Literature DB >> 8915844

Peripheral and central predictors of whisker afferent morphology in the rat brainstem.

P J Shortland1, J A Demaro, F Shang, P M Waite, M F Jacquin.   

Abstract

Prior studies suggest that whisker afferents have but one central projection pattern, despite their association with differing peripheral receptors that predict central morphology in other systems. Target factors in barrelettes are thought to dictate afferent projection patterns; yet, barrelettes differ in their size, shape and development. We tested the hypothesis that whisker afferents have differing morphologies that are predicted by peripheral and central factors. Branching patterns and collaterals of 78 Neurobiotin-stained afferents were compared in rats. Fibers from one whisker had precisely somatotopic projections but highly varied morphologies. For the entire sample, analysis of variance revealed significant intrafiber variance in collateral number and arbor shape that was attributed to the target subnucleus. Significant interfiber variance did not reflect response adaptation rate, direction sensitivity, whisker row origin or parent fiber bifurcation in the trigeminal root. Instead, we found the following. 1) Mandibular fibers had more elongated arbors than maxillary axons. In subnuclei interpolaris and principalis, mandibular fibers had larger arbors with more boutons/collateral than maxillary axons; in oralis and interpolaris, mandibular fibers had fewer collaterals than those of the maxillary division. 2) Upper lip whisker axons had more boutons than those from the B-D row in all subnuclei. 3) Rostral whisker are afferents had larger arbors and more boutons than those from middle or caudal arcs due to significant arc effects in interpolaris and oralis. Thus, whisker afferents are not structurally uniform, and some morphological features are predictable. Intrafiber variance is attributed to the central target; interfiber variance reflects maxillary versus mandibular origin, upper lip origin and whisker rostrocaudal arc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8915844     DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19961118)375:3<481::AID-CNE10>3.0.CO;2-P

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comp Neurol        ISSN: 0021-9967            Impact factor:   3.215


  6 in total

Review 1.  Neuronal basis for object location in the vibrissa scanning sensorimotor system.

Authors:  David Kleinfeld; Martin Deschênes
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 17.173

2.  Feedforward inhibition determines the angular tuning of vibrissal responses in the principal trigeminal nucleus.

Authors:  Marie-Andrée Bellavance; Maxime Demers; Martin Deschênes
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  In DRG11 knock-out mice, trigeminal cell death is extensive and does not account for failed brainstem patterning.

Authors:  Mark F Jacquin; Joop J A Arends; Chuanxi Xiang; Lee A Shapiro; Charles E Ribak; Zhou-Feng Chen
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  The transcription factor, Lmx1b, is necessary for the development of the principal trigeminal nucleus-based lemniscal pathway.

Authors:  Chuanxi Xiang; Kai-Hua Zhang; Jun Yin; Joop J A Arends; Reha S Erzurumlu; Mark F Jacquin; Zhou-Feng Chen
Journal:  Mol Cell Neurosci       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 4.314

5.  Null mutations of NT-3 and Bax affect trigeminal ganglion cell number but not brainstem barrelette pattern formation.

Authors:  Tony Mosconi; J J Arends; Mark F Jacquin
Journal:  Somatosens Mot Res       Date:  2013-04-24       Impact factor: 1.111

6.  Representation of Stimulus Speed and Direction in Vibrissal-Sensitive Regions of the Trigeminal Nuclei: A Comparison of Single Unit and Population Responses.

Authors:  Aniket S Kaloti; Erik C Johnson; Chris S Bresee; Stephanie N Naufel; Matthew G Perich; Douglas L Jones; Mitra J Z Hartmann
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.