1. Neuroscience
Download icon

Thalamic reticular nucleus induces fast and local modulation of arousal state

  1. Laura D Lewis
  2. Jakob Voigts
  3. Francisco J Flores
  4. Lukas I Schmitt
  5. Matthew A Wilson
  6. Michael M Halassa
  7. Emery N Brown  Is a corresponding author
  1. Harvard University, United States
  2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States
  3. New York University, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 71
  • Views 8,232
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2015;4:e08760 doi: 10.7554/eLife.08760

Abstract

During low arousal states such as drowsiness and sleep, cortical neurons exhibit rhythmic slow wave activity associated with periods of neuronal silence. Slow waves are locally regulated, and local slow wave dynamics are important for memory, cognition, and behaviour. While several brainstem structures for controlling global sleep states have now been well characterized, a mechanism underlying fast and local modulation of cortical slow waves has not been identified. Here, using optogenetics and whole cortex electrophysiology, we show that local tonic activation of thalamic reticular nucleus (TRN) rapidly induces slow wave activity in a spatially restricted region of cortex. These slow waves resemble those seen in sleep, as cortical units undergo periods of silence phase-locked to the slow wave. Furthermore, animals exhibit behavioural changes consistent with a decrease in arousal state during TRN stimulation. We conclude that TRN can induce rapid modulation of local cortical state.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Laura D Lewis

    Society of Fellows, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Jakob Voigts

    Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Francisco J Flores

    Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Lukas I Schmitt

    Neuroscience Institute, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Matthew A Wilson

    Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Michael M Halassa

    Neuroscience Institute, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Emery N Brown

    Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    For correspondence
    enb@neurostat.mit.edu
    Competing interests
    Emery N Brown, Reviewing editor, eLife.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experimental procedures were approved by the MIT Committee on Animal Care (protocol number #0514-038-17).

Reviewing Editor

  1. Michael J Frank, Brown University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: May 15, 2015
  2. Accepted: September 24, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 13, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: December 9, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Lewis 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

  • 8,232
    Page views
  • 2,005
    Downloads
  • 71
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

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)

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

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

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Jack Goffinet et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Increases in the scale and complexity of behavioral data pose an increasing challenge for data analysis. A common strategy involves replacing entire behaviors with small numbers of handpicked, domain-specific features, but this approach suffers from several crucial limitations. For example, handpicked features may miss important dimensions of variability, and correlations among them complicate statistical testing. Here, by contrast, we apply the variational autoencoder (VAE), an unsupervised learning method, to learn features directly from data and quantify the vocal behavior of two model species: the laboratory mouse and the zebra finch. The VAE converges on a parsimonious representation that outperforms handpicked features on a variety of common analysis tasks, enables the measurement of moment-by-moment vocal variability on the timescale of tens of milliseconds in the zebra finch, provides strong evidence that mouse ultrasonic vocalizations do not cluster as is commonly believed, and captures the similarity of tutor and pupil birdsong with qualitatively higher fidelity than previous approaches. In all, we demonstrate the utility of modern unsupervised learning approaches to the quantification of complex and high-dimensional vocal behavior.

    1. Neuroscience
    Iris Bachmutsky et al.
    Short Report Updated

    Opioids are perhaps the most effective analgesics in medicine. However, between 1999 and 2018, over 400,000 people in the United States died from opioid overdose. Excessive opioids make breathing lethally slow and shallow, a side-effect called opioid-induced respiratory depression. This doubled-edged sword has sparked the desire to develop novel therapeutics that provide opioid-like analgesia without depressing breathing. One such approach has been the design of so-called ‘biased agonists’ that signal through some, but not all pathways downstream of the µ-opioid receptor (MOR), the target of morphine and other opioid analgesics. This rationale stems from a study suggesting that MOR-induced ß-arrestin 2 dependent signaling is responsible for opioid respiratory depression, whereas adenylyl cyclase inhibition produces analgesia. To verify this important result that motivated the ‘biased agonist’ approach, we re-examined breathing in ß-arrestin 2-deficient mice and instead find no connection between ß-arrestin 2 and opioid respiratory depression. This result suggests that any attenuated effect of ‘biased agonists’ on breathing is through an as-yet defined mechanism.