FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2107500504> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2107500504 endingPage "3" @default.
• W2107500504 startingPage "2" @default.
• W2107500504 abstract "Editorial FocusOlfactory Coding: Unusual Conductances Contribute to Sparse Neural Representation. Focus on “Intrinsic Membrane Properties and Inhibitory Synaptic Input of Kenyon Cells as Mechanisms for Sparse Coding?”Rose C. Ong, and Mark StopferRose C. OngNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; and Department of Biochemistry, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China, and Mark StopferNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; and Published Online:01 Jan 2010https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00330.2009This is the final version - click for previous versionMoreSectionsPDF (40 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailWeChat At the interface of animal and world, neurons transform environmental stimuli into spikes of electrical current known as action potentials. As sensory information makes its way from point to point along neural pathways, the numbers of neurons participating in the response and the numbers of spikes they generate often dramatically decrease—that is, the sensory representation becomes sparse (Barlow 1972).Sparse neural representations have been observed in many sensory systems (visual: Vinje and Gallant 2000; Weliky et al. 2003; Young and Yamane 1992; auditory: DeWeese et al. 2003; olfactory: Ito et al. 2008; Lin et al. 2006; Perez-Orive et al. 2002) and in many brain areas (Quiroga et al. 2005; Rolls and Tovee 1995; Vinje and Gallant 2000). An extreme and canonical example of sparse coding would be the hypothetical “grandmother cell,” one that responds only to a specific, complex percept or concept (see review by Gross 2002). But many degrees of sparseness are possible.Sparseness can be measured in temporal terms as the amount of spiking in a single neuron over time (lifetime sparseness), or in spatial terms, over an ensemble of neurons, as the likelihood any given neuron will spike in a period of time (population sparseness). These two forms of sparseness need not be correlated (Willmore and Tolhurst 2001). Theoretical and computational studies suggest that sparse coding formats offer several advantages to neurons processing information (see review by Olshausen and Field 2004). From a metabolic point of view, each spike is costly: energy is required to restore ionic balances perturbed by synaptic and action potentials and for neurotransmitter release and reuptake. Signaling accounts for the majority of energy consumed by the brain (Laughlin 2001); Lennie (2003) estimated that energy constrains would permit <1% of human cortical neurons to fire concurrently. And, perhaps more importantly, sparsely coded information can maximize coding space for representations of sensory stimuli. This increases the brain's memory capacity, reduces the number of synapses that must be modified to stabilize learned associations (Laurent 2002), and permits plasticity by simple local rules such as Hebbian mechanisms (Marr 1971; Willshaw et al. 1969).How does sparse coding arise in sensory systems? A recent article by Demmer and Kloppenburg (2009) characterizes the circuit and intrinsic mechanisms underlying sparse coding in Kenyon cells (KCs), a particularly interesting population of neurons found in the brains of many insects. These neurons are interesting for several reasons. They integrate multiple modes of input. They also appear subject to modulation from neurons bearing reward transmitters and have been linked to learning and memory. And they appear to play a special role in olfactory coding, distilling barrages of spiky input into specific and very sparse output. Such sparse olfactory responses have been reported in the KCs of several species (Ito et al. 2008; Perez-Orive et al. 2002; Szyszka et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2004), but mechanisms responsible for this sparsening have probably been most intensively studied in the locust. There, each of the 50,000 KCs in each brain hemisphere receives excitatory inputs from hundreds of projection neurons (Jortner et al. 2007), each of which fires spontaneously and can respond to odors with great bursts of spikes. Despite receiving densely convergent active inputs from so many projection neurons, individual KCs are nearly silent at rest, and odor responses within the population of KCs are extremely sparse; they typically consist of very few spikes in a small subset of the neurons (Perez-Orive et al. 2002; Stopfer et al. 2003).In locust KCs, responses to odors are sparsened by both circuit and intrinsic properties. Odor-elicited spikes in groups of projection neurons are corralled by periodic inhibitory input from local GABAergic interneurons in the antennal lobe (Macleod and Laurent 1996) into ∼20-Hz oscillatory waves of synchronized excitatory output that impinges on the KCs. But in addition to synapsing on KCs, projection neurons also send branches to a small group of