Abstract
In the vertebrate retina, cones project to the horizontal cells (HCs) and bipolar cells (BCs). The communication between cones and HCs uses both chemical and ephaptic mechanisms. Cones release glutamate in a Ca2+-dependent manner, while HCs feed back to cones via an ephaptic mechanism. Hyperpolarization of HCs leads to an increased current through connexin hemichannels located on the tips of HC dendrites invaginating the cone synaptic terminals. Due to the high resistance of the extracellular synaptic space, this current makes the synaptic cleft slightly negative. The result is that the Ca2+-channels in the cone presynaptic membrane experience a slightly depolarized membrane potential and therefore more glutamate is released. This ephaptic mechanism forms a very fast and noise free negative feedback pathway. These characteristics are crucial, since the retina has to perform well in demanding conditions such as low light levels. In this mini-review we will discuss the critical components of such an ephaptic mechanism. Furthermore, we will address the question whether such communication appears in other systems as well and indicate some fundamental features to look for when attempting to identify an ephaptic mechanism.
Neuronal activity leads to both intracellular and extracellular potential changes. In this way the synchronized activity of multiple neurons may generate local field potentials (LFPs). LFPs are discussed extensively in the other contributions to the special issue. Here we will discuss a special form of neuronal communication that operates by modulating the extracellular potential: ephaptic communication.
Ephaptic communication differs from LFPs in that it is highly localized and requires a specialized structure, an ephapse. The term ephapse is derived from the Greek verb ephaptein which means to closely touch. An ephapse is a specialized structure that generates a high extracellular resistance, such that current flowing through the extracellular space produces a potential difference. This potential difference modifies the activity of voltage gated channels localized within the ephapse, leading to, for instance, changes in spike threshold or modulation of synaptic transmission. In principle, any synaptic structure should generate an ephaptic interaction. However, in most synapses the extracellular resistance of the synaptic cleft is not large enough to generate a significant effect (Figure 1A).
Figure 1
The retina’s first synapse is a good example of a synapse where significant ephaptic interactions occur (Figure 1B). Cone photoreceptors project to horizontal cells (HCs) and bipolar cells (BCs) via Ca2+-dependent glutamate release. Light stimulation hyperpolarizes cones, which leads to a reduction of glutamate release. Since HCs receive input from many cones and are strongly coupled electrically, they collect and average signals over a larger area. This information is fed back to the cones negatively, generating the center-surround organization of BCs. This inhibitory pathway from HCs to cones is mediated via an ephaptic mechanism.
Two key features of this synapse are crucial for the ephaptic interaction to occur. First, a high extracellular resistance is needed, which is generated by a highly specialized synaptic structure (Figure 1C). The dendrites of HCs and BCs invaginate the cone photoreceptor terminal thus creating a restricted synaptic space with a relatively high resistance (Figure 1D, white resistor). Secondly, connexin hemichannels are key players in this ephapse (Figure 1D, blue resistor; Kamermans et al.,
The ephaptic feedback mechanism has a number of very specific properties. Due to its electrical nature, feedback from HCs to cones is very fast and has no synaptic delay (Vroman et al., submitted). Conventional synaptic transmission depends on vesicular neurotransmitter release. The signal transmitted is noisy because each vesicle release-event causes a discrete postsynaptic potential change. Since ephaptic transmission does not depend on vesicles, it will hardly add noise to the input signal. These features are very well suited for the role of HCs in retinal signal processing. The HC/cone ephapse utilizes ephaptic transmission to generate the surround of BCs, which is the first step in reducing redundant visual information. This redundancy reduction only works if the feedback signal is fast. If this were not the case, the surround of BCs would lag the center response for moving stimuli, thus compromising the efficiency of redundancy reduction. The low noise characteristics of the ephaptic feedback mechanism are especially important at low light levels, when the photoreceptor responses barely exceed the noise level (Field et al.,
