Jenny Balog’s research while affiliated with Friedrich Schiller University Jena and other places

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (4)


Social dominance determines ODP. Both in a cage (a, p ≤ 0.001, n = 6) and in an arena (b, p ≤ 0.001, n = 3), a running wheel is predominantly used by only one of two male animals. When alone, the less active animals significantly increase running (cage: p ≤ 0.001; arena: p ≤ 0.05). c Amplitude maps obtained by optical imaging of intrinsic signals are shown. While stronger activities are always elicited by stimulation of the contralateral than the ipsilateral eye before MD, this difference is lost or even reversed in dominant cage paired (n = 6) and arena paired mice (n = 3) or arena mice without a running wheel (n = 6). d In a cage, dominant mice showed ODP after 4 days of MD (p ≤ 0.05, n = 6), whereas submissive mice did not (p = 0.7, n = 6). e When housed in the arena, all mice (w/o rw: p ≤ 0.01, n = 6 and rw: p ≤ 0.05, n = 4) showed full plasticity, but once social hierarchy was induced by the presence of a running wheel, ODP disappeared in submissive animals (p = 1, n = 4). Each symbol represents the ODI of an individual animal, horizontal lines show the group mean. Full symbols represent control measurements, half symbols measurement after MD. White circles show open eyes, black circles closed contralateral eyes. Dominant animals are shown as grey, submissive animals as white symbols. f, g V1 activity elicited by contra- (left-hand bars) or ipsilateral (right-hand bars) eye stimulation (shadings as in d and e, hatching indicates deprived eyes) shows that ODP was achieved by open-eye potentiation in dominant cage mice (p ≤ 0.05, n = 6), in arena mice without running wheel (p ≤ 0.05, n = 6), and in dominant arena mice with running wheel (p ≤ 0.05, n = 4, all comparisons by Tukey test). h Running activity had no influence on ODP (ODI before MD–ODI after MD) neither in submissive (p = 0.57, n = 10) nor in dominant mice (p = 0.54, n = 10)
Adult ocular dominance plasticity induced by social experience requires 5-HT1A receptor activation. a The contents of serotonin (5-HT) and its metabolite 5-HIAA were determined by HPLC in the visual cortices. There was no difference in 5-HT or 5-HIAA content between paired dominant and submissive cage mice (p = 1, n = 18). b 5-HT turnover (5HIAA/5-HT ratio) was significantly higher in single cage mice (p ≤ 0.05, n = 5) than in paired mice groups with rw (n = 18) or paired mice without rw (n = 4). c Ocular dominance indices show that there is no ocular dominance plasticity in dominant paired cage mice treated with the 5-HT1A receptor antagonist WAY-100635 (p = 0.3, n = 4), whereas full plasticity was observed in dominant vehicle-injected animals (p ≤ 0.001, n = 4). d Vehicle-treated dominant animals show significant attenuation of the closed contralateral eye response (p ≤ 0.05, n = 4), while submissive vehicle animals showed no difference of ipsilateral (p = 1, n = 4) or contralateral (p = 1, n = 4) response before and after 4 days MD. All conventions are as in Fig. 1
Cortical inhibition and long-term potentiation are involved in social dominance-induced ODP. a Both diazepam (p = 1, n = 4) and CPP (p = 1, n = 5) blocked ODP in socially dominant male mice. Vehicle-treated dominant mice occur a significant shift towards the open eye (p ≤ 0.01, n = 4). b Contralateral eye responses remained higher than ipsilateral eye responses in all treated groups, but there was an obvious increase of ipsilateral eye responses in dominant vehicle mice (p ≤ 0.9, n = 4). All conventions are as in Fig. 1
Running wheel data under WAY-100635, diazepam and CPP treatment. Neither WAY-100635 (n = 8) (a) nor diazepam (n = 8) (b) nor CPP (n = 10) (c) changed the social hierarchy between the two mice of a pair
Cortical dopamine transmission regulates ODP in mice. a By retrograde tracing of the visual cortex of (n = 3), labelled neurons were found in the mPFC. Anterior parts of V1 (green, brighter in black and white reproductions) are innervated by more dorsal parts of the anterior cingulate (white arrow), more posterior parts (red, darker in b/w) by the more ventral anterior cingulate (grey arrow). b Dopamine content is higher in the mPFC of dominant than submissive (p ≤ 0.05, n = 8 vs. 8) animals. c Dopamine fibres are highly represented in higher-order cortices, but hardly present in sensory cortices. The dopamine content between mPFC and V1 of dominant and submissive mice (shown pooled) is highly significantly different (p ≤ 0.001, n = 16 vs. 16). d There was no difference in the dopamine content in V1 between dominant and submissive mice (p = 0.2, n = 8 vs. 8). e Zuclopenthixol treatment abolished the differential running wheel use of dominant and submissive mice (n = 8). f The dominance relationship between the mice is partly reversed upon methylphenidate treatment (n = 8). g The dopamine receptor antagonist zuclopenthixol blocked ODP of the dominant mice (p = 0.4, n = 4) and even increased the ODI of submissive mice (p ≤ 0.05, n = 4). h In contrast, the dopaminergic agonist methylphenidate, administered to the submissive animal, resulted in both animals displaying ODP (both: p ≤ 0.05, n = 8). i, j Cortical response amplitudes elicited by stimulation of the contralateral and ipsilateral eyes. Dominant and submissive methylphenidate-treated mice showed a strong significant increase in the open-eye response (p ≤ 0.001, n = 8)
Social hierarchy regulates ocular dominance plasticity in adult male mice
  • Article
  • Publisher preview available