inhibitory cells in a structure called the lateral horn. These lateral horn interneurons, in turn, project feed-forward GABAergic outputs onto the KCs. The net effect of this circuitry is to provide the KCs with rapidly alternating cycles of input each consisting of a wave of excitation directly from projection neurons followed by a wave of inhibition from the lateral horn interneurons. Thus each ∼50-ms oscillatory cycle defines a time window for integrating input. During each cycle, a KC can briefly integrate information-bearing synaptic inputs from projection neurons before the cycle closes with a wave of inhibition from the lateral horn. This circuit function, likely with help from other inhibitory neurons, effectively sparsens odor responses in KCs; abolishing this inhibition, for example, by injecting the GABA blocker picrotoxin into the vicinity of the KCs broadened their excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs) and reduced the odor selectivity and sparseness of their responses (Perez-Orive et al. 2002, 2004).The KCs themselves are known to have intrinsic properties that restrict responses to the highly coincident input provided by the synchronized spiking of projection neurons (Perez-Orive et al. 2002, 2004). However, the conductances responsible for these properties are poorly understood. Working on cockroaches, Demmer and Kloppenburg conducted a rigorous and detailed study of the intrinsic ionic properties of KCs and the influence of the inhibitory inputs they receive. Notably, instead of using cultured neurons as is common for this type of study, the authors made their recordings from acute preparations of the intact cockroach brain. This allowed the authors to examine conductances in a close-to-in vivo environment free from potential culture-induced artifact. And because much of the olfactory pathway was preserved, it was possible for the authors to investigate KCs in the context of their natural circuitry.Demmer and Kloppenburg confirmed that the responses of cockroach KCs to odors were very sparse both in lifetime and population respects. All tested KCs could generate spikes when driven by current injection but were otherwise nearly silent. With pharmacological blockades, ion substitutions, and current subtraction techniques, the authors isolated several ionic currents in the KCs. While most of the KC conductances revealed by the authors were similar to those characterized in other insect neurons, the inward calcium (ICa), and calcium-dependent outward (IO(Ca)) currents in KCs stood out as unusual. ICa had a very low activation threshold and a very high current density—properties that could nonlinearly boost and sharpen EPSPs in KCs. The outward IO(Ca) had an unusually high current density and an unusually depolarized activation threshold that, together with ICa, likely contributes to the strong spike frequency adaptation observed in KCs. These uncommon ionic properties likely underlie the sparsening of odor representation in populations of KCs. The authors went on to explore the roles inhibitory inputs could play in establishing the resting potential and input resistance of KCs. They found that abolishing this input by blocking GABAA receptors (with picrotoxin) and GABAB receptors (with CGP 54626) raised the input resistance and resting membrane potential of KCs. The authors concluded that tonic inhibition likely suppressed spontaneous spiking while raising the bar for odor-elicited excitatory drive to generate action potentials in KCs. It's not yet known whether a feed-forward inhibitory circuit like that found in the locust olfactory pathway also acts to sparsen responses in the cockroach, but cockroaches do appear to use a mechanism like that of the locust for the oscillatory synchronization of olfactory neurons (Stopfer et al. 1999).The current study provides valuable information for those seeking to understand the origins of sparse neural codes. Physiologists will find here a conductance-based mechanism for a physiological property understood in a network context. Modelers will find detailed conductance parameters. In other systems, slow-recovering Na+ channels that can prevent neurons from firing at high frequencies (Tsutsui and Oka 2002), and low-voltage-activated K+ conductances (Monsivais et al. 2000) that can prevent the temporal summation of inputs, have been found to underlie sparsening of neural responses. Here, Demmer and Kloppenburg describe another potential ionic mechanism that can lead to sparse neural representations.REFERENCES Barlow HB. Single units and sensation: a neuron doctrine for perceptual psychology? Perception 1: 371–394, 1972.Crossref | PubMed | Google Scholar Demmer H , Kloppenburg P. Intrinsic membrane properties and inhibitory synaptic input of Kenyon cells as mechanisms for sparse coding? J Neurophysiol 102: 1538–1550, 2009.Link | ISI | Google Scholar DeWeese MR , Wehr M , Zador AM. Binary spiking in auditory cortex. J Neurosci 23: 7940–7949, 2003.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Gross CG. Genealogy of the “grandmother cell.” Neuroscientist 8: 512–518, 2002.