Dendritic versus somatic resonance
-
1
Humboldt University, Institute for Theoretical Biology, Germany
-
2
Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, Germany
Membrane-potential resonance characterizes the ability of a neuron to selectively respond to stimuli in a preferred frequency band. It has been associated with the occurrence of subthreshold membrane-potential oscillations (MPOs) and has been shown to be of functional relevance, as exemplified by the correlation of resonance frequencies with the spacing of grid fields in the entorhinal cortex [1] and the dependence of this spacing on the resonating H current [2].
Resonance arises from the interaction of passive and active membrane properties, usually requiring the presence of slowly-activating conductances that act as high-pass filters and are able to effectively oppose slow changes of the membrane potential. The distribution of slow conductances responsible for resonance (like H or M), however, can differ between the compartments within a neuron. In CA1 neurons, for example, it is known that the density of H channels increases by more than 60-fold from soma to dendrites and is largest in the distal parts of the dendritic tree [3]. Accordingly, resonance can also depend on the spatial localization within a cell. Still, cells are usually classified as either resonant or nonresonant on the basis of somatic injection of ZAP currents (sine-wave functions with a linear increase in frequency).
Here, we investigate to what extent and under which circumstances cells with dendritic resonance may be misclassified as nonresonant by somatic measurement of resonance properties. We use simple conductance-based multicompartmental models to analyze the effect of dendritic resonance on somatic input (and hence resonance estimates based on somatic recordings). We find that indeed, even a strong dendritic resonance may not be detectable with somatic ZAP protocols. The extent to which dendritic resonance is masked depends on neuronal morphology as well as the distribution of active conductances within the cell. In addition, we show that although dendritic resonance may not show up somatically, indirect consequences of dendritic resonance can affect the soma. In particular, MPOs of dendritic resonance-induced origin may propagate to the soma, leading to a situation where such cells when measured somatically do exhibit subthreshold MPOs in the apparent "absence" of resonance.
A local dendritic resonance filters dendritic inputs - even if it should not show up somatically - and is hence crucial for the flow of information in neuronal networks. It is therefore important to identify the circumstances under which dendritic resonance could be missed in somatic assessment of resonance properties.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the DFG (SFB 618) and the BMBF (BCCN Berlin, BPCN).
References
1. Giocomo LM, Zilli EA, Francen E, Hasselmo ME: Temporal frequency of subthreshold oscillations scales with entorhinal grid cell field spacing. Science 2007, 315:1719-1722.
2. Giocomo LM, Hasselmo ME: Knock-out of HCN1 subunit flattens dorsal-ventral frequency gradient of medial entorhinal neurons in adult mice. J Neurosci 2009, 29:7625-7630.
3. Lorincz A, Notomi T, Tamas G, Shigemoto R, Nusser Z: Polarized and compartment-dependent distribution of HCN1 in pyramidal cell dendrites. Nat Neurosci 2002, 5:1185-1193.
Keywords:
h-current,
impedance,
Membrane potential oscillations
Conference:
BC11 : Computational Neuroscience & Neurotechnology Bernstein Conference & Neurex Annual Meeting 2011, Freiburg, Germany, 4 Oct - 6 Oct, 2011.
Presentation Type:
Poster
Topic:
neurons, networks and dynamical systems (please use "neurons, networks and dynamical systems" as keywords)
Citation:
Zhuchkova
E and
Schreiber
S
(2011). Dendritic versus somatic resonance.
Front. Comput. Neurosci.
Conference Abstract:
BC11 : Computational Neuroscience & Neurotechnology Bernstein Conference & Neurex Annual Meeting 2011.
doi: 10.3389/conf.fncom.2011.53.00209
Copyright:
The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers.
They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.
The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.
Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.
For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.
Received:
18 Aug 2011;
Published Online:
04 Oct 2011.
*
Correspondence:
Dr. Ekaterina Zhuchkova, Humboldt University, Institute for Theoretical Biology, Berlin, 10115, Germany, ekaterina.zhuchkova@hu-berlin.de