Published in

Wiley, The Journal of Physiology, 1(589), p. 119-134, 2010

DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2010.199125

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Reciprocal Ia inhibition contributes to motoneuronal hyperpolarisation during the inactive phase of locomotion and scratching in the cat

This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Despite decades of research, the classical idea that ‘reciprocal inhibition’ is involved in the hyperpolarisation of motoneurones in their inactive phase during rhythmic activity is still under debate. Here, we investigated the contribution of reciprocal Ia inhibition to the hyperpolarisation of motoneurones during fictive locomotion (evoked either by electrical stimulation of the brainstem or by l-DOPA administration following a spinal transection at the cervical level) and fictive scratching (evoked by stimulation of the pinna) in decerebrate cats. Simultaneous extracellular recordings of Ia inhibitory interneurones and intracellular recordings of lumbar motoneurones revealed the interneurones to be most active when their target motoneurones were hyperpolarised (i.e. in the inactive phase of the target motoneurones). To date, these results are the most direct evidence that Ia inhibitory interneurones contribute to the hyperpolarisation of motoneurones during rhythmic behaviours. We also estimated the amount of Ia inhibition as the amplitude of Ia IPSC in voltage-clamp mode. In both flexor and extensor motoneurones, Ia IPSCs were always larger in the inactive phase than in the active phase during locomotion (n = 14) and during scratch (n = 11). Results obtained from spinalised animals demonstrate that the spinal rhythm-generating network simultaneously drives the motoneurones of one muscle group and the Ia interneurones projecting to motoneurones of the antagonist muscles in parallel. Our results thus support the classical view of reciprocal inhibition as a basis for relaxation of antagonist muscles during flexion–extension movements.