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Ito I , Ong RC , Raman B , Stopfer M. Sparse odor representation and olfactory learning. Nat Neurosci 11: 1177–1184, 2008.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Jortner RA , Farivar SS , Laurent G. A simple connectivity scheme for sparse coding in an olfactory system. J Neurosci 27: 1659–1669, 2007.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Laughlin SB. Energy as a constraint on the coding and processing of sensory information. Curr Opin Neurobiol 11: 475–480, 2001.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Laurent G. Olfactory network dynamics and the coding of multidimensional signals. Nat Rev Neurosci 3: 884–895, 2002.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Lennie P. The cost of cortical computation. Curr Biol 13: 493–497, 2003.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Lin DY , Shea SD , Katz LC. Representation of natural stimuli in the rodent main olfactory bulb. Neuron 50: 937–949, 2006.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar MacLeod K , Laurent G. Distinct mechanisms for synchronization and temporal patterning of odor-encoding neural assemblies. Science 274: 976–979, 1996.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Marr D. Simple memory: a theory for archicortex. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 262: 23–81, 1971.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Monsivais P , Yang L , Rubel EW. GABAergic inhibition in nucleus magnocellularis: implications for phase locking in the avian auditory brain stem. J Neurosci 20: 2954–2963, 2000.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Olshausen BA , Field DJ. Sparse coding of sensory inputs. Curr Opin Neurobiol 14: 481–487, 2004.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Perez-Orive J , Bazhenov M , Laurent G. Intrinsic and circuit properties favor coincidence detection for decoding oscillatory input. J Neurosci 24: 6037–6047, 2004.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Perez-Orive J , Mazor O , Turner GC , Cassenaer S , Wilson RI , Laurent G. Oscillations and sparsening of odor representations in the mushroom body. Science 297: 359–365, 2002.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Quiroga RQ , Reddy L , Kreiman G , Koch C , Fried I. Invariant visual representation by single neurons in the human brain. Nature 435: 1102–1107, 2005.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Rolls ET , Tovee MJ. Sparseness of the neuronal representation of stimuli in the primate temporal visual cortex. J Neurophysiol 73: 713–726, 1995.Link | ISI | Google Scholar Stopfer M , Jayaraman V , Laurent G. Intensity versus identity coding in an olfactory system. Neuron 39: 991–1004, 2003.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Stopfer M , Wehr M , MacLeod K , Laurent G. Neural dynamics, oscillatory synchronization, and odour codes. In: Insect Olfaction, edited by , Hansson BS. Berlin: Springer, 1999, p. 163–180.Crossref | Google Scholar Szyszka P , Ditzen M , Galkin A , Galizia CG , Menzel R. Sparsening and temporal sharpening of olfactory representations in the honeybee mushroom bodies. J Neurophysiol 94: 3303–3313, 2005.Link | ISI | Google Scholar Tsutsui H , Oka Y. Slow removal of Na(+) channel inactivation underlies the temporal filtering property in the teleost thalamic neurons. J Physiol 539: 743–753, 2002.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Vinje WE , Gallant JL. Sparse coding and decorrelation in primary visual cortex during natural vision. Science 287: 1273–1276, 2000.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Wang Y , Guo HF , Pologruto TA , Hannan F , Hakker I , Svoboda K , Zhong Y. Stereotyped odor-evoked activity in the mushroom body of Drosophila revealed by green fluorescent protein-based Ca2+ imaging. J Neurosci 24: 6507–6514, 2004.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Weliky M , Fiser J , Hunt RH , Wagner DN. Coding of natural scenes in primary visual cortex. Neuron 37: 703–718, 2003.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Willmore B , Tolhurst DJ. Characterizing the sparseness of neural codes. Network 12: 255–270, 2001.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Willshaw DJ , Buneman OP , Longuet-Higgins HC. Non-holographic associative memory. Nature 222: 960–962, 1969.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar Young MP , Yamane S. Sparse population coding of faces in the inferotemporal cortex. Science 256: 1327–1331, 1992.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google ScholarAUTHOR NOTESAddress for reprint requests and other correspondence: (E-mail: [email protected]nih.gov). Download PDF Previous Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation More from this issue > Volume 103Issue 1January 2010Pages 2-3 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2010 the American Physiological Societyhttps://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00330.2009PubMed19906885History Published online 1 January 2010 Published in print 1 January 2010 Metrics" @default.
• W2107500504 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2107500504 creator A5011438228 @default.
• W2107500504 creator A5066492549 @default.
• W2107500504 date "2010-01-01" @default.
• W2107500504 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2107500504 title "Olfactory Coding: Unusual Conductances Contribute to Sparse Neural Representation. Focus on “Intrinsic Membrane Properties and Inhibitory Synaptic Input of Kenyon Cells as Mechanisms for Sparse Coding?”" @default.
• W2107500504 cites W1572375141 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W1892402995 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W1967087917 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W1992268172 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W1999772767 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2000420612 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2012107116 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2013239224 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2026167690 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2028281435 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2051144047 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2058670155 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2074376560 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2075187489 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2082622165 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2092938751 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2101295242 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2101953699 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2103542900 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2119051448 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2120504387 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2144588131 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2160482844 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2164225225 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2171263040 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W2171281863 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W4240046814 @default.
• W2107500504 cites W92046174 @default.
• W2107500504 doi "https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00330.2009" @default.
• W2107500504 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/2807219" @default.
• W2107500504 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19906885" @default.
• W2107500504 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2107500504 type Work @default.
• W2107500504 sameAs 2107500504 @default.
• W2107500504 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2107500504 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2107500504 hasAuthorship W2107500504A5011438228 @default.
• W2107500504 hasAuthorship W2107500504A5066492549 @default.
• W2107500504 hasBestOaLocation W21075005042 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConcept C170493617 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConcept C17077164 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConcept C179518139 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConcept C200170125 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConcept C77637269 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConceptScore W2107500504C105795698 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConceptScore W2107500504C169760540 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConceptScore W2107500504C170493617 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConceptScore W2107500504C17077164 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConceptScore W2107500504C179518139 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConceptScore W2107500504C185592680 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConceptScore W2107500504C200170125 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConceptScore W2107500504C33923547 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConceptScore W2107500504C41008148 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConceptScore W2107500504C55493867 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConceptScore W2107500504C77637269 @default.
• W2107500504 hasConceptScore W2107500504C86803240 @default.
• W2107500504 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2107500504 hasLocation W21075005041 @default.
• W2107500504 hasLocation W21075005042 @default.
• W2107500504 hasLocation W21075005043 @default.
• W2107500504 hasOpenAccess W2107500504 @default.
• W2107500504 hasPrimaryLocation W21075005041 @default.
• W2107500504 hasRelatedWork W1978053703 @default.
• W2107500504 hasRelatedWork W1979921253 @default.
• W2107500504 hasRelatedWork W2018332736 @default.
• W2107500504 hasRelatedWork W2027965057 @default.
• W2107500504 hasRelatedWork W2122090986 @default.
• W2107500504 hasRelatedWork W2137331977 @default.
• W2107500504 hasRelatedWork W2141954297 @default.
• W2107500504 hasRelatedWork W2783611170 @default.
• W2107500504 hasRelatedWork W2921730246 @default.
• W2107500504 hasRelatedWork W2981946243 @default.
• W2107500504 hasVolume "103" @default.
• W2107500504 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2107500504 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2107500504 magId "2107500504" @default.
• W2107500504 workType "article" @default.