The cellular basis of motor learning in the cerebellum has been attributed mostly to long-term depression (LTD) at excitatory parallel fiber (PF)-Purkinje cell (PC) synapses. LTD is induced when PFs are activated in conjunction with a climbing fiber (CF), the other excitatory input to PCs. Recently, by using whole-cell patch-clamp recording from PCs in cerebellar slices, a new form of synaptic plasticity was discovered. Stimulation of excitatory CFs induced a long-lasting (usually longer than 30 min) “rebound potentiation (RP)” of γ-amino-butyric acid A (GABAa)-receptor mediated inhibitory postsynaptic, currents (IPSCs). As in LTD, induction of RP requires transient elevation of intracellular calcium concentration ([Ca2+]1) due to activation of voltage-gated Ca2+ channels. Activity of inhibitory synapses seems also to be necessary for RP to occur. RP is mainly due to up-regulation of postsynaptic GABAa receptor function, since PC response to bath-applied exogenous GABA is also potentiated with a time course similar to RP. The difference in the time scale between the Ca2+ transients (10–30 sec) and the durations of RP (>30 min) strongly suggests that some intracellular biochemical machinery is involved. Pharmacological evidence suggests that protein kinases are involved in RP of inhibitory synapses and LTD of excitatory PF synapses. Besides the well-described LTD, RP could be a cellular mechanism that plays an important role in motor learning.

In the cerebellum, lamellar Bergmann glial (BG) appendages wrap tightly around almost every Purkinje cell dendritic spine. The function of this glial ensheathment of spines is not entirely understood. The development of ensheathment begins near the onset of synaptogenesis, when motility of both BG processes and dendritic spines are high. By the end of the synaptogenic period, ensheathment is complete and motility of the BG processes decreases, correlating with the decreased motility of dendritic spines. We therefore have hypothesized that ensheathment is intimately involved in capping synaptogenesis, possibly by stabilizing synapses. To test this hypothesis, we misexpressed GluR2 in an adenoviral vector in BG towards the end of the synaptogenic period, rendering the BG α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptors (AMPARs) Ca2+-impermeable and causing glial sheath retraction. We then measured the resulting spine motility, spine density and synapse number. Although we found that decreasing ensheathment at this time does not alter spine motility, we did find a significant increase in both synaptic pucta and dendritic spine density. These results indicate that consistent spine coverage by BG in the cerebellum is not necessary for stabilization of spine dynamics, but is very important in the regulation of synapse number.