Contributions of glycine- and GABAARs in dorsal horn function
To our knowledge this study is the first comparison of Gly- and GABA
AR properties in superficial and deep laminae of the mouse spinal cord dorsal horn. Previously, we have used parasagittal slices (vs. transverse in this study) to compare Gly- and GABA
AR-mediated mIPSCs in superficial laminae (I-II) of wildtype C57/Bl6 mice and the GlyR mutants
spastic and
oscillator [
39]. As in the present study, a greater proportion of SDH neurons received GABA
AR- versus GlyR-mediated inhibition. GABA
AR - and GlyR-mediated mIPSC amplitude was also similar to that observed in wildtype mice in our previous work. In parasagittal slices, however, mIPSC frequency was higher and decay time constants were slower for both Gly- and GABA
ARs. The higher mIPSC frequency is probably due to the rostro-caudal orientation of the dendritic trees of SDH neurons [
45] as their parasagittal orientation would result in retention of more synapses in a slice. It is unclear, however, why decay time constants are slower in parasagittal slices.
Our data show that the contribution of GlyRs to fast inhibitory synaptic transmission is greater in the DDH versus SDH, whereas GABA
AR-mediated inhibition appears to be equally important in both regions. In rat, Cronin et al. (2004) used c-Fos expression to functionally assess tonic inhibitory drive mediated by GlyRs and GABA
ARs in dorsal horn and suggested GlyR-mediated mechanisms are more important for setting inhibitory tone in DDH. Our data are consistent with this finding and other data for rats. For example glycine-containing neurons [
46,
47] and glycine terminals are more concentrated in deeper dorsal horn laminae [
48]. In contrast, GABA containing neurons and terminals populate the entire dorsal horn [
46,
49]. Thus, our mouse data are consistent with a clear regional variation of glycinergic and GABA
Aergic inhibition in the rodent dorsal horn.
In mouse, Gly- and GABA
ARs with differing physiological properties contribute to fast synaptic inhibition in the SDH and DDH. Our data can be compared to a recent study in rat [
50], even though the definition of "deep" dorsal horn varied from ours (laminae III-IV vs. laminae IV-VI). In the rat study, a greater proportion of neurons in the DDH received GlyR-mediated mIPSCs and receptor properties were similar in each region. We also found almost all neurons received GlyR-mediated mIPSCs in the mouse DDH, however, the properties of GlyRs differed markedly in SDH versus DDH. Specifically, mIPSC frequency and amplitudes were higher, and mIPSC decay times were faster in the DDH. Developmental processes may explain these differences as the rat study used younger animals (P10-15 rats vs. P17-37 mice). The importance of GABA
AR- and GlyR- mediated inhibitory processing mechanisms changes in SDH neurons during postnatal development (at least from P0-14), with glycinergic transmission maturing later [
51]. Exactly when inhibitory mechanisms are functionally mature in rat is not known. In mice, however, we have shown that GlyR properties do not change in SDH neurons after P17 [
39]. Moreover, SDH neurons are certainly electrically mature in the P17-37 mice used in this study [
33]. It is unknown whether DDH neurons are mature by P17. Together, this work suggests significantly more GlyRs, with faster kinetics, contribute to GlyR-mediated inhibition in mouse DDH.
GlyRs in mouse SDH and DDH differ in their decay times (8-10 ms vs. 4-5 ms, respectively). The fast decay times of GlyR-mediated mIPSCs in DDH neurons (4-5 ms) match previous reports for both mice [
52] and rats [
53,
54] for GlyRs that contain α1 and β subunits. One potential explanation for the slower kinetics of SDH versus DDH GlyRs in mouse is the existence of a distinctly expressed type of GlyR, containing α3 subunits, in lamina II of the mouse SDH [
22]. As for other GlyRs, subunit composition (ie, Glyα1 vs. Glyα2) can shape channel kinetics [
53,
55]. This, however, does not appear to be the case for α3 containing GlyRs in the mouse SDH as decay times, at least for evoked GlyR-mediated currents, are identical in wildtype and α3 knockout mice [
22]. One explanation is that the somato-dendritic distribution of inhibitory synapses may differ for SDH versus DDH neurons. For example, preferential localization of GlyRs on dendrites would decrease the amplitude and slow the decay time of GlyR-mediated mIPSCs [
56]. Such dendritic filtering effects would, however, also slow rise times of GlyR-mediated mIPSCs and this was not the case (Table
1). Thus, future experiments are needed to determine why the kinetics of GlyR channels in the SDH and DDH differ.
