Classification of Visual Cortex Plasticity Phenotypes following Treatment for Amblyopia
Monocular deprivation (MD) during the critical period (CP) has enduring effects on visual acuity and the functioning of the visual cortex (V1). This experience-dependent plasticity has become a model for studying the mechanisms, especially glutamatergic and GABAergic receptors, that regulate amblyop...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2019-01-01
|
| Series: | Neural Plasticity |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/2564018 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832548769685569536 |
|---|---|
| author | Justin L. Balsor David G. Jones Kathryn M. Murphy |
| author_facet | Justin L. Balsor David G. Jones Kathryn M. Murphy |
| author_sort | Justin L. Balsor |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Monocular deprivation (MD) during the critical period (CP) has enduring effects on visual acuity and the functioning of the visual cortex (V1). This experience-dependent plasticity has become a model for studying the mechanisms, especially glutamatergic and GABAergic receptors, that regulate amblyopia. Less is known, however, about treatment-induced changes to those receptors and if those changes differentiate treatments that support the recovery of acuity versus persistent acuity deficits. Here, we use an animal model to explore the effects of 3 visual treatments started during the CP (n=24, 10 male and 14 female): binocular vision (BV) that promotes good acuity versus reverse occlusion (RO) and binocular deprivation (BD) that causes persistent acuity deficits. We measured the recovery of a collection of glutamatergic and GABAergic receptor subunits in the V1 and modeled recovery of kinetics for NMDAR and GABAAR. There was a complex pattern of protein changes that prompted us to develop an unbiased data-driven approach for these high-dimensional data analyses to identify plasticity features and construct plasticity phenotypes. Cluster analysis of the plasticity phenotypes suggests that BV supports adaptive plasticity while RO and BD promote a maladaptive pattern. The RO plasticity phenotype appeared more similar to adults with a high expression of GluA2, and the BD phenotypes were dominated by GABAAα1, highlighting that multiple plasticity phenotypes can underlie persistent poor acuity. After 2-4 days of BV, the plasticity phenotypes resembled normals, but only one feature, the GluN2A:GluA2 balance, returned to normal levels. Perhaps, balancing Hebbian (GluN2A) and homeostatic (GluA2) mechanisms is necessary for the recovery of vision. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-78c992ab1f8648e9ba176fb943f2b8b2 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2090-5904 1687-5443 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2019-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Neural Plasticity |
| spelling | doaj-art-78c992ab1f8648e9ba176fb943f2b8b22025-02-03T06:13:07ZengWileyNeural Plasticity2090-59041687-54432019-01-01201910.1155/2019/25640182564018Classification of Visual Cortex Plasticity Phenotypes following Treatment for AmblyopiaJustin L. Balsor0David G. Jones1Kathryn M. Murphy2McMaster Integrative Neuroscience Discovery and Study (MiNDS) Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, CanadaPairwise Affinity Inc., Dundas, ON, L9H 2R9, CanadaMcMaster Integrative Neuroscience Discovery and Study (MiNDS) Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, CanadaMonocular deprivation (MD) during the critical period (CP) has enduring effects on visual acuity and the functioning of the visual cortex (V1). This experience-dependent plasticity has become a model for studying the mechanisms, especially glutamatergic and GABAergic receptors, that regulate amblyopia. Less is known, however, about treatment-induced changes to those receptors and if those changes differentiate treatments that support the recovery of acuity versus persistent acuity deficits. Here, we use an animal model to explore the effects of 3 visual treatments started during the CP (n=24, 10 male and 14 female): binocular vision (BV) that promotes good acuity versus reverse occlusion (RO) and binocular deprivation (BD) that causes persistent acuity deficits. We measured the recovery of a collection of glutamatergic and GABAergic receptor subunits in the V1 and modeled recovery of kinetics for NMDAR and GABAAR. There was a complex pattern of protein changes that prompted us to develop an unbiased data-driven approach for these high-dimensional data analyses to identify plasticity features and construct plasticity phenotypes. Cluster analysis of the plasticity phenotypes suggests that BV supports adaptive plasticity while RO and BD promote a maladaptive pattern. The RO plasticity phenotype appeared more similar to adults with a high expression of GluA2, and the BD phenotypes were dominated by GABAAα1, highlighting that multiple plasticity phenotypes can underlie persistent poor acuity. After 2-4 days of BV, the plasticity phenotypes resembled normals, but only one feature, the GluN2A:GluA2 balance, returned to normal levels. Perhaps, balancing Hebbian (GluN2A) and homeostatic (GluA2) mechanisms is necessary for the recovery of vision.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/2564018 |
| spellingShingle | Justin L. Balsor David G. Jones Kathryn M. Murphy Classification of Visual Cortex Plasticity Phenotypes following Treatment for Amblyopia Neural Plasticity |
| title | Classification of Visual Cortex Plasticity Phenotypes following Treatment for Amblyopia |
| title_full | Classification of Visual Cortex Plasticity Phenotypes following Treatment for Amblyopia |
| title_fullStr | Classification of Visual Cortex Plasticity Phenotypes following Treatment for Amblyopia |
| title_full_unstemmed | Classification of Visual Cortex Plasticity Phenotypes following Treatment for Amblyopia |
| title_short | Classification of Visual Cortex Plasticity Phenotypes following Treatment for Amblyopia |
| title_sort | classification of visual cortex plasticity phenotypes following treatment for amblyopia |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/2564018 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT justinlbalsor classificationofvisualcortexplasticityphenotypesfollowingtreatmentforamblyopia AT davidgjones classificationofvisualcortexplasticityphenotypesfollowingtreatmentforamblyopia AT kathrynmmurphy classificationofvisualcortexplasticityphenotypesfollowingtreatmentforamblyopia |