A species difference between Rana and Xenopus in the occurrence of intertectal neuronal plasticity

In anuran amphibians, a system of neuronal connections links the two optic tecta and is involved in projections of the binocular visual field to the optic tecta. Electrophysiological studies have shown that in the frog, Xenopus laevis, the pattern of connections may be modified by procedures such as larval rotation of one eye. This modification appears to be effected by visual experience. Workers in other laboratories, however, found no evidence of such a modification in the related frog Rana pipiens. This difference in results may have been due to different rearing conditions and different recording techniques or may reflect a true species difference, in this respect, between Rana and Xenopus. In the present experiments, an attempt was made to distinguish between these possibilities by performing eye rotations in Rana and Xenopus, rearing them as identically as possible and recording from them under identical conditions. It was found that while Xenopus displayed the modification of intertectal connections, Rana did not. It is concluded that the different responses of the intertectal systems to larval eye rotation in Xenopus and Rana reflect a species difference.

[1]  S. Udin,et al.  Abnormal visual input leads to development of abnormal axon trajectories in frogs , 1983, Nature.

[2]  R. M. Gaze,et al.  Binocular interaction in the formation of specific intertectal neuronal connexions , 1970, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[3]  A. C. Taylor,et al.  Stages in the normal development of Rana pipiens larvae , 1946, The Anatomical record.

[4]  M. Keating,et al.  Plasticity in a central nervous pathway in Xenopus: Anatomical changes in the isthmotectal projection after larval eye rotation , 1981, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[5]  S. Udin,et al.  Topographic projections between the nucleus isthmi and the tectum of the frog rana pipiens , 1978, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[6]  J. Faber,et al.  Normal Table of Xenopus Laevis (Daudin) , 1958 .

[7]  M. Jacobson,et al.  THE PROJECTION OF THE BINOCULAR VISUAL FIELD ON THE OPTIC TECTA OF THE FROG , 1962 .

[8]  M. Keating Evidence for plasticity of intertectal neuronal connections in adult Xenopus. , 1977, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[9]  J. Y. Lettvin,et al.  Comments on Microelectrodes , 1959, Proceedings of the IRE.

[10]  P. Grobstein,et al.  Post-metamorphic eye migration in Rana and Xenopus , 1977, Nature.

[11]  R. M. Gaze,et al.  The ipsilateral retinotectal pathway in the frog. , 1970, Quarterly journal of experimental physiology and cognate medical sciences.

[12]  Steven M. Archer,et al.  A crossed isthmo-tectal projection inRana pipiens and its involvement in the ipsilateral visuotectal projection , 1978, Brain Research.

[13]  L. Beazley,et al.  Intertectal connections are not modified by visual experience in developing Hyla moorei , 1979, Experimental Neurology.

[14]  H. Hirsch,et al.  Development and maintenance of connectivity in the visual system of the frog. I. The effects of eye rotation and visual deprivation. , 1973, Brain research.

[15]  M. Jacobson,et al.  Development of binocularly driven single units in frogs raised with asymmetrical visual stimulation. , 1974, Experimental neurology.