December 2019

·

140 Reads

·

3 Citations

Brain Structure and Function

Jenny Balog

·

Franziska Hintz

·

·

[...]

·

We here show that social rank, as assessed by competition for a running wheel, influences ocular dominance plasticity in adult male mice. Dominant animals showed a clear ocular dominance shift after four days of MD, whereas their submissive cage mates did not. NMDA receptor activation, reduced GABA inhibition, and serotonin transmission were necessary for this plasticity, but not sufficient to explain the difference between dominant and submissive animals. In contrast, prefrontal dopamine concentration was higher in dominant than submissive mice, and systemic manipulation of dopamine transmission bidirectionally changed ocular dominance plasticity. Thus, we could show that a social hierarchical relationship influences ocular dominance plasticity in the visual cortex via higher-order cortices, most likely the medial prefrontal cortex. Further studies will be needed to elucidate the precise mechanisms by which this regulation takes place.

View access options

Figure 1: Social dominance determines ocular dominance plasticity. Both in a cage (A) and in an arena (B), a running wheel is predominantly used by one of two male animals. When alone, the less active animals significantly increase running. (C) Amplitude maps obtained by optical imaging of intrinsic signals are shown. Whereas stronger activities are always elicited by stimulation of the contralateral than the ipsilateral eye before MD, this difference is lost or even reversed in dominant mice or arena mice without a running wheel. (D) In a cage, dominant mice
Figure 2: Adult ocular dominance plasticity induced by social experience requires 5-HT 1A receptor activation. (A) The contents of serotonin (5-HT) and its metabolite 5-HIAA were determined by HPLC in the visual cortices. There was no difference in 5-HT or 5HIAA content between paired dominant and submissive cage mice. (B) 5-HT turnover (5HIAA / 5-HT ratio) was significantly higher in single cage mice than in both paired mice groups. (C) Ocular dominance indices show that there is no ocular dominance plasticity in dominant paired cage mice treated with the 5HT 1A receptor antagonist WAY-100635, whereas full plasticity was observed in vehicleinjected animals. (D) Response amplitudes show an unexpected decrease in ipsilateral eye responses in WAY-100635-treated animals, and an equally unexpected decrease in contralateral eye responses in dominant vehicle animals. All conventions are as in Fig. 1.
Figure 3: Cortical inhibition and long term potentiation are involved in social dominance-induced OD plasticity. (A) Both diazepam and CPP blocked OD plasticity in socially dominant male mice. (B) Contralateral eye responses remained higher than ipsilateral eye responses in all treated groups, but there was a significant increase of ipsilateral eye responses in dominant vehicle mice. All conventions are as in Fig. 1.
Figure 4: Running wheel data under WAY-100635, diazepam-and CPP-treatment. Neither WAY100635 (A) nor diazepam (B) nor CPP (C) changed the social hierarchy between the two mice of a pair.
Social hierarchy regulates ocular dominance plasticity in adult male mice

March 2019

·

113 Reads

We here show that social rank, as assessed by competition for a running wheel, influences ocular dominance plasticity in adult male mice. Dominant animals showed a clear ocular dominance shift after four days of MD, whereas their submissive cage mates did not. NMDA receptor activation, reduced GABA inhibition, and serotonin transmission were necessary for this plasticity, but not sufficient to explain the difference between dominant and submissive animals. In contrast, prefrontal dopamine concentration was higher in dominant than submissive mice, and systemic manipulation of dopamine transmission bidirectionally changed ocular dominance plasticity. Thus, we could show that a social hierarchical relationship influences ocular dominance plasticity in the visual cortex via higher-order cortices, most likely the medial prefrontal cortex. Further studies will be needed to elucidate the precise mechanisms by which this regulation takes place.



