Section of Neurobiology, Institute for Neuroscience, Center for Perceptual Systems, The University of Texas Austin, TX, USA.
Front Neural Circuits. 2012 Sep 18;6:67. doi: 10.3389/fncir.2012.00067. eCollection 2012.
Pharmacological block of inhibition is often used to determine if inhibition contributes to spike selectivity, in which a preferred stimulus evokes more spikes than a null stimulus. When inhibitory block reduces spike selectivity, a common interpretation is that differences between the preferred- and null-evoked inhibitions created the selectivity from less-selective excitatory inputs. In models based on empirical properties of cells from the inferior colliculus (IC) of awake bats, we show that inhibitory differences are not required. Instead, inhibition can enhance spike selectivity by changing the gain, the ratio of output spikes to input current. Within the model, we made preferred stimuli that evoked more spikes than null stimuli using five distinct synaptic mechanisms. In two cases, synaptic selectivity (the differences between the preferred and null inputs) was entirely excitatory, and in two it was entirely inhibitory. In each case, blocking inhibition eliminated spike selectivity. Thus, observing spike rates following inhibitory block did not distinguish among the cases where synaptic selectivity was entirely excitatory or inhibitory. We then did the same modeling experiment using empirical synaptic conductances derived from responses to preferred and null sounds. In most cases, inhibition in the model enhanced spike selectivity mainly by gain modulation and firing rate reduction. Sometimes, inhibition reduced the null gain to zero, eliminating null-evoked spikes. In some cases, inhibition increased the preferred gain more than the null gain, enhancing the difference between the preferred- and null-evoked spikes. Finally, inhibition kept firing rates low. When selectivity is quantified by the selectivity index (SI, the ratio of the difference to the sum of the spikes evoked by the preferred and null stimuli), inhibitory block reduced the SI by increasing overall firing rates. These results are consistent with inhibition shaping spike selectivity by gain control.
药理学抑制阻断常被用于确定抑制是否会导致尖峰选择性,即优先刺激比零刺激引发更多的尖峰。当抑制阻断降低尖峰选择性时,一种常见的解释是,优先刺激和零刺激引发的抑制差异从较少选择性的兴奋性输入中产生了选择性。在基于清醒蝙蝠下丘脑中细胞的经验特性的模型中,我们表明抑制差异不是必需的。相反,抑制可以通过改变增益(输出尖峰与输入电流的比值)来增强尖峰选择性。在模型中,我们使用五种不同的突触机制产生了比零刺激引发更多尖峰的优先刺激。在两种情况下,突触选择性(优先和零输入之间的差异)完全是兴奋性的,在两种情况下完全是抑制性的。在每种情况下,阻断抑制都会消除尖峰选择性。因此,观察抑制阻断后尖峰率并不能区分突触选择性完全是兴奋性或抑制性的情况。然后,我们使用从对优先和零声音的反应中得出的经验性突触电导进行了相同的建模实验。在大多数情况下,模型中的抑制主要通过增益调制和发放率降低来增强尖峰选择性。有时,抑制会将零增益降低到零,消除零刺激引发的尖峰。在某些情况下,抑制会增加优先增益超过零增益,从而增强优先刺激和零刺激引发的尖峰之间的差异。最后,抑制保持发放率低。当选择性通过选择性指数(SI,即优先刺激和零刺激引发的尖峰之间差异与总和的比值)来量化时,抑制阻断通过增加总发放率降低了 SI。这些结果与抑制通过增益控制来塑造尖峰选择性的观点一致。