Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of neuroscibullNeuroscience Bulletin
Neurosci Bull. 2007 March; 23(2): 113.
Published online 2008 February 1. doi:  10.1007/s12264-007-0016-z
PMCID: PMC5550595

Language: English | Chinese

An intracellular study of pretectal influence on the optic tectum of the frog, Rana catesbeiana




A few investigations have been reported about pretectal suppressive influences on the optic tectum of frog, but characteristics of tectal activity to pretectal input are left unknown. We made intracellular recordings to demonstrate the unexpected complexity in synaptic mechanisms involved in the suppressive influences of pretecal stimulation on the tectal cells.


In the present study, we investigated the neuronal activity evoked by pretectal (Lpd/P) nuclei stimulation using intracellular recording technique.


The pretectal stimulation mainly elicited two types of responses in the ipsilateral tectum: an excitatory postsynaptic potential (EPSP) followed by an inhibitory postsynaptic potential (IPSP) and a pure IPSP. The latter predominated in the tectal cells responding to pretectal stimulation. In a few cells, biphasic hyperpolarization appeared under stronger stimulus intensities. The spikes of tecto-pretectal projecting cells elicited by antidromical stimulation were recorded in the ipsilateral tectum, which revealed reciprocal connections between the tectum and particular pretectal nuclei. The synaptic natures underlying pretecto-tectal information transformation have also been demonstrated. EPSPs with short latencies were concluded to be monosynaptic. Most IPSPs were generated through polysynaptic paths, but monosynaptic IPSPs were also recorded in the tectum. Nearly 98% of impaled tectal cells (except for antidromically projecting cells) showed inhibitory responses to pretectal stimulation.


The results provide strong evidence that pretectal cells broadly inhibit tectal neurons as that has suggested by behavioral and extracellular recording studies.

Keywords: electric stimulation, optic tectum, Rana catesbeiana



已有许多研究报告了青蛙的前视盖对视顶盖起抑制作用, 但关于此神经活动的特性尚不清楚。 本研究探讨了这种复杂的神经活动的机理。


用细胞内记录方法, 通过电刺激前视盖的神经细胞核来记录视顶盖细胞的神经活动。


前视盖的电刺激在同侧视顶盖主要唤起了两种神经反应: 一种是兴奋性(excitatory postsynaptic potential, EPSP)和抑制性突触后电位(an inhibitory postsynaptic potential, IPSP)同时出现, 另一种是单纯的IPSP, 后者在本记录中占主导地位。 另外我们也记录到了某些投射到前视盖的视盖投射细胞的神经电位。 它揭示了视顶盖和前视盖之间存在着交叉性的相互作用。短潜时的EPSP可能是通过单突触进行传导的, 而大多数的IPSP是通过多突触方式进行神经信息传递的。几乎98%被记录的视盖细胞对前视盖的刺激显示出了 抑制性反应。



