Genetic mutations in mice that disrupt barrel development typically disrupt only the columnar distribution of neurons in L4 and leave the clustering of thalamocortical axons intact (Li and Crair, 2011). A handful of the most severe barrel map mutants, including barrelless mice and GAP-43 KO mice, have no hint of either thalamocortical axon clustering into barrels or L4 cytoarchitecture resembling barrel walls. Previous experiments that disrupted neuronal activity or cortical

glutamatergic signaling pharmacologically or genetically had mixed effects on barrel development ( Li and Crair, 2011). For instance, interfering with cortical glutamatergic receptors www.selleckchem.com/products/Methazolastone.html ( Schlaggar et al., 1993, Iwasato et al., 2000 and Wijetunge et al., 2008) disrupts cortical barrel cytoarchitecture, but has no effect on thalamocortical axon clustering into a barrel pattern. Similarly, interfering with neuronal activity pharmacologically

( Chiaia et al., 1992) or disrupting thalamocortical neurotransmission genetically ( Lu et al., 2006 and Narboux-Nême et al., 2012) interferes with the emergence of cortical barrel cytoarchitecture but has no effect on Ruxolitinib price thalamocortical axon clustering. Notably however, the interventions used in these studies did not completely block thalamocortical glutamatergic neurotransmission, but rather interfered with restricted subsets of glutamate receptors or decreased the probability of neurotransmitter release without eliminating thalamocortical neurotransmission or changing synaptic strength. A likely consequence of the incomplete nature of these manipulations is that barrel cytoarchitecture

is disrupted, Cell press but thalamocortical axon clustering and cortical laminar cytoarchitecture are preserved. In contrast to these previous studies, the manipulation we reported here nearly completely blocks thalamocortical neurotransmission (ThMunc18KO mice) or nearly completely prevents thalamocortical neurons from releasing glutamate (ThVGdKO mice). We suggest that the more comprehensive disruption of thalamocortical glutamatergic neurotransmission we achieved produced the correspondingly more dramatic effects on cortical barrel, laminar, and neuronal cytoarchitectural development. We observed that Vglut1 was capable of compensating for the absence of Vglut2 in thalamocortical neurons in vivo. The same is not true in cultured neurons, where thalamic cells that lack only Vglut2 have dramatically disrupted neurotransmitter release ( Moechars et al., 2006). Neurons in the ventrobasal thalamus are known to express both Vglut1 and Vglut2 in a dynamic fashion through the course of development ( Barroso-Chinea et al., 2008 and Nakamura et al., 2005), as do single axon terminals in L4 of barrel cortex during the first week after birth ( Nakamura et al., 2005). The observed difference in compensation by Vglut1 for Vglut2 may reflect a difference in the dynamic regulation of these two Vglut gene family members in vivo and in vitro.