Electrophysiological Heterogeneity of Fast-Spiking Interneurons: Chandelier versus Basket Cells

In the prefrontal cortex, parvalbumin-positive inhibitory neurons play a prominent role in the neural circuitry that subserves working memory, and alterations in these neurons contribute to the pathophysiology of schizophrenia. Two morphologically distinct classes of parvalbumin neurons that target the perisomatic region of pyramidal neurons, chandelier cells (ChCs) and basket cells (BCs), are generally thought to have the same "fast-spiking" phenotype, which is characterized by a short action potential and high frequency firing without adaptation. However, findings from studies in different species suggest that certain electrophysiological membrane properties might differ between these two cell classes. In this study, we assessed the physiological heterogeneity of fast-spiking interneurons as a function of two factors: species (macaque monkey vs. rat) and morphology (chandelier vs. basket). We showed previously that electrophysiological membrane properties of BCs differ between these two species. Here, for the first time, we report differences in ChCs membrane properties between monkey and rat. We also found that a number of membrane properties differentiate ChCs from BCs. Some of these differences were species-independent (e.g., fast and medium afterhyperpolarization, firing frequency, and depolarizing sag), whereas the differences in the first spike latency between ChCs and BCs were species-specific. Our findings indicate that different combinations of electrophysiological membrane properties distinguish ChCs from BCs in rodents and primates. Such electrophysiological differences between ChCs and BCs likely contribute to their distinctive roles in cortical circuitry in each species. © 2013 Povysheva et al

Contrast Adaptation Contributes to Contrast-Invariance of Orientation Tuning of Primate V1 Cells

BACKGROUND: Studies in rodents and carnivores have shown that orientation tuning width of single neurons does not change when stimulus contrast is modified. However, in these studies, stimuli were presented for a relatively long duration (e. g., 4 seconds), making it possible that contrast adaptation contributed to contrast-invariance of orientation tuning. Our first purpose was to determine, in marmoset area V1, whether orientation tuning is still contrast-invariant with the stimulation duration is comparable to that of a visual fixation. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We performed extracellular recordings and examined orientation tuning of single-units using static sine-wave gratings that were flashed for 200 msec. Sixteen orientations and three contrast levels, representing low, medium and high values in the range of effective contrasts for each neuron, were randomly intermixed. Contrast adaptation being a slow phenomenon, cells did not have enough time to adapt to each contrast individually. With this stimulation protocol, we found that the tuning width obtained at intermediate contrast was reduced to 89% (median), and that at low contrast to 76%, of that obtained at high contrast. Therefore, when probed with briefly flashed stimuli, orientation tuning is not contrast-invariant in marmoset V1. Our second purpose was to determine whether contrast adaptation contributes to contrast-invariance of orientation tuning. Stationary gratings were presented, as previously, for 200 msec with randomly varying orientations, but the contrast was kept constant within stimulation blocks lasting >20 sec, allowing for adaptation to the single contrast in use. In these conditions, tuning widths obtained at low contrast were still significantly less than at high contrast (median 85%). However, tuning widths obtained with medium and high contrast stimuli no longer differed significantly. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Orientation tuning does not appear to be contrast-invariant when briefly flashed stimuli vary in both contrast and orientation, but contrast adaptation partially restores contrast-invariance of orientation tuning