Cell anatomy and network input explain differences within but not between leech touch cells at two different locations

• Published in: Frontiers in cellular neuroscience Vol. 17; p. 1186997
• Main Authors: Meiser, Sonja, Sleeboom, Jana Marie, Arkhypchuk, Ihor, Sandbote, Kevin, Kretzberg, Jutta
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland Frontiers Research Foundation 25-07-2023; Frontiers Media S.A
• Subjects: Adaptation; Cell surface; Cells; Excitability; Information processing; invertebrate; Investigations; Ion channels; Latency; Lymphocytes; Lymphocytes T; mechanoreceptor; Mechanoreceptors; multi-compartment model; Nervous system; neuronal anatomy; neuronal excitability; Neurons; Neuroscience; Phenotypes; response variability; Skin; Spatial distribution; Vertebrates; multi-compartment model; invertebrate; mechanoreceptor; response variability; neuronal anatomy; neuronal excitability
• ISSN: 1662-5102; 1662-5102
• DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2023.1186997

Mechanosensory cells in the leech share several common features with mechanoreceptors in the human glabrous skin. Previous studies showed that the six T (touch) cells in each body segment of the leech are highly variable in their responses to somatic current injection and change their excitability over time. Here, we investigate three potential reasons for this variability in excitability by comparing the responses of T cells at two soma locations (T2 and T3): (1) Differential effects of time-dependent changes in excitability, (2) divergent synaptic input from the network, and (3) different anatomical structures. These hypotheses were explored with a combination of electrophysiological double recordings, 3D reconstruction of neurobiotin-filled cells, and compartmental model simulations. Current injection triggered significantly more spikes with shorter latency and larger amplitudes in cells at soma location T2 than at T3. During longer recordings, cells at both locations increased their excitability over time in the same way. T2 and T3 cells received the same amount of synaptic input from the unstimulated network, and the polysynaptic connections between both T cells were mutually symmetric. However, we found a striking anatomical difference: While in our data set all T2 cells innervated two roots connecting the ganglion with the skin, 50% of the T3 cells had only one root process. The sub-sample of T3 cells with one root process was significantly less excitable than the T3 cells with two root processes and the T2 cells. To test if the additional root process causes higher excitability, we simulated the responses of 3D reconstructed cells of both anatomies with detailed multi-compartment models. The anatomical subtypes do not differ in excitability when identical biophysical parameters and a homogeneous channel distribution are assumed. Hence, all three hypotheses may contribute to the highly variable T cell responses, but none of them is the only factor accounting for the observed systematic difference in excitability between cells at T2 vs. T3 soma location. Therefore, future patch clamp and modeling studies are needed to analyze how biophysical properties and spatial distribution of ion channels on the cell surface contribute to the variability and systematic differences of electrophysiological phenotypes.