Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Neuroscience and BioMed Central.

This article is part of the supplement: Twenty First Annual Computational Neuroscience Meeting: CNS*2012

Open Access Poster presentation

Compromise revisited: inhibitory synapse and electrical coupling effects on bilateral phasing in the leech heartbeat system

Adam L Weaver* and Kristen B Cowens

Author Affiliations

Department of Biology, Saint Michael's College, Colchester, VT 05439, USA

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Neuroscience 2012, 13(Suppl 1):P161  doi:10.1186/1471-2202-13-S1-P161

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/13/S1/P161


Published:16 July 2012

© 2012 Weaver and Cowens; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Poster presentation

The leech heartbeat central pattern generator (CPG) consists of a network of heart interneurons (HN) that coordinate heart excitor (HE) motor neuron activity via inhibitory chemical synapses. Each segmental pair of HE’s is connected to one another via electrical coupling. Depending on the segment, the pair of motor neurons in the living system is active across a wide range of phase differences from nearly in-phase to anti-phase [1]. Prior efforts to model this complete network have not quantitatively matched the intersegmental phase differences observed [2]. We have created a reduced network model in Simulink to explore parameters that contribute to these phase differences.

In our network model, we implemented known neuronal properties and synaptic connections from a single segmental ganglion as shown in Figure 1. In our initial model run, the HN’s were modeled as endogenous bursters as previously described [3]; the HE’s were modeled as tonic firers. We varied three parameters in this study: phased delay of the right HN synaptic input (ΦSyn) and the maximum conductances of the inhibitory synapse (gSyn) and electrical coupling (gcoup).

thumbnailFigure 1. Leech heartbeat circuit diagram showing identified heart interneurons (HN) of the CPG and their pattern of inhibitory synaptic connections (lines with circles) onto each other and the heart excitor motor neurons (HE). The resistor symbol indicates rectifying electrical coupling connecting two HE neurons in the same segment. Three parameters were varied in this study: the phase of the right HN synaptic input (ΦSyn) and the maximum conductances of the inhibitory synapse (gSyn) and electrical coupling (gcoup).

We found that in this network gSyn must be at least 150 times greater than gcoup in order to obtain 1:1 entrainment of the HE’s with the HN’s. Under conditions with zero ΦSyn, increased gcoup led to increased instantaneous spike frequencies (ISF) and reduced duty cycle, primarily due to a delayed burst beginning. Increasing gSyn alone with zero ΦSyn led to little change in HE phase or duty cycle, but saw increased ISF. With relatively high levels of gSyn (300-600 nS), increasing ΦSyn (0.2-0.5) caused one HE to decrease its duty cycle while the other increased. Higher levels of ΦSyn (0.5-0.8) caused the HE’s to switch their relative duty cycle patterns. With weak gcoup (0.25-0.50 nS) and moderate ΦSyn (0.4-0.6), increasing gSyn led to a reduced HE duty cycle and side-to-side phase difference. The largest phase differences were found when both gSyn and gcoup were relatively strong. In summary, increases in gcoup tended to lead to increased phase differences, while increases in gSyn led to decreased phase differences.

Our search of parameter space has provided a foundation for understanding the mechanisms underlying variable phase differences in neuronal networks and reinforced the importance of compromise between synaptic and neuronal properties for producing functional motor patterns.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Gennady Cymbalyuk, Ronald Calabrese, and Paul S. García for model input and support. The project described was supported by the Vermont Genetics Network through Grant P20 RR16462 from the INBRE Program of the NCRR (NIH).

References

  1. Norris BJ, Weaver AL, Wenning A, Garcia PS, Calabrese RL: A central pattern generator producing alternative outputs: phase relations of leech heart motor neurons with respect to premotor synaptic input.

    J Neurophysiol 2007, 98(5):2983-2991. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  2. García PS, Wright TM, Cunningham IR, Calabrese RL: Using a model to assess the role of the spatiotemporal pattern of inhibitory input and intrasegmental electrical coupling in the intersegmental and side-to-side coordination of motor neurons by the leech heartbeat central pattern generator.

    J Neurophysiol 2008, 100(3):1354-1371. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

  3. Weaver AL, Roffman RC, Norris BJ, Calabrese RL: A role for compromise: synaptic inhibition & electrical coupling interact to control phasing in the leech heartbeat CPG.

    Front Behav Neurosci 2010, 4:1-17. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL