Functional specialization within the cat red nucleus.

Magnocellular (RNm) and parvicellular (RNp) divisions of the cat red nucleus (RN) project to the cervical spinal cord. RNp projects more heavily to upper cervical levels and RNm projects more heavily to lower levels. The cells in RN are active during reaching and grasping, and the differences in termination suggest that the divisions influence different musculature during this behavior. However, the spinal termination may not reflect function because most rubrospinal terminations are to interneuronal regions, which can influence motor neurons at other spinal levels. To test for functional differences between RNm and RNp, we selectively stimulated RNm and RNp as well as the efferent fibers from each region. Electromyographic activity was recorded from seven muscles of the cat forelimb during reaching. The activity from each muscle was averaged over several thousand stimuli to detect influences of stimulation on muscle activity. Stimulation within the RN produced a characteristic pattern of poststimulus effects. The digit dorsiflexor, extensor digitorum communis (edc), was most likely to show facilitation, and several other muscles showed suppression. The pattern of activation did not differ between RNm and RNp. In contrast, stimulation of RNp fibers favored facilitation of shoulder muscles (spinodeltoideus and supraspinatus), and stimulation of RNm fibers favored facilitation of digit and wrist muscles (edc, palmaris longus, and extensor carpi ulnaris). Fiber stimulation produced few instances of poststimulus suppression. The results from fiber stimulation indicate that the physiological actions of RNm and RNp match their levels of spinal termination. The complex pattern of facilitation and suppression seen with RN stimulation may reflect synaptic actions within the nucleus.

[1]  D. G. Lawrence,et al.  The functional organization of the motor system in the monkey. II. The effects of lesions of the descending brain-stem pathways. , 1968, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[2]  R. L. Holmes.  Growth of the Nervous System , 1969 .

[3]  F. Condé,et al.  Etude de la morphologie des cellules du noyau rouge du chat par la methode de Golgi-Cox , 1973 .

[4]  F. Condé,et al.  [Study of the morphology of the cells of the red nucleus of the cat by the Golgi-Cox method]. , 1973, Brain research.

[5]  J. Growdon,et al.  Pattern of recovery following cerebellar deep nuclear lesions in monkeys. , 1973, Experimental neurology.

[6]  E. Fetz,et al.  Postspike facilitation of forelimb muscle activity by primate corticomotoneuronal cells. , 1980, Journal of neurophysiology.

[7]  E. Sybirska,et al.  Effects of red nucleus lesions on forelimb movements in the cat. , 1980, Acta neurobiologiae experimentalis.

[8]  Y. Padel,et al.  Inhibition of rubro-spinal cells by somesthetic afferent activity , 1981, Neuroscience Letters.

[9]  O. Bosler,et al.  GABA neurons in the cat red nucleus: A biochemical and immunohistochemical demonstration , 1984, Neuroscience Letters.

[10]  N. Tsukahara,et al.  GABAergic intrinsic interneurons in the red nucleus of the cat demonstrated with combined immunocytochemistry and anterograde degeneration methods , 1984, Neuroscience Research.

[11]  E. Fetz,et al.  Comparable patterns of muscle facilitation evoked by individual corticomotoneuronal (CM) cells and by single intracortical microstimuli in primates: evidence for functional groups of CM cells. , 1985, Journal of neurophysiology.

[12]  J. Houk,et al.  Magnocellular red nucleus activity during different types of limb movement in the macaque monkey. , 1985, The Journal of physiology.

[13]  J. Houk,et al.  Limb specific connections of the cat magnocellular red nucleus , 1987, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[14]  J. Houk,et al.  Selective projections from the cat red nucleus to digit motor neurons , 1987, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[15]  N. Tsukahara,et al.  Dendritic and somatic appendages of identified rubrospinal neurons of the cat , 1987, Neuroscience.

[16]  G. Holstege,et al.  Ultrastructural evidence for direct monosynaptic rubrospinal connections to motoneurons in Macaca mulatta , 1988, Neuroscience Letters.

[17]  G. Holstege,et al.  Projections from the red nucleus and surrounding areas to the brainstem and spinal cord in the cat. An HRP and autoradiographical tracing study , 1988, Behavioural Brain Research.

[18]  B. Alstermark,et al.  Projection from excitatory C3–C4 propriospinal neurones to lamina VII and VIII neurones in the C6-Th1 segments of the cat , 1990, Neuroscience Research.

[19]  P. Cheney,et al.  Facilitation and suppression of wrist and digit muscles from single rubromotoneuronal cells in the awake monkey. , 1991, Journal of neurophysiology.

[20]  P. Cheney,et al.  Effects on wrist and digit muscle activity from microstimuli applied at the sites of rubromotoneuronal cells in primates. , 1991, Journal of neurophysiology.

[21]  M. Aoki,et al.  Monosynaptic excitation of motoneurons innervating forelimb muscles following stimulation of the red nucleus in cats , 1991, Neuroscience Letters.

[22]  D. Ralston,et al.  Inhibitory synaptic input to identified rubrospinal neurons in Macaca fascicularis: An electron microscopic study using a combined immuno‐GABA‐gold technique and the retrograde transport of WGA‐HRP , 1992, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[23]  J. Houk,et al.  Movement-related inputs to intermediate cerebellum of the monkey. , 1993, Journal of neurophysiology.

[24]  J. Houk,et al.  Erratum: Movement-related inputs to intermediate cerebellum of the monkey (Journal of Neurophysiology (January 1993) 69 (74-94)) , 1993 .

[25]  P. Reier,et al.  Forelimb Motor Performance Following Dorsal Column, Dorsolateral Funiculi, or Ventrolateral Funiculi Lesions of the Cervical Spinal Cord in the Rat , 1993, Experimental Neurology.

[26]  A R Gibson,et al.  The importance of hand use to discharge of interpositus neurones of the monkey. , 1994, The Journal of physiology.

[27]  A. Gibson,et al.  Chapter 5 Grasping Cerebellar Function , 1994 .

[28]  A. G. Feldman,et al.  Grasping cerebellar function depends on our understanding the principles of sensorimotor integration: The frame of reference hypothesis , 1996 .

[29]  I. Whishaw,et al.  Does the red nucleus provide the tonic support against which fractionated movements occur? A study on forepaw movements used in skilled reaching by the rat , 1996, Behavioural Brain Research.

[30]  Y Shimansky,et al.  Effects of inactivating individual cerebellar nuclei on the performance and retention of an operantly conditioned forelimb movement. , 1997, Journal of neurophysiology.

[31]  J F Baker,et al.  Organization of reaching and grasping movements in the primate cerebellar nuclei as revealed by focal muscimol inactivations. , 1998, Journal of neurophysiology.

[32]  P. Cheney,et al.  Distribution and characteristics of poststimulus effects in proximal and distal forelimb muscles from red nucleus in the monkey. , 1998, Journal of neurophysiology.

[33]  B. Hyland,et al.  Neuronal activity in rat red nucleus during forelimb reach-to-grasp movements , 1999, Neuroscience.

[34]  C. Darian‐Smith,et al.  Macaque red nucleus: Origins of spinal and olivary projections and terminations of cortical inputs , 2000, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[35]  M. L. McCurdy,et al.  Role of primate magnocellular red nucleus neurons in controlling hand preshaping during reaching to grasp. , 2001, Journal of neurophysiology.

[36]  A. Gibson,et al.  Spinal projections of the cat parvicellular red nucleus. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.