| Title |
Dendritic NMDA spikes are necessary for timing-dependent associative LTP in CA3 pyramidal cells
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Communications, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/ncomms13480 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Federico Brandalise, Stefano Carta, Fritjof Helmchen, John Lisman, Urs Gerber |
| Abstract |
The computational repertoire of neurons is enhanced by regenerative electrical signals initiated in dendrites. These events, referred to as dendritic spikes, can act as cell-intrinsic amplifiers of synaptic input. Among these signals, dendritic NMDA spikes are of interest in light of their correlation with synaptic LTP induction. Because it is not possible to block NMDA spikes pharmacologically while maintaining NMDA receptors available to initiate synaptic plasticity, it remains unclear whether NMDA spikes alone can trigger LTP. Here we use dendritic recordings and calcium imaging to analyse the role of NMDA spikes in associative LTP in CA3 pyramidal cells. We show that NMDA spikes produce regenerative branch-specific calcium transients. Decreasing the probability of NMDA spikes reduces LTP, whereas increasing their probability enhances LTP. NMDA spikes and LTP occur without back-propagating action potentials. However, action potentials can facilitate LTP induction by promoting NMDA spikes. Thus, NMDA spikes are necessary and sufficient to produce the critical postsynaptic depolarization required for associative LTP in CA3 pyramidal cells. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 134 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 38 | 28% |
| Researcher | 24 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 9% |
| Professor | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 12% |
| Unknown | 27 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 55 | 40% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 31 | 23% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 3% |
| Psychology | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
| Unknown | 30 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 December 2016.
All research outputs
#18,483,671
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#44,317
of 47,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,907
of 270,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#806
of 867 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 47,199 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.8. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 867 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.