder E, Bucher D, Schulz DJ, Taylor AL. Invertebrate central pattern generation moves along. Curr Biol 15: R685–699, 2005.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Marder E, Calabrese RL. Principles of rhythmic motor pattern generation. Physiol Rev 76: 687–717, 1996.
Marder E, Thirumalai V. Cellular, synaptic and network effects of neuromodulation. Neural Netw 15: 479–493, 2002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
McLean DL, Sillar KT. Metamodulation of a spinal locomotor network by nitric oxide. J Neurosci 24: 9561–9571, 2004.
Mesce KA. Metamodulation of the biogenic amines: secondary modulation by steroid hormones and amine cocktails. Brain Behav Evol 60: 339–349, 2002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Miller JP, Selverston AI. Mechanisms underlying pattern-generation in lobster stomatogastric ganglion as determined by selective inactivation of identified neurons. II. Oscillatory properties of pyloric neurons. J Neurophysiol 48: 1378–1391, 1982.
Mulloney B, Namba H, Agricola HJ, Hall WM. Modulation of force during locomotion: differential action of crustacean cardioactive peptide on power-stroke and return-stroke motor neurons. J Neurosci 17: 6872–6883, 1997.
Nadim F, Manor Y, Nusbaum MP, Marder E. Frequency regulation of a slow rhythm by a fast periodic input. J Neurosci 18: 5053–5067, 1998.
Norris BJ, Coleman MJ, Nusbaum MP. Recruitment of a projection neuron determines gastric mill motor pattern selection in the stomatogastric nervous system of the crab, Cancer borealis. J Neurophysiol 72:1451–1463, 1994.
Nusbaum MP, Beenhakker MP. A small-systems approach to motor pattern generation. Nature 417: 343–350, 2002.[CrossRef][Medline]
Parker D, Grillner S. Activity-dependent metaplasticity of inhibitory and excitatory synaptic transmission in the lamprey spinal cord locomotor network. J Neurosci 19: 1647–1656, 1999.
Phlippen PH, Webster SG, Chung JS, Dircksen H. Ecdysis of decapod crustaceans is associated with a dramatic release of crustacean cardioactive peptide into the haemolymph. J Exp Biol 203: 521–536, 2000.[Abstract]
Ramirez JM, Tryba AK, Pena F. Pacemaker neurons and neuronal networks: an integrative view. Curr Opin Neurobiol 14: 665–674, 2004.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Skiebe P. Neuropeptides are ubiquitous chemical mediators: using the stomatogastric nervous system as a model system. J Exp Biol 204: 2035–2048, 2001.[Web of Science][Medline]
Stein W, DeLong ND, Wood DE, Nusbaum MP. Divergent cotransmitter actions underlie motor pattern activation by a modulatory projection neuron. Eur J Neurosci 26: 1148–1165, 2007.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Svensson E, Grillner S, Parker D. Gating and braking of short- and long-term modulatory effects by interactions between colocalized neuromodulators. J Neurosci 21: 5984–5992, 2001.
Swensen A, Golowasch J, Christie AE, Coleman MJ, Nusbaum MP, Marder E. GABA and responses to GABA in the stomatogastric ganglion of the crab Cancer borealis. J Exp Biol 203: 2075–2092, 2000.[Abstract]
Swensen AM, Marder E. Multiple peptides converge to activate the same voltage-dependent current in a central pattern-generating circuit. J Neurosci 20: 6752–6759, 2000.
Swensen AM, Marder E. Modulators with convergent cellular actions elicit distinct circuit outputs. J Neurosci 21: 4050–4058, 2001.
Thirumalai V, Prinz AA, Johnson CD, Marder E. Red pigment concentrating hormone strongly enhances the strength of feedback to the pyloric rhythm oscillator but has little effect on pyloric rhythm period. J Neurophysiol 95: 1762–1770, 2006.
Turrigiano GG, Selverston AI. A cholecystokinin-like hormone activates a feeding-related neural circuit in lobster. Nature 344: 866–868, 1990.[CrossRef][Medline]
Weimann JM, Meyrand P, Marder E. Neurons that form multiple pattern generators: identification and multiple activity patterns of gastric/pyloric neurons in the crab stomatogastric system. J Neurophysiol 65: 111–122, 1991.
Weimann JM, Skiebe P, Heinzel HG, Soto C, Kopell N, Jorge-Rivera JC, Marder E. Modulation of oscillator interactions in the crab stomatogastric ganglion by crustacean cardioactive peptide. J Neurosci 17: 1748–1760, 1997.
Wood DE, Manor Y, Nadim F, Nusbaum MP. Intercircuit control via rhythmic regulation of projection neuron activity. J Neurosci 24: 7455–7463, 2004.
Wood DE, Stein W, Nusbaum MP. Projection neurons with shared cotransmitters elicit different motor patterns from the same neural circuit. J Neurosci 20: 8943–8953, 2000.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  N. D. DeLong, M. S. Kirby, D. M. Blitz, and M. P. Nusbaum Parallel Regulation of a Modulator-Activated Current via Distinct Dynamics Underlies Comodulation of Motor Circuit Output J. Neurosci., September 30, 2009; 29(39): 12355 - 12367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Spitzer, G. Cymbalyuk, H. Zhang, D. H. Edwards, and D. J. Baro Serotonin Transduction Cascades Mediate Variable Changes in Pyloric Network Cycle Frequency in Response to the Same Modulatory Challenge J Neurophysiol, June 1, 2008; 99(6): 2844 - 2863. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
), and the mean (±SD) value for the same parameter from 2 successive gastric mill rhythms elicited during saline superfusion (S1, S2: 
), obtained from a separate set of preparations. —, equivalent points on the y and x axes. C: CCAP (10–7 M) application altered several parameters of the VCN-triggered gastric mill rhythm across preparations. Specifically, relative to the same parameter during saline superfusion (S), CCAP increased the gastric mill cycle period (Ci, n = 15), LG burst duration (Cii, n = 15), LG intraburst firing frequency (Ciii, n = 15), and number of LG action potentials per burst (Cvi, n = 15). There was no change in any of these parameters during consecutive rhythms triggered during saline superfusion (S1, S2: P > 0.05, n = 11). ***P < 0.001.
