Abstract

Reliably detecting unexpected sounds is important for environmental awareness and survival. By selectively reducing responses to frequently, but not rarely, occurring sounds, auditory cortical neurons are thought to enhance the brain's ability to detect unexpected events through stimulus-specific adaptation (SSA). The majority of neurons in the primary auditory cortex exhibit SSA, yet little is known about the underlying cortical circuits. We found that two types of cortical interneurons differentially amplify SSA in putative excitatory neurons. Parvalbumin-positive interneurons (PVs) amplify SSA by providing non-specific inhibition: optogenetic suppression of PVs led to an equal increase in responses to frequent and rare tones. In contrast, somatostatin-positive interneurons (SOMs) selectively reduce excitatory responses to frequent tones: suppression of SOMs led to an increase in responses to frequent, but not to rare tones. A mutually coupled excitatory-inhibitory network model accounts for distinct mechanisms by which cortical inhibitory neurons enhance the brain's sensitivity to unexpected sounds.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ryan Gregory Natan

    Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Neuroscience Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. John J Briguglio

    Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Neuroscience Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Laetitia Mwilambwe-Tshilobo

    Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Neuroscience Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Sara Jones

    Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Neuroscience Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Mark Aizenberg

    Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Neuroscience Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ethan M Goldberg

    Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Maria Neimark Geffen

    Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Neuroscience Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    For correspondence
    mgeffen@med.upenn.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Andrew J King, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experimental procedures are in accordance with NIH guidelines and approved by the IACUC at University of Pennsylvania (protocol number 803266).

Version history

  1. Received: July 5, 2015
  2. Accepted: October 1, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 13, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: October 16, 2015 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: November 11, 2015 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2015, Natan 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

  • 4,600
    views
  • 1,163
    downloads
  • 159
    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. Ryan Gregory Natan
  2. John J Briguglio
  3. Laetitia Mwilambwe-Tshilobo
  4. Sara Jones
  5. Mark Aizenberg
  6. Ethan M Goldberg
  7. Maria Neimark Geffen
(2015)
Complementary control of sensory adaptation by two types of cortical interneurons
eLife 4:e09868.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09868

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09868

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Ya-Hui Lin, Li-Wen Wang ... Li-An Chu
    Research Article

    Tissue-clearing and labeling techniques have revolutionized brain-wide imaging and analysis, yet their application to clinical formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) blocks remains challenging. We introduce HIF-Clear, a novel method for efficiently clearing and labeling centimeter-thick FFPE specimens using elevated temperature and concentrated detergents. HIF-Clear with multi-round immunolabeling reveals neuron circuitry regulating multiple neurotransmitter systems in a whole FFPE mouse brain and is able to be used as the evaluation of disease treatment efficiency. HIF-Clear also supports expansion microscopy and can be performed on a non-sectioned 15-year-old FFPE specimen, as well as a 3-month formalin-fixed mouse brain. Thus, HIF-Clear represents a feasible approach for researching archived FFPE specimens for future neuroscientific and 3D neuropathological analyses.

    1. Neuroscience
    Amanda Chu, Nicholas T Gordon ... Michael A McDannald
    Research Article

    Pavlovian fear conditioning has been extensively used to study the behavioral and neural basis of defensive systems. In a typical procedure, a cue is paired with foot shock, and subsequent cue presentation elicits freezing, a behavior theoretically linked to predator detection. Studies have since shown a fear conditioned cue can elicit locomotion, a behavior that - in addition to jumping, and rearing - is theoretically linked to imminent or occurring predation. A criticism of studies observing fear conditioned cue-elicited locomotion is that responding is non-associative. We gave rats Pavlovian fear discrimination over a baseline of reward seeking. TTL-triggered cameras captured 5 behavior frames/s around cue presentation. Experiment 1 examined the emergence of danger-specific behaviors over fear acquisition. Experiment 2 examined the expression of danger-specific behaviors in fear extinction. In total, we scored 112,000 frames for nine discrete behavior categories. Temporal ethograms show that during acquisition, a fear conditioned cue suppresses reward seeking and elicits freezing, but also elicits locomotion, jumping, and rearing - all of which are maximal when foot shock is imminent. During extinction, a fear conditioned cue most prominently suppresses reward seeking, and elicits locomotion that is timed to shock delivery. The independent expression of these behaviors in both experiments reveal a fear conditioned cue to orchestrate a temporally organized suite of behaviors.