I want to do fEPSP recordings on the Shaffer-CA1 pathway in vivo in the middle part of hippocampus in rat. I checked the literature and found conflicting results.
For example, in the work of Doyle et al. (J Neurosci, 1996, vol 16, 418-424) and their later works, the recording electrode was placed closer to the Bregma than the stimulating electrode was (recording electrode: AP -3.0, ML 2.0; stimulating electrode: AP -4, ML 3).
However, in some other works, e.g., Bliss et al. (J Physiol, 1983, 341, pp617-26), it is the stimulating electrode that is closer to the Bregma (stimulating: AP -3.4, ML 3.2; recording: -4.4, ML 3.0). Both claimed that they were stimulating and recording the CA3-to-CA1 pathway. How could they had the exact opposite way of placing the stimulating and recording electrodes when both claimed to stimulate & recording the same pathway? These are just some examples. I found more reports with conflicting coordinates.
I am wondering if anyone has a clearer answer on that, and can tell me the accurate way to place the electrodes on CA1 pathway in rat hippocampus.
Kevin,you should contact Maria Lindskog ([email protected]) or Gilad Silberberg ( [email protected] they may be able to help
Hi Kevin,
One problem with in vivo work with stereotaxic coordinates is the variation with the size (weight), age and sex of the animals. When I used to do my in vivo work in rats, I was doing my own mapping by recording field potentials evoked by antidromic electrical stimulation. Even when you use similar age animals there can be still issues such as slight tilt of the head etc. Therefore I am not surprised that you find conflicting reports in literature.
Another issue with previous work is that some of them may be stimulating ipsi-/contra-lateral pathways? Or their electrodes went down with an angle/bent, not straight down?
best wishes,
Refik
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Neuroscience