Abstract

The pretectal and tectal projections to the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (GLd) of two species of turtle (Emys orbicularis and Testudo horsfieldi) were examined under the electron microscope by using axonal tracing techniques (horseradish peroxidase or biotinylated dextran amine) and postembedding gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) immunocytochemistry. After injection of tracer into the pretectum, two types of axon terminals were identified as those of pretectogeniculate pathways. Both contained pleomorphic synaptic vesicles and were more numerous in the inner part of the nucleus. They could be distinguished on the bases of size and shape of their synaptic vesicles, type of synaptic contact, and level of GABA immunoreactivity. One type had a higher density of immunolabeling and established symmetric synaptic contacts, whereas the other, less densely immunolabeled, made asymmetric synaptic contacts. In both cases, synaptic contacts were mainly with relay cells and occasionally with interneurons. We suggest that these two types of pretectogeniculate terminals originate in two separate pretectal nuclei. After injection of tracer into the optic tectum, a single population of GABA-immunonegative tracer-labeled terminals was identified as belonging to the tectogeniculate pathway. These were small, had smooth contours, contained very small round synaptic vesicles, and established asymmetric synaptic contacts with long active zones, predominantly with relay cells and less frequently with interneurons, in the inner part of the nucleus. In addition, a population of GABA-negative and occasionally GABA-positive terminals, labeled by tracer injected into either the pretectum or the tectum, was identified as retinal terminals; these were presumably labeled by the retrograde transport of tracer in collateral branches of visual fibers innervating both the GLd and the pretectum or tectum. Comparison of the present ultrastructural findings in turtles with those previously reported in mammals shows that the cytological features, synaptic morphology, and immunochemical properties of the pretectogeniculate and tectogeniculate terminals of both groups share many similarities. Nevertheless, the postsynaptic targets of these two categories of terminals display some pronounced differences between the two groups, which are discussed in terms of their possible functional significance.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call