CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 353Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudyMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Characterization of a slow cholinergic post‐synaptic potential recorded in vitro from rat hippocampal pyramidal cells.

Open access
Cole, A E, Nicoll, R A·1984·The Journal of Physiology
DOI 10.1113/jphysiol.1984.sp015285PMC PMC1193205
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Intracellular recording from CA1 pyramidal cells in the hippocampal slice preparation was used to compare the action of exogenously applied acetylcholine (ACh) and cholinomimetics to the effect of electrically stimulating sites in the slice known to contain cholinergic fibres. ACh depolarized pyramidal cells with an associated increase in input resistance, blocked a calcium‐activated potassium conductance (GK(Ca], and blocked accommodation of action potential discharge. All of these actions were blocked by the muscarinic antagonist, atropine. Repetitive electrical stimulation of stratum (s.) oriens evoked a series of fast excitatory post‐synaptic potentials (e.p.s.p.s) followed by an inhibitory post‐synaptic potential. These potentials were followed by a slow e.p.s.p. that lasted 20‐30 s. The slow e.p.s.p. was selectively enhanced by eserine and blocked by atropine. Ionophoretic application of ACh closely mimicked the time course of the slow e.p.s.p. The slow e.p.s.p. was blocked by tetrodotoxin and cadmium, indicating that it was dependent on propagated action potentials and on calcium. Considerably higher stimulus strengths were needed to elicit a slow e.p.s.p. than to elicit the earlier synaptic potentials. The size of the slow e.p.s.p. was markedly increased by repetitive stimulation. Stimulation of the alveus, s. oriens, s. pyramidale and fimbria all evoked a slow e.p.s.p., while stimulation of s. radiatum was relatively ineffective. The input resistance of the cell increased during the slow e.p.s.p. Hyperpolarizing the cell decreased the size of the slow e.p.s.p. and at membrane potentials of ‐70 mV or greater, little response was recorded. Stimulation of s. oriens blocked GK(Ca) and accommodation of action potential discharge. These effects, which could be seen in the absence of any change in membrane potential, were enhanced by eserine and blocked by atropine. The present electrophysiological results establish that CA1 pyramidal cells receive a cholinergic input and demonstrate that this input can dramatically alter the firing properties of these neurones for tens of seconds in the absence of any marked effect on membrane potential. Such an action contrasts with previously characterized synaptic potentials in this region of the brain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1113/jphysiol.1984.sp015285

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The spiking response of cortical neurons to sensory input is enhanced by muscarinic receptors causing a decrease in potassium conductances including resting conductances, the M current, and the calcium-dependent potassium current.

    “The spiking response of cortical neurons to sensory input is further enhanced by muscarinic receptors causing a decrease in potassium conductances including resting conductances (Krnjevik et al., 1971; Cole and Nicoll, 1984; Barkai and Hasselmo, 1994; Gulledge et al., 2009) the M current (Madison et al., 1987) and the calcium-dependent potassium current (Madison and Nicoll, 1984; Schwindt et al.,”

    From Modes and models of forebrain cholinergic neuromodulation of cognition (2011) · cites this paper as Cole and Nicoll, 1984

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cole, A. E., & Nicoll, R. A.
Venue
The Journal of Physiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1984-07
Volume
352
Issue
1
Pages
173-188
ISSN
  • 0022-3751 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7793
DOI
10.1113/jphysiol.1984.sp015285
PMC
PMC1193205
OpenAlex
W1993835964
Cited by
353
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • The Journal of Physiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
cholinergic neurotransmission, slow excitatory postsynaptic potentials, CA1 pyramidal neurons, acetylcholine, muscarinic receptors, atropine, physostigmine, calcium-activated potassium conductance, input resistance, stratum oriens, repetitive stimulation, tetrodotoxin, cadmium
MeSH terms
Acetylcholine, Action Potentials, Animals, Cadmium, Carbachol, Cholinergic Fibers, Hippocampus, Membrane Potentials, Neurons, Parasympathomimetics, Synapses, Tetrodotoxin, Rats, In Vitro Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review