Transcriptional profiling at whole population and single cell levels reveals somatosensory neuron molecular diversity

Abstract

The somatosensory nervous system is critical for the organism's ability to respond to mechanical, thermal, and nociceptive stimuli. Somatosensory neurons are functionally and anatomically diverse but their molecular profiles are not well-defined. Here, we used transcriptional profiling to analyze the detailed molecular signatures of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) sensory neurons. We used two mouse reporter lines and surface IB4 labeling to purify three major non-overlapping classes of neurons: 1)IB4+SNS-Cre/TdTomato+, 2)IB4-SNS-Cre/TdTomato+, and 3)Parv-Cre/TdTomato+ cells, encompassing the majority of nociceptive, pruriceptive, and proprioceptive neurons. These neurons displayed distinct expression patterns of ion channels, transcription factors, and GPCRs. Highly parallel qRT-PCR analysis of 334 single neurons selected by membership of the three populations demonstrated further diversity, with unbiased clustering analysis identifying six distinct subgroups. These data significantly increase our knowledge of the molecular identities of known DRG populations and uncover potentially novel subsets, revealing the complexity and diversity of those neurons underlying somatosensation.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Isaac M Chiu

    F.M Kirby Neurobiology Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    isaac_chiu@hms.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Lee B Barrett

    F.M. Kirby Neurobiology Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Erika K Williams

    Department of Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. David E Strochlic

    Department of Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Seungkyu Lee

    F.M. Kirby Neurobiology Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Andy D Weyer

    Department of Cell Biology, Neurobiology, and Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Shan Lou

    Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Gregory Bryman

    F.M. Kirby Neurobiology Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. David P Roberson

    F.M. Kirby Neurobiology Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Nader Ghasemlou

    F.M. Kirby Neurobiology Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Cara Piccoli

    F.M. Kirby Neurobiology Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Ezgi Ahat

    F.M. Kirby Neurobiology Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Victor Wang

    F.M. Kirby Neurobiology Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Enrique J Cobos

    F.M. Kirby Neurobiology Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Cheryl L Stucky

    Department of Cell Biology, Neurobiology, and Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Qiufu Ma

    Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Stephen D Liberles

    Department of Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Clifford Woolf

    F.M. Kirby Neurobiology Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal experiments were conducted according to institutional animal care and safety guidelines at Boston Children's Hospital, in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All animal work was conducted under strict review and guidelines according to the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) at Boston Children's Hospital, which meets the veterinary standards set by the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS). The experiments were reviewed and approved by the IACUC at Boston Children's Hospital under animal protocol number 13-01-2342R.

Copyright

© 2014, Chiu et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 9,953
    views
  • 2,012
    downloads
  • 201
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Isaac M Chiu
  2. Lee B Barrett
  3. Erika K Williams
  4. David E Strochlic
  5. Seungkyu Lee
  6. Andy D Weyer
  7. Shan Lou
  8. Gregory Bryman
  9. David P Roberson
  10. Nader Ghasemlou
  11. Cara Piccoli
  12. Ezgi Ahat
  13. Victor Wang
  14. Enrique J Cobos
  15. Cheryl L Stucky
  16. Qiufu Ma
  17. Stephen D Liberles
  18. Clifford Woolf
(2014)
Transcriptional profiling at whole population and single cell levels reveals somatosensory neuron molecular diversity
eLife 3:e04660.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04660

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04660

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Zhujun Shao, Mengya Zhang, Qing Yu
    Research Article

    When holding visual information temporarily in working memory (WM), the neural representation of the memorandum is distributed across various cortical regions, including visual and frontal cortices. However, the role of stimulus representation in visual and frontal cortices during WM has been controversial. Here, we tested the hypothesis that stimulus representation persists in the frontal cortex to facilitate flexible control demands in WM. During functional MRI, participants flexibly switched between simple WM maintenance of visual stimulus or more complex rule-based categorization of maintained stimulus on a trial-by-trial basis. Our results demonstrated enhanced stimulus representation in the frontal cortex that tracked demands for active WM control and enhanced stimulus representation in the visual cortex that tracked demands for precise WM maintenance. This differential frontal stimulus representation traded off with the newly-generated category representation with varying control demands. Simulation using multi-module recurrent neural networks replicated human neural patterns when stimulus information was preserved for network readout. Altogether, these findings help reconcile the long-standing debate in WM research, and provide empirical and computational evidence that flexible stimulus representation in the frontal cortex during WM serves as a potential neural coding scheme to accommodate the ever-changing environment.