Are the key features, as we described for the HC/cone ephapse, general requirements for ephaptic communication? A high extracellular resistance is essential but can be achieved in many ways. For instance, it can be achieved by increasing the size of a synapse or by the presence of an invaginating synaptic structure (Figure 1A). However, the extracellular resistance can also be increased by the expression of extracellular matrix molecules such as proteoglycans (Bogdanik et al.,
Is there evidence for ephaptic interactions in other synapses? For example, the mossy fibers in the hippocampus form large synapses with CA3 pyramidal cell dendrites. These synapses potentially have a high enough resistance to form an ephapse. This ephaptic interaction would depend on the current flowing through glutamate receptors. Activation of presynaptic Ca2+-channels leads to glutamate release, which opens glutamate-gated channels in the postsynaptic membrane. The current through these channels makes the potential in the synaptic cleft slightly negative, leading to a depolarization of the presynaptic membrane and a further increase of glutamate release. This positive feedback loop enhances the output of the mossy fiber (Berretta et al.,
An example of ephaptic communication outside the brain can be found in the heart. Action potential propagation between cardiac myocytes, necessary for heart muscle contraction, appears to be dependent on both gap junctional coupling and an ephaptic interaction (Sperelakis,
These examples of ephaptic mechanisms are focused on modulation of transmission by extracellular potential differences. However, extracellular potential gradients could have additional influences on synaptic transmission as well. Sylantyev et al. (
At first instance, it would seem that ephaptic communication is a rather energy intensive mechanism. A continuously open channel puts a high metabolic load on the cell. The cell needs to spend energy to maintain its ionic balance and membrane potential. On the other hand, conventional synaptic transmission is not cheap either. Neurotransmitters have to be synthesized and vesicles have to be generated and filled and require the presence of docking, fusion and recovery mechanisms. On the post-synaptic site, receptors have to be expressed and processes lowering the neurotransmitter content of the synaptic cleft, such as neurotransmitter re-uptake transporters, need to be in place. While an ephaptic system puts a high metabolic load on the cell, it might very well be that conventional synaptic transmission is more costly.
In this mini-review we discussed ephaptic communication within a synapse. We described two main advantages for ephaptic communication: (1) it is very fast and has no synaptic delay, and (2) it has very low noise levels. In principle, such communication will occur in any synapse, but its influence will only become significant if the synapse has certain properties. The elements that are crucial for ephaptic neuronal communication are: (1) an ephapse with a large resistance to the extrasynaptic space, (2) a current sink and (3) voltage sensitive channels on the opposing membrane. Because the identity of the channels involved can be very variable, looking for convoluted or tight synaptic cleft may be a good starting point when searching for an ephapse in other systems.
Statements
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
Ala-LaurilaP.GreschnerM.ChichilniskyE. J.RiekeF. (2011). Cone photoreceptor contributions to noise and correlations in the retinal output. Nat. Neurosci.14, 1309–1316. 10.1038/nn.2927
2
BerrettaN.RossokhinA. V.KasyanovA. M.SokolovM. V.CherubiniE.VoroninL. L. (2000). Postsynaptic hyperpolarization increases the strength of AMPA-mediated synaptic transmission at large synapses between mossy fibers and CA3 pyramidal cells. Neuropharmacology39, 2288–2301. 10.1016/s0028-3908(00)00076-9
3
BogdanikL.FrameryB.FrolichA.FrancoB.MornetD.BockaertJ.et al. (2008). Muscle dystroglycan organizes the postsynapse and regulates presynaptic neurotransmitter release at the Drosophila neuromuscular junction. PLoS One3:e2084. 10.1371/journal.pone.0002084
4
ByzovA. L.GolubtzovK. V.TrifonovJ. A. (1977). “The model of mechanism of feedback between horizontal cells and photoreceptors in vertebrate retina,” in Vertebrate Photoreception, eds BarlowH. B. and FattP. (London: Academic Press), 265–274.
5
ByzovA. L.Shura-BuraT. M. (1986). Electrical feedback mechanism in the processing of signals in the outer plexiform layer of the retina. Vision Res.26, 33–44. 10.1016/0042-6989(86)90069-6
6
FahrenfortI.KloosterJ.SjoerdsmaT.KamermansM. (2005). The involvement of glutamate-gated channels in negative feedback from horizontal cells to cones. Prog. Brain Res.147, 219–229. 10.1016/s0079-6123(04)47017-4
7
FieldG. D.SampathA. P.RiekeF. (2005). Retinal processing near absolute threshold: from behavior to mechanism. Annu. Rev. Physiol.67, 491–514. 10.1146/annurev.physiol.67.031103.151256
8
GoldbergJ. M. (1996). Theoretical analysis of intercellular communication between the vestibular type I hair cell and its calyx ending. J. Neurophysiol.76, 1942–1957.
