Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26458212›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2015

Feed-Forward versus Feedback Inhibition in a Basic Olfactory Circuit.

Tiffany Kee, Pavel Sanda, Nitin Gupta, Mark Stopfer, Maxim Bazhenov

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Large time step discrete-time modeling of sharp wave activity in hippocampal area CA3.Communications in nonlinear science & numerical simulation · 2019
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Control of Absence Seizures by the Thalamic Feed-Forward Inhibition.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2017
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Central processing in the mushroom bodies.Current opinion in insect science · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Tiffany KeeDepartment of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, California, United States of America.
Pavel SandaDepartment of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, California, United States of America.
Nitin GuptaDepartment of Biological Sciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, India.
Mark StopferUS National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Maxim BazhenovDepartment of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, California, United States of America.
University of California, Riverside · USEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development · USIndian Institute of Technology Kanpur · IN

Funding

Sensory Coding by Ensembles of Neurons.ZIAHD008760 · NICHD · EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT · PI STOPFER, MARK A · 2009 to 2025
$26.3M
CRCNS: Multiple roles of inhibition in the olfactory systemR01DC012943 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI BAZHENOV, MAKSIM V · 2012 to 2016
$1.3M
NIDCD NIH HHS 1 R01 DC012943NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012943
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inhibitory interneurons play critical roles in shaping the firing patterns of principal neurons in many brain systems. Despite difference in the anatomy or functions of neuronal circuits containing inhibition, two basic motifs repeatedly emerge: feed-forward and feedback. In the locust, it was proposed that a subset of lateral horn interneurons (LHNs), provide feed-forward inhibition onto Kenyon cells (KCs) to maintain their sparse firing--a property critical for olfactory learning and memory. But recently it was established that a single inhibitory cell, the giant GABAergic neuron (GGN), is the main and perhaps sole source of inhibition in the mushroom body, and that inhibition from this cell is mediated by a feedback (FB) loop including KCs and the GGN. To clarify basic differences in the effects of feedback vs. feed-forward inhibition in circuit dynamics we here use a model of the locust olfactory system. We found both inhibitory motifs were able to maintain sparse KCs responses and provide optimal odor discrimination. However, we further found that only FB inhibition could create a phase response consistent with data recorded in vivo. These findings describe general rules for feed-forward versus feedback inhibition and suggest GGN is potentially capable of providing the primary source of inhibition to the KCs. A better understanding of how inhibitory motifs impact post-synaptic neuronal activity could be used to reveal unknown inhibitory structures within biological networks.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalAction PotentialsAnimalsComputer SimulationExcitatory Postsynaptic PotentialsFeedback, PhysiologicalGrasshoppersMushroom BodiesNerve NetNeural InhibitionOlfactory PathwaysSmellSynaptic Transmission

Identifiers

PMID26458212
PMCPMC4601731
OpenAlexW2130171498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.