Andreas Schaefer

Prof. Dr. Andreas Schaefer

Sensory Circuits and Neurotechnology Laboratory, Francis Crick Institute, London, UK

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

24Years (2003-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 February 2010 in Neuron
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
NANixon M. Abraham
Nixon M. Abraham
VEVeronica Egger
Veronica Egger
DSDerya R. Shimshek
Derya R. Shimshek
RRRobert Renden
Robert Renden
IFIzumi Fukunaga
Izumi Fukunaga
TKThomas Kuner
Thomas Kuner

1 December 2004 in Neuron
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
NANixon M. Abraham
Nixon M. Abraham
HSHartwig Spors
Hartwig Spors
ACAlan Carleton
Alan Carleton
TMTroy W. Margrie
Troy W. Margrie
TKThomas Kuner
Thomas Kuner
ASAndreas Schaefer
Andreas Schaefer

1 July 2012 in Neuron
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
IFIzumi Fukunaga
Izumi Fukunaga
MBManuel Berning
Manuel Berning
MKMihaly Kollo
Mihaly Kollo
ASAnja Schmaltz
Anja Schmaltz
ASAndreas Schaefer
Andreas Schaefer

1 January 2003 in The Journal of Physiology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TMTroy W. Margrie
Troy W. Margrie
ASAndreas Schaefer
Andreas Schaefer
Theoretical work carried out almost a decade ago proposed that subthreshold oscillations in membrane potential could be used to convert synaptic current strength into a code reliant on action potential (AP) latencies. Using whole‐cell recordings we present experimental evidence for the occurrence of prominent network‐driven subthreshold theta oscillations in mitral cells of the mouse olfactory bulb. Activity induced by both injected current and sensory input was accurately reflected in initial AP latency from the beginning of each oscillation cycle. In a network model we found that an AP latency code rather than AP number or instantaneous firing rate provided computational speed and high resolution, and was easily implemented. This coding strategy was also found to be invariant to the total input current as long as the relative input intensities to glomeruli remained constant. However, it was highly sensitive to changes in the ratios of the input currents and improved by lateral inhibitory mechanisms. Since the AP latency‐based coding scheme was dependent on the subthreshold oscillation we conclude that the theta rhythm serves a functional role in temporally reformatting the strengths and patterns of synaptic input in this sensory system.

1 September 2003 in Neuron
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
TMTroy W Margrie
Troy W Margrie
AMAxel H Meyer
Axel H Meyer
ACAntonio Caputi
Antonio Caputi
HMHannah Monyer
Hannah Monyer
MHMazahir T Hasan
Mazahir T Hasan
MBMichael Brecht
Michael Brecht

1 June 2003 in Journal of Neurophysiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
ASAndreas Schaefer
Andreas Schaefer
MLMatthew E. Larkum
Matthew E. Larkum
BSBert Sakmann
Bert Sakmann
ARArnd Roth
Arnd Roth
Neurons display a variety of complex dendritic morphologies even within the same class. We examined the relationship between dendritic arborization and the coupling between somatic and dendritic action potential (AP) initiation sites in layer 5 (L5) neocortical pyramidal neurons. Coupling was defined as the relative reduction in threshold for initiation of a dendritic calcium AP due to a coincident back-propagating AP. Simulations based on reconstructions of biocytin-filled cells showed that addition of oblique branches of the main apical dendrite in close proximity to the soma ( d < 140 μm) increases the coupling between the apical and axosomatic AP initiation zones, whereas incorporation of distal branches decreases coupling. Experimental studies on L5 pyramids in acute brain slices revealed a highly significant ( n = 28, r = 0.63, P < 0.0005) correlation: increasing the fraction of proximal oblique dendrites ( d < 140 μm), e.g., from 30 to 60% resulted on average in an increase of the coupling from approximately 35% to almost 60%. We conclude that variation in dendritic arborization may be a key determinant of variability in coupling (49 ± 17%; range 19–83%; n = 37) and is likely to outweigh the contribution made by variations in active membrane properties. Thus coincidence detection of inputs arriving from different cortical layers is strongly regulated by differences in dendritic arborization.