In contrast to the marked difference in the contribution of GlyRs to inhibition in the SDH and DDH, GABA
AR-mediated inhibition appears equally important in both spinal cord regions. These observations are consistent with immunohistochemical data in rat showing that GABA-containing neurons, GABA positive terminals and GABA
ARs are equally distributed across the dorsal horn. The only major difference we observed in mouse dorsal horn was a slower decay time constant (23 vs. 18 ms) in SDH versus DDH neurons. The faster kinetics of mIPSCs in DDH neurons, are consistent with higher expression of the α1 GABA
AR subunit in deeper lamina [
57] as incorporation of the α1 subunit decreases channel open time and mIPSC decay time [
58,
59]. Thus, in mice, GABA
AR-mediated inhibitory transmission appears equally important across the entire dorsal horn, however, GABA
ARs in the DDH have faster kinetics.
The different decay times we report for both GlyR- and GABA
AR-mediated mIPSCs in mouse SDH versus DDH point to varying subunit composition. Our qPCR data for GlyR subunits show that the balance of GlyR-subunit expression differs in SDH and DDH. Not surprisingly, the α1 and β subunits of the GlyR, the ubiquitous adult form of the receptor [
60,
61], dominate in both regions. The α2 subunit, however, is expressed at higher levels in the DDH. This can not explain the slower kinetics of SDH mIPSCs, as developmental studies in spinal cord [
55] and brainstem neurons [
39,
53] show GlyRs containing α2 subunits have slower kinetics. Interestingly, our qPCR data did not show higher α3 expression in the SDH as reported by Harvey et al., (2004) using immunohistochemistry. A scenario where α3 subunit is preferentially directed to synaptic locations in SDH, whereas in DDH the protein remains at extrasynaptic locations would explain these differences. This needs to considered when comparing electrophysiological data, which only assesses synaptic receptors versus qPCR data which assesses subunit expression without considering location. Our qPCR data for GABA
AR subunits showed there was significantly greater expression of GABA
AR α1 and β2 subunits in the DDH versus the SDH. These data are consistent with reports showing GABA
ARs containing α1 subunits have faster kinetics [
58,
59].
Endocannabinoid actions on fast inhibitory receptors in SDH and DDH
Our data show clearly that the endocannabinoid analogue, methAEA (5 μM), reduces GlyR- and GABA
AR-mediated mIPSC frequency in both SDH and DDH neurons. These findings are consistent with the "in vivo" view of endcannabinoid action, whereby they are released postsynaptically and act retrogradely at presynaptic terminals to reduce neurotransmitter release [
62‐
66]. The reduced mIPSC frequency we measured in the presence of methAEA is also consistent with immunohistochemical investigations showing that the CB
1R is expressed on the presynaptic terminals of local circuit neurons, descending inputs, as well as peripheral sensory afferents in the spinal cord [
25,
62,
67]
The negative action of methAEA on both GlyR- and GABA
AR- mediated inhibition appears to be at odds with the well-documented antinociceptive effects of cannabinoids. In vivo administration of GlyR and GABA
AR antagonists produces hyperalgesia and tactile allodynia rather than analgesia [
68,
69]. These apparently conflicting observations made using in vitro and in vivo preparations emphasise that the
net effect of cannabinoids on spinal circuits determines dorsal horn output. It is well known that cannabinoids also decrease excitatory drive in the dorsal horn, based on reduction of glutamate-mediated mEPSCs [
62,
70]. New information using paired recording techniques in the SDH indicates that most (~70%) of the connections within lamina II are excitatory [
71]. These new data fit with the "net effect" hypothesis. Perhaps these comparisons emphasize the lack of information on specific circuits in spinal cord pain pathway and the roles of various interneuronal populations in dorsal horn function)[
72].