Figure 1. Temporally coherent visual stimulation during MD induces OD plasticity in mice regardless of age. A, From 70 to 246 d of age, 4 d of MD had no influence on OD in mice exposed to gray screens (GREY, gray diamonds) or randomly moving circles (RANDOM, dotted diamonds), but shifted it toward the open eye in mice stimulated with drifting square-wave gratings (STIM, black-and-white diamonds). Control animals of all conditions (circles) were similar over age. B, Temporally coherent visual stimulation during 4 d of MD induced a shift in OD that was significant compared with control animals and with MD animals in the GREY and RANDOM conditions.  
Figure 2. Two days of MD induce a saturated OD shift in adult mice stimulated with moving square gratings. The gray bar indicates mean SEM of control animals.  
Figure 3. The OD shift induced by temporally coherent visual stimulation (black/white bars) is achieved by weakening of deprived-eye input starting after 2 d of MD. This is followed by strengthening of both eyes after 14 d of MD regardless of whether stimulation was continued (STIM) or discontinued (STIM-GREY, black/gray bars) after 4 d.  
Figure 4. Prior stimulation does not mask stimulation-induced plasticity. A, Monocularly deprived mice stimulated both before and after the MD (PRESTIM-STIM) show a significant shift in OD. The gray bar indicates mean SEM of control animals. B, Cortical response amplitudes upon stimulation of both the contralateral (contra) and the ipsilateral (ipsi) eye are similar in GREY, RANDOM, and STIM control animals.  
Temporally Coherent Visual Stimuli Boost Ocular Dominance Plasticity

July 2013

·

78 Reads

·

24 Citations

The Journal of Neuroscience : The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience

Does cortical plasticity depend on the temporal coherence of visual stimuli? We addressed this question by studying ocular dominance (OD) plasticity in mice that were stimulated by moving square wave gratings for 6 h/d during a period of monocular deprivation (MD). It turned out that 4 d of deprivation were sufficient to induce a saturated shift in plasticity in adult (older than postnatal day 100) mice. Seeking to determine the shortest effective period of stimulation, we further showed that even 2 d of deprivation and stimulation shifted OD at any age. This shift was achieved by a decline in deprived-eye input that was saturated within 2 d and did not change during 7 d of MD. However, after 2 weeks of MD, cortical activity induced by both eyes increased again and this increase did not depend on continued stimulation, suggesting a homeostatic mechanism. Starting stimulation 4 d before MD did not mask OD plasticity, showing that the effect is not merely due to the "stimulus-dependent response potentiation" described recently (Frenkel et al., 2006). These results are the first to demonstrate the influence of stimulus quality on cortical plasticity and that cortical responses can be changed within very short periods of time (merely 2 d).

Citations (3)


... In laboratory research, the establishment and assessment of social hierarchies in mice provides an important experimental model for studying the impact of social rank on individual health, behavior, and physiological functions (Costa et al., 2021). Male mice, being inherently territorial, establish dominance hierarchies when forced to live together (Balog et al., 2019). Male mice establish social hierarchies through several behavioral mechanisms. ...

Reference:

Behavioral tests for the assessment of social hierarchy in mice
Social hierarchy regulates ocular dominance plasticity in adult male mice

Brain Structure and Function

... In rodents, the action of 5-HT as a facilitator of plasticity has been mostly investigated in the mature brain. Increased levels of 5-HT in the V1 of adult rats restore LTP and ocular dominance plasticity [83][84][85][86]. These effects can be either achieved through the administration of fluoxetine (an antidepressant that increases serotonergic activity), or through a 5-HTdependent mechanism elicited by environmental enrichment. ...

Social experience modulates ocular dominance plasticity differentially in adult male and female mice
  • Citing Article
  • August 2014

NeuroImage

... Monocular deprivation (MD) during early life causes a progressive loss of neuronal responsiveness in the primary visual cortex (V1) through the deprived eye (e.g., ocular dominance plasticity and orientation selectivity) and has been used in animal models of amblyopia to explore the experiencedependent plasticity 18,19 . Experiments in amblyopic animals have shown that under certain conditions (e.g., with identical contrast, spatial frequency, and temporal features), binocular visual experience can promote ocular dominance plasticity and restore visual functions [20][21][22] . Although the neural mechanisms underlying visual stimulation treatment for amblyopia remain unclear, neural circuit plasticity regulated by the balance of excitation and inhibition (E/I) is a potential explanation. ...

Temporally Coherent Visual Stimuli Boost Ocular Dominance Plasticity

The Journal of Neuroscience : The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience