Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Yang, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Armstrong-James, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yang, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Armstrong-James, M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 11, No. 1, 26-36, January 2001
© 2001 Oxford University Press

Differences in Somatosensory Processing in S1 Barrel Cortex between Normal and Monoamine Oxidase A Knockout (Tg8) Adult Mice

Zhuo Yang, Isabelle Seif1 and Michael Armstrong-James

Neuroscience Section, Biomedical Sciences Division, St Bartholomews and the Royal London School of Medicine, Queen Mary and Westfield College, London University, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK and , 1 Institut Curie, Centre Universitaire, Batiment 110, Unité CNRS UMR 146, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France

Spatio-temporal processing of whisker information was analysed in vivo for single neurons in D2 barrel columns of S1 cortex in Tg8 mutant mice, which lack barrels. Findings were compared with normal C3H mice of the same genetic background. The topographical organization of functional columns was similar in Tg8 and normal mice. Response magnitudes (RMs) to D2 principal whisker deflections in D2 columns for Tg8 were similar to normals for layers I–III and layer IV cells but short latency responses (>10 ms post-stimulus) were twice the magnitude of normal mice. The surrounding whiskers D1 and D3 yielded smaller RMs in layer IV of mutants than normal mice whereas RMs in layers I–III were equipotent (P > 0.5). Modal latencies were shorter in Tg8 mice in all layers. Latency distributions for whisker D2 responses in both laminae were bimodal in normal mice, peaking at 6–8 and 12 ms post-stimulus, but unimodal in Tg8 mice in both laminae, peaking at 6 8 ms. Hence, despite an absence of barrels, segregation of columns is enhanced in layer IV and sensory processing is faster in layers I–IV compared with normal mice. This contrasts with adenylyl cyclase knockout mice where both an absence of barrels and enhanced surrounding whisker responses have been observed. These findings suggest that factors other than barrels and clustering of thalamo-cortical terminals define receptive field geometry.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Neurosci.Home page
V. Houades, A. Koulakoff, P. Ezan, I. Seif, and C. Giaume
Gap Junction-Mediated Astrocytic Networks in the Mouse Barrel Cortex
J. Neurosci., May 14, 2008; 28(20): 5207 - 5217.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Neurosci.Home page
F. Gheorghita, R. Kraftsik, R. Dubois, and E. Welker
Structural Basis for Map Formation in the Thalamocortical Pathway of the Barrelless Mouse
J. Neurosci., September 27, 2006; 26(39): 10057 - 10067.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cereb CortexHome page
Z. Yang, I. Seif, and M. Armstrong-James
Adult Experience-dependent Plasticity of S1 Barrel Cortex in the Normal and Monoamine Oxidase-A Knockout (Tg8) Mouse
Cereb Cortex, December 1, 2002; 12(12): 1269 - 1279.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.