Because two recent reports suggest cannabinoids can
directly modulate GlyRs in isolated neurons or oocytes [
31,
32], we tested the effects of methAEA on GlyR-mediated mIPSCs in both SDH and DDH neurons. We found no evidence for a 'direct effect' of methAEA on GlyR function in either SDH or DDH. There are several explanations for why we did not observe a direct effect of methAEA on GlyRs. First, our study employed a more 'physiologically intact' preparation where factors such as receptor clustering, local glycine concentration and subunit composition would differ markedly. Second, recent reports suggest the direct effects of cannabinoids on recombinant GlyRs is subunit-specific, and glycine-concentration dependent [
73].
We also tested for direct effects of cannabinoids on GABA
Aergic mIPSCs. In both SDH and DDH neurons methAEA reduced mIPSC frequency and did not alter mIPSC amplitude. Similar responses have been reported in the cerebellum [
74]. In addition, we observed a significant effect of methAEA on GABA
AR-mediated mIPSC rise time, however, this was confined to SDH neurons. This is perhaps not surprising, as GABA
ARs are modulated by a multitude of exogenous and endogenous substances. For example, the benzodiazepines [
75], gaseous and intravenous anaesthetics [
76], alcohols [
77], neurosteroids [
78] and zinc [
79] can all positively modulate the GABA
AR responses to GABA via allosteric actions on the receptor complex. Thus, cannabinoids may prove to be yet another modulatory agent of GABA
AR-mediated signaling.
Implications for spinal cord processing of sensory information
Previous work has shown that the SDH and DDH receive different types of peripheral input, project to different supraspinal targets and exhibit considerable variation in their intrinsic connectivity [
18,
19,
71]. We propose that clear differences also exist in inhibitory control mechanisms within each region. Glycinergic signalling dominates in the DDH, whereas GABA
A signalling is equally important in both regions. Finally, there appears to be need for an inhibitory system with fast and slow kinetics
within both superficial and deep regions of the mouse spinal cord. GlyR-mediated inhibition is more important in deep regions of the dorsal horn, which preferentially receive peripheral inputs from axons with high conduction velocities [
3,
12]. The existence of large and fast inhibitory inputs in the DDH would be well suited to modulate the effects of such inputs. In contrast, smaller and slower GABA
AR-mediated inhibition appears to be equally important in both superficial and deep regions of the spinal cord dorsal horn. These features suggest GABA
AR-mediated inhibition is more important for fine-tuning the effects of a functionally wider range of peripheral inputs.
Suppression of inhibitory signalling in the dorsal horn, which occurs in certain chronic pain states, can lead to hypersensitivity and tactile allodynia [
68,
80‐
82]. Both SDH and DDH neurons have been implicated in this form of plasticity, reinforcing the notion that both regions of the dorsal horn play key roles in nociception even though the SDH preferentially receives nociceptive input. The segregation of excitation and information processing in the two regions is hypothesised to play a key role in the segregation of noxious and innocuous sensory experience. The importance of both glycinergic and GABA
Aergic inhibition in this segregation was clearly illustrated in recent calcium imaging experiments in spinal cord slices [
83]. In the control condition, dorsal root stimulation resulted in discrete and localized excitation that was restricted to the SDH. When the same preparation was stimulated under conditions where inhibition was blocked, excitation spread from the SDH to DDH and even contralaterally. These findings highlight the importance of inhibitory control of cross talk between the SDH and DDH. Consequently, a greater understanding of the properties of inhibitory mechanisms in the two regions will help identify new strategies for treating nociceptive dysfunction in the spinal cord dorsal horn.