How does a neuron, challenged by an increase in synaptic input, display a response that is independent of the initial level of activity? Here we show that both oxytocin and vasopressin cells in the supraoptic nucleus of normal rats respond to intravenous infusions of hypertonic saline with gradual, linear increases in discharge rate. In hyponatremic rats, oxytocin and vasopressin cells also responded linearly to intravenous infusions of hypertonic saline but with much lower slopes. The linearity of response was surprising, given both the expected nonlinearity of neuronal behavior and the nonlinearity of the oxytocin secretory response to such infusions. We show that a simple computational model can reproduce these responses well, but only if it is assumed that hypertonic infusions coactivate excitatory and inhibitory synaptic inputs. This hypothesis was tested first by applying the GABA_A antagonist bicuculline to the dendritic zone of the supraoptic nucleus by microdialysis. During local blockade of GABA inputs, the response of oxytocin cells to hypertonic infusion was greatly enhanced. We then went on to directly measure GABA release in the supraoptic nucleus during hypertonic infusion, confirming the predicted rise. Together, the results suggest that hypertonic infusions lead to coactivation of excitatory and inhibitory inputs and that this coactivation may confer appropriate characteristics on the output behavior of oxytocin cells. The nonlinearity of oxytocin secretion that accompanies the linear increase in oxytocin cell firing rate reflects frequency-facilitation of stimulus-secretion coupling at the neurohypophysis.

In vivo, most vasopressin cells of the hypothalamic supraoptic nucleus fire action potentials in a ‘phasic’ pattern when the systemic osmotic pressure is elevated, while most oxytocin cells fire continuously. The phasic firing pattern is believed to arise as a consequence of intrinsic activity‐dependent changes in membrane potential, and these have been extensively studied in vitro. Here we analysed the discharge patterning of supraoptic nucleus neurones in vivo, to infer the characteristics of the post‐spike sequence of hyperpolarization and depolarization from the observed spike patterning. We then compared patterning in phasic cells in vivo and in vitro, and we found systematic differences in the interspike interval distributions, and in other statistical parameters that characterized activity patterns within bursts. Analysis of hazard functions (probability of spike initiation as a function of time since the preceding spike) revealed that phasic firing in vitro appears consistent with a regenerative process arising from a relatively slow, late depolarizing afterpotential that approaches or exceeds spike threshold. By contrast, in vivo activity appears to be dominated by stochastic rather than deterministic mechanisms, and appears consistent with a relatively early and fast depolarizing afterpotential that modulates the probability that random synaptic input exceeds spike threshold. Despite superficial similarities in the phasic firing patterns observed in vivo and in vitro, there are thus fundamental differences in the underlying mechanisms.