9
GulleyR. L.Bagger-SjobackD. (1979). Freeze-fracture studies on the synapse between the type I hair cell and the calyceal terminal in the guinea-pig vestibular system. J. Neurocytol.8, 591–603. 10.1007/bf01208511
10
HamiltonD. W. (1968). The calyceal synapse of type I vestibular hair cells. J. Ultrastruct. Res.23, 98–114. 10.1016/s0022-5320(68)80034-6
11
KamermansM.FahrenfortI.SchultzK.Janssen-BienholdU.SjoerdsmaT.WeilerR. (2001). Hemichannel-mediated inhibition in the outer retina. Science292, 1178–1180. 10.1126/science.1060101
12
KasyanovA. M.MaximovV. V.ByzovA. L.BerrettaN.SokolovM. V.GaspariniS.et al. (2000). Differences in amplitude-voltage relations between minimal and composite mossy fibre responses of rat CA3 hippocampal neurons support the existence of intrasynaptic ephaptic feedback in large synapses. Neuroscience101, 323–336. 10.1016/s0306-4522(00)00366-3
13
KlaassenJ.FahrenfortI.KamermansM. (2012). Connexin hemichannel mediated ephaptic inhibition in the retina. Brain Res.1487, 25–38. 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.04.059
14
KlaassenL. J.SunZ.SteijaertM. N.BolteP.FahrenfortI.Sjoerds-maT.et al. (2011). Synaptic transmission from horizontal cells to cones is impaired by loss of connexin hemichannels. PLoS Biol.9:e1001107. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001107
15
LinJ.KeenerJ. P. (2013). Ephaptic coupling in cardiac myocytes. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.60, 576–582. 10.1109/tbme.2012.2226720
16
ProchnowN.HoffmannS.VromanR.KloosterJ.BunseS.KamermansM.et al. (2009). Pannexin1 in the outer retina of the zebrafish, Danio rerio. Neuroscience162, 1039–1054. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2009.04.064
17
RhettJ. M.VeeraraghavanR.PoelzingS.GourdieR. G. (2013). The perinexus: sign-post on the path to a new model of cardiac conduction?Trends Cardiovasc. Med.23, 222–228. 10.1016/j.tcm.2012.12.005
18
SavtchenkoL. P. (2007). Bilateral processing in chemical synapses with electrical ‘ephaptic’ feedback: a theoretical model. Math. Biosci.207, 113–137. 10.1016/j.mbs.2006.09.016
19
SperelakisN. (2002). An electric field mechanism for transmission of excitation between myocardial cells. Circ. Res.91, 985–987. 10.1161/01.res.0000045656.34731.6d
20
SuC. Y.MenuzK.ReisertJ.CarlsonJ. R. (2012). Non-synaptic inhibition between grouped neurons in an olfactory circuit. Nature492, 66–71. 10.1038/nature11712
21
SylantyevS.SavtchenkoL. P.NiuY. P.IvanovA. I.JensenT. P.KullmannD. M.et al. (2008). Electric fields due to synaptic currents sharpen excitatory transmission. Science319, 1845–1849. 10.1126/science.1154330
22
ThompsonR. J.JacksonM. F.OlahM. E.RungtaR. L.HinesD. J.BeazelyM. A.et al. (2008). Activation of pannexin-1 hemichannels augments aberrant bursting in the hippocampus. Science322, 1555–1559. 10.1126/science.1165209
23
VerweijJ.KamermansM.SpekreijseH. (1996). Horizontal cells feed back to cones by shifting the cone calcium-current activation range. Vision Res.36, 3943–3953. 10.1016/s0042-6989(96)00142-3
24
YamashitaM.OhmoriH. (1990). Synaptic responses to mechanical stimulation in calyceal and bouton type vestibular afferents studied in an isolated preparation of semicircular canal ampullae of chicken. Exp. Brain Res.80, 475–488. 10.1007/bf00227989
Summary
Keywords
ephaptic communication, vertebrate retina, cones, horizontal cells, inhibition
Citation
Vroman R, Klaassen LJ and Kamermans M (2013) Ephaptic communication in the vertebrate retina. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7:612. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00612
Received
28 June 2013
Accepted
07 September 2013
Published
23 September 2013
Volume
7 - 2013
Edited by
Shennan A. Weiss, Columbia University, USA
Reviewed by
Rob Gourdie, Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute, USA
Gene L. Bowman, Oregon Health and Science University, USA
Copyright
© 2013 Vroman, Klaassen and Kamermans.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Maarten Kamermans, Retinal Signal Processing, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Meibergdreef 47, 1105 BA, Amsterdam, Netherlands e-mail: m.kamermans@nin.knaw.nl
This article was submitted to the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.