Modifications in the laminar organization of peptide-like immunoreactivity in the anuran optic tectum following retinal deafferentation

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Substance P (SP)‐, leucine‐enkephalin (LENK)‐, cholecystokinin octa‐peptide (CCK8)bombesin (BOM)‐, and avian pancreatic polypeptide (APP)‐like immunoreactiyities were analyzed in the optic tectum of Rana pipiens 5–99 days after unilateral eye enucleation, or optic nerve ligation, by means of the peroxidase‐antiperoxidase and indirect fluorescence single and double labeling methods. The normal pattern (Kuljis and Karten, 1981, 1982c) of peptide‐like immunoreactivity was observed ipsilaterally to the operation. Contralateral deafferented tectae displayed conspicuous modifications in the normal pattern of peptide‐like immunoreactivity unique to each of the substances studied. The modifications of peptide‐like immunoreactivity observed varied depending both on the survival time and on the particular peptide analyzed, with either increment or diminution or disappearance–or combinations thereof–in the staining intensity of some of the peptide‐positive bands in the superficial one‐third (superficial neuropil) of the tectum. The onset of these changes is detectable immunocytochemicahy between the sixth and tenth day following deafferentation. By 2–4 weeks full expression of the long‐term changes is reached with no apparent further modification up to the 99th postoperative day. The rapid onset of these phenomena suggests the existence of a previously unrecognized retinal ganglion cell terminal peptidergic contribution to the tectum and/or rapid transsynaptic effects. The former possibility is suggested by recent observations demon‐strating peptide‐like immunoreactivity for SP, LENK, CCK8 and BOM in the retinal stump of ligated optic nerves (Kuljis and Karten, 1982b). The fact that no vertebrate retinal ganglion cells have been shown to contain any of these peptides (Brecha et al., 79; Famiglietti et al., 1980; Eldred and Karten, 1981; Karten et al., 1982), however, argues against the possibility of a retinal terminal contribution to peptide‐like immunoreactivity in the tectum and suggests that transsynaptic phenomena are involved.