关键词: 电刺激, 视顶盖, 牛蛙


[1] Ewert J.P. Tectal mechanisms that underlie prey-catching and avoidance behaviors in toads. In: Vanegas H., editor. Comparative Neurology of the Optic Tectum. New York: Plenum Press; 1984. pp. 247–416.
[2] Ewert J.P., Beneke T.W., Schürg-Pfeiffer E., Schwippert W.W., Weerasuriya A. Sensorimotor processes that underlie feeding behavior in tetrapods. In: Bels V.L., Chardon M., Vandevalle P., editors. Advances in comparative and environmental physiology. Vol. 18: Biomechanics of feeding in vertebrates. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1994. pp. 119–161.
[3] an der Heiden U., Roth G. Retina and optic tectum in amphibians: a mathematical model and simulation studies. In: Ewert J.P., Arbib M.A., editors. Visuomotor coordination: amphibians, comparisons, models, and robots. New York: Plenum Press; 1989. pp. 243–267.
[4] Hughes T.E. A light-and electron-microscopic investigation of the optic tectum of the frog, Rana pipiens, I: The retinal axons. Vis Neurosci. 1990;4:499–518. doi: 10.1017/S0952523800005721. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
[5] Hughes T.E. A light-and electron-microscopic investigation of the optic tectum of the frog, Rana pipiens, II: The neurons that give rise to the crossed tecto-bulbar pathway. Vis Neurosci. 1990;4:519–531. [PubMed]
[6] Satou M., Ewert J.P. The antidromic activation of tectal neurons by electrical stimuli applied to the caudal medulla oblongata in the toad, Bufo bufo L. J Comp Physiol. 1985;157:739–748. doi: 10.1007/BF01350071. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
[7] Gruberg E.R., Udin S.B. Topographic projections between the nucleus isthmi and the tectum of the frog Rana pipiens. J Comp Neurol. 1978;179:487–500. doi: 10.1002/cne.901790303. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
[8] Lázár G. Organization of the frog visual system. In: Lissak K., editor. Recent Developments of Neurobiology in Hungary. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado; 1979. pp. 9–50.
[9] Roth G., Grunwald W., Dicke U. Morphology, axonal projection pattern, and responses to optic nerve stimulation of thalamic neurons in the fire-bellied toad Bombina orientalis. J Comp Neurol. 2003;461:91–110. doi: 10.1002/cne.10670. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
[10] Trachtenberg M.C., Ingle D.J. Thalamo-tectal projections in the frog. Brain Res. 1974;79:419–430. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(74)90439-9. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
[11] Wilczyniski W., Northcutt R.G. Afferent to the optic tectum of the leopard frog: an HRP study. J Comp Neurol. 1977;173:219–230. doi: 10.1002/cne.901730202. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
[12] Ewert J.P. Single unit response of the toad (Bufo americanus) caudal thalamus to visual objects. Z Vergl Physiol. 1971;74:81–102. doi: 10.1007/BF00297792. [Cross Ref]
[13] Ewert J.P. Neural mechanisms of prey-catching and avoidance behavior in the toad (Bufo bufo L.). Brain Behav Evol. 1970;3:36–56. [PubMed]
[14] Ingle D. Disinhibition of tectal neurons by pretectal lesions in the frog. Science. 1973;180:422–424. doi: 10.1126/science.180.4084.422. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
[15] Kondrashev S.L., Dimentman A.M. Role of dorsal thalamus in the organization of visually-mediated behavior in amphibians. In: Orlov O.Y., editor. Mechanisms of vision of animals. Moscow: Nauka; 1978.
[16] Finkenstädt T., Ewert J.P. Visual pattern discrimination through interactions of neural networks: a combined electrical brain stimulation, brain lesion, and extracellular recording study in Salamandra salamandra. J Comp Physiol. 1983;153:99–110. doi: 10.1007/BF00610347. [Cross Ref]
[17] Buxbaum-Conradi H., Ewert J.P. Pretecto-tectal influences I. What the toad’s pretectum tells its tectum: an antidromic stimulation/recording study. J Comp Physiol. 1995;176:169–180. doi: 10.1007/BF00239920. [Cross Ref]
[18] Ewert J.P., Schurg-Pfeiffer E., Schwippert W.W. Influence of pretectal lesions on tectal responses to visual stimulation in anurans: field potential, single neuron and behavior analyses. Acta Biol Hung. 1996;47:89–111. [PubMed]
[19] Schwippert W.W., Beneke T.W., Ewert J.P. Pretecto-tectal influences II. How retinal and pretectal inputs to the toad’s superficial tectum interact: a study of electrically evoked field potentials. J Comp Physiol (A) 1995;176:181–192. doi: 10.1007/BF00239921. [Cross Ref]
[20] Matsumoto N., Bando T. Excitatory synaptic potentials and morphological classification of tectal neurons of the frog. Brain Res. 1980;192:39–48. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(80)91006-9. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
[21] Lázár G., Toth P., Csank G., Kicliter E. Morphology and location of tectal projection neurons in frogs: a study with HRP and cobalt filling. J Comp Neurol. 1983;215:108–120. doi: 10.1002/cne.902150109. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
[22] Danger J.M., Guy J., Benyamina M., Jegou S., Leboulenger F., Cote J., et al. Localization and identification of neuropeptide Y (NPY)-like immunoreactivity in the frog brain. Peptides. 1985;6:1225–1236. doi: 10.1016/0196-9781(85)90455-3. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
[23] Lázár G., Maderdrut J.L., Trasti S.L., Liposits Z., Toth P., Kozicz T., et al. Distribution of Proneuropeptide Y-derived peptides in the brain of Rana esculenta and Xenopus laevis. J Comp Neurol. 1993;327:551–571. doi: 10.1002/cne.903270407. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
[24] Colmers W.F., Klapstein G.J., Fournier A., St-Pierre S., Treherne K.A. Presynaptic inhibition by neuropeptide-Y in rat hippocampal slice in vitro is mediated by a Y2 receptor. Br J Pharmacol. 1991;120:41–44. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[25] Székely G., Lázár G. Cellular and synaptic architecture of the optic tectum. In: Llinas R., Precht W., editors. Frog neurobiology: A Handbook. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1976. pp. 407–437.
[26] Grüsser O.J., Grüsser-Cornehls U. Neurophysiology of the anuran visual system. In: Llinas R., Precht W., editors. Frog neurobiology. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1976. pp. 298–385.
[27] Steinbach J.H., Stevens C.F. Neuromuscular transmission. In: Llinas R., Precht W., editors. Frog neurobiology: A Handbook. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1976. pp. 33–92.
[28] Gruberg E.R. Nucleus isthmi and optic tectum in frogs. In: Ewert J.P., Arbib M.A., editors. Visuomotor coordination: amphibians, comparisons, models, and robots. New York: Plenum Press; 1989. pp. 341–356.
[29] Wang S.R., Matsumoto N. Postsynaptic potentials and morphology of tectal cells responding to electrical stimulation of the bullfrog nucleus isthmi. Vis Neurosci. 1990;5:479–488. [PubMed]
[30] Lázár G. Structure and connections of the frog optic tectum. In: Vanegas H., editor. Comparative neurology of the frog optic tectum. New York: Plenum Press; 1984. pp. 185–210.
[31] Antal M., Matsumoto N., Székely G. Tectal neurons of the frog: intracellular recording and labeling with cobalt electrodes. J Comp Neurol. 1986;246:238–253. doi: 10.1002/cne.902460208. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
[32] Bieger D., Neuman R.S. Selective accumulation of hydroxytryptamines by frog’s tectal neurons. Neuroscience. 1984;12:1167–1177. doi: 10.1016/0306-4522(84)90011-3. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
[33] Brown W.T., Ingle D. Receptive field changes produced in frog thalamic units by lesions of the optic tectum. Brain Res. 1973;59:405–409. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(73)90281-3. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]

Articles from Neuroscience Bulletin are provided here courtesy of Springer