Stanton P K
Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York 10461-1602, USA.
Hippocampus. 1996;6(1):35-42. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-1063(1996)6:1<35::AID-HIPO7>3.0.CO;2-6.
LTD of synaptic transmission is a form of long-term synaptic plasticity with the potential to be as significant as LTP to both the activity-dependent development of neural circuitry and adult memory storage. In addition, interactions between LTP and LTD and the dynamic regulation of the gain of synaptic plasticity mechanisms are also very important. In particular, the computational ability of LTD to properly counterbalance LTP may be essential to maintaining synaptic strengths in the linear range, and to maximally sharpen the ability of synapses to compute and store frequency-based information about the phase relation between synapses. Experimental data confirm the presence of an activity-dependent "sliding threshold" with the expected properties. That is, when levels of neuronal activity are high, indicating circumstances increasing the likelihood of inducing LTP, compensatory changes cause the suppression of LTP and an enhanced likelihood of LTD. Conversely, we would predict that low levels of synaptic activity would shift the threshold in favor of greater LTP and less LTD, a hypothesis which has yet to be tested. The sliding threshold for LTP and LTD also has implications for underlying cellular mechanisms of both forms of long-term synaptic plasticity. If the thresholds for LTP and LTD are tightly and reciprocally co-regulated, that could imply that at least one component of LTD is a true depotentiation caused by reversal of a change mediating LTP. If so, the intuitively simplest hypothesis is that phosphorylation of AMPA glutamate receptors causes LTP of synaptic e.p.s.p.s, while dephosphorylation of the same site or sites causes depotentiation LTD. Of course, this hypothesis would refer only to a postsynaptic component of both LTP and LTD. There has been a recent report that, in neonatal rat hippocampus, a form of LTD that is expressed developmentally earlier than LTP appears to have a postsynaptic induction site, but is expressed as decreased presynaptic transmitter release (Bolshakov and Siegelbaum, 1994). Whether these properties will be retained as LTD matures is unknown, as is the likelihood that, if a component of LTP is expressed presynaptically, depotentiation of that presynaptic component can also occur. Equally unclear is the persistence of LTD relative to LTP. The few rigorous long-term anatomical studies available suggest that the latest phases of LTP may be expressed as changes in dendritic spine shapes and/or synaptic morphology. While heterosynaptic LTD has been reported to have a duration of weeks in vivo (Abraham et al., 1994), we do not know whether LTP-induced morphological changes that take many days to appear can be reversed in an activity-dependent manner. An important feature of the consolidation of memories may turn out to be the slow development of LTP that is resistant to reversal by LTD. While we still at an earlier stage in our understanding of the mechanisms underlying LTD compared to LTP, some things are becoming clear. LTD is induced by afferent neuronal activity that is relatively ineffective in exciting the postsynaptic cell--an "anti-hebbian" condition. This property, coupled with the hebbian properties of LTP and the dynamic nature of membrane conductances, necessarily confers upon synapses the ability to compute and store the results of a covariance function. However, the role of such a computation in processing and/or memory is unclear. In addition, LTD appears to require the activation of NMDA and metabotropic subtypes of glutamate receptors, release of Ca2+ from intracellular stores, and an increase in intracellular [Ca2+] that is lower than that necessary to induce LTP. The early evidence is consistent with some overlap of targets for modification by LTP and LTD, with some forms of LTD likely to be a reversal, or "depotentiation," of previous LTP, perhaps through dephosphorylation of AMPA receptors.
突触传递的长时程抑制(LTD)是一种长期突触可塑性形式,对于神经回路的活动依赖性发育和成年期记忆存储而言,其重要性可能与长时程增强(LTP)相当。此外,LTP与LTD之间的相互作用以及突触可塑性机制增益的动态调节也非常重要。特别地,LTD适当平衡LTP的计算能力对于将突触强度维持在线性范围内,以及最大程度地增强突触计算和存储基于频率的突触间相位关系信息的能力可能至关重要。实验数据证实了存在具有预期特性的活动依赖性“滑动阈值”。也就是说,当神经元活动水平较高时,表明诱导LTP的可能性增加,补偿性变化会导致LTP受到抑制且LTD发生的可能性增加。相反,我们可以预测,低水平的突触活动会使阈值偏向于更大程度的LTP和更小程度的LTD,这一假设尚未得到验证。LTP和LTD的滑动阈值对于这两种长期突触可塑性形式的潜在细胞机制也具有重要意义。如果LTP和LTD的阈值受到紧密且相互的共同调节,这可能意味着LTD的至少一个组成部分是由介导LTP的变化逆转所导致的真正去增强作用。如果是这样,直观上最简单的假设是,AMPA谷氨酸受体的磷酸化导致突触兴奋性突触后电位(e.p.s.p.s)的LTP,而相同位点或多个位点的去磷酸化导致去增强作用的LTD。当然,这一假设仅涉及LTP和LTD的突触后成分。最近有报道称,在新生大鼠海马体中,一种比LTP发育上更早出现的LTD形式似乎具有突触后诱导位点,但表现为突触前递质释放减少(博尔沙科夫和西格尔鲍姆,1994)。这些特性在LTD成熟后是否会保留尚不清楚,同样不清楚的是,如果LTP的一个成分在突触前表达,该突触前成分的去增强作用是否也会发生。同样不清楚的是LTD相对于LTP的持续性。现有的少数严格的长期解剖学研究表明,LTP的最晚阶段可能表现为树突棘形状和/或突触形态的变化。虽然据报道异突触LTD在体内的持续时间为数周(亚伯拉罕等人,1994),但我们不知道需要数天才能出现的LTP诱导的形态变化是否可以以活动依赖性方式逆转。记忆巩固的一个重要特征可能是LTP的缓慢发展,这种发展对LTD的逆转具有抗性。虽然与LTP相比,我们对LTD潜在机制的理解仍处于早期阶段,但一些情况正在变得清晰。LTD由传入神经元活动诱导,这种活动在兴奋突触后细胞方面相对无效——一种“反赫布”状态。这一特性,再加上LTP的赫布特性以及膜电导的动态性质,必然赋予突触计算和存储协方差函数结果的能力。然而,这种计算在处理和/或记忆中的作用尚不清楚。此外,LTD似乎需要激活谷氨酸受体的NMDA和代谢型亚型,从细胞内储存库释放Ca2+,以及细胞内[Ca2+]的增加,且这种增加低于诱导LTP所需的水平。早期证据与LTP和LTD修饰靶点存在一些重叠一致,某些形式的LTD可能是先前LTP的逆转,即“去增强作用”,可能是通过AMPA受体的去磷酸化实现的。