Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Nat Neurosci. 2019 Jul;22(7):1061-1065. doi: 10.1038/s41593-019-0422-3. Epub 2019 Jun 17.

Thermal constraints on in vivo optogenetic manipulations.

Owen SF1, Liu MH2,3, Kreitzer AC4,5,6,7,8.

Author information

1
Gladstone Institutes, San Francisco, CA, USA.
2
Medical Scientist Training Program, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
3
Neuroscience Graduate Program, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, USA.
4
Gladstone Institutes, San Francisco, CA, USA. anatol.kreitzer@gladstone.ucsf.edu.
5
Neuroscience Graduate Program, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, USA. anatol.kreitzer@gladstone.ucsf.edu.
6
Department of Neurology, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, USA. anatol.kreitzer@gladstone.ucsf.edu.
7
UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, USA. anatol.kreitzer@gladstone.ucsf.edu.
8
Department of Physiology, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, USA. anatol.kreitzer@gladstone.ucsf.edu.

Abstract

A key assumption of optogenetics is that light only affects opsin-expressing neurons. However, illumination invariably heats tissue, and many physiological processes are temperature-sensitive. Commonly used illumination protocols increased the temperature by 0.2-2 °C and suppressed spiking in multiple brain regions. In the striatum, light delivery activated an inwardly rectifying potassium conductance and biased rotational behavior. Thus, careful consideration of light-delivery parameters is required, as even modest intracranial heating can confound interpretation of optogenetic experiments.

PMID:
31209378
PMCID:
PMC6592769
DOI:
10.1038/s41593-019-0422-3
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Nature Publishing Group Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center