Locomotion: The rhythm is going to get you
Walking, running and other rhythmic movements require muscles in the legs, arms and back to contract at the right time and in the correct sequence. The muscles involved are activated by motor neurons, which in turn are controlled by neurons within the spinal cord. These spinal neurons are organized into distinct populations, and understanding how these neurons function has been a central question in the field of motor control for many years. Interestingly, the organization and genetic make-up of these neurons are conserved across vertebrates (Goulding, 2009; Sengupta and Bagnall, 2023), making it possible to apply knowledge across species.
Rhythmic movements can be defined in terms of two basic features: speed (fast rhythms or slow rhythms), and pattern (that is, the type and sequence of muscles activated). For example, running involves fast rhythms and a certain pattern of powerful muscle activation, while walking involves slow rhythms and a different pattern of mild muscle activation. It has been shown that motor neurons, and the muscle fibers they contact, are divided into distinct subgroups that have unique cellular properties that complement either slow and mild or fast and powerful movements (Figure 1 left; Purves et al., 2001; McLean and Dougherty, 2015). However, it is unclear if spinal neurons also form such subgroups. Moreover, the mechanisms by which spinal neurons create and maintain slow and fast rhythms and different patterns are not fully understood.
In 2019, two researchers at Northwestern University – Evdokia Menelaou and David McLean – discovered that spinal neurons called V2a neurons formed two distinct subpopulations: bifurcating V2a neurons (which have branched axons) influenced the pattern of muscle activation, while descending V2a neurons (which have a single axon) regulated the speed of the rhythm (Menelaou and McLean, 2019). Now, in eLife, Moneeza Agha, Sandeep Kishore and McLean report the results of experiments on zebrafish larvae that provide new insights into how V2a neurons implement slow or fast movements (Agha et al., 2024).
Previous studies in invertebrates have shown that the intrinsic activity of a neuron can be crucial for creating specific rhythms or patterns of movement (Marder and Bucher, 2001). Agha et al. studied zebrafish, a widely used vertebrate model organism, and employed genetic techniques to target V2a neurons specifically. Moreover, zebrafish larvae do not have a skull or any vertebrae, which makes it possible to record electrical signals directly from V2a neurons – a task that is extremely difficult to do in mice.
They found that descending V2a neurons come in two types: the first type displays continuous activity and is capable of generating fast rhythms; the second type displays bursts of activity, and maintains a slow but steady rhythm. Bifurcating V2a neurons also come in two types. Again, the first type generates fast rhythms, and the second generates bursts of slow rhythms.
Agha et al. then recorded the electrical activity of the V2a neurons as the zebrafish swam at different speeds, finding a remarkable relationship between the speed of movement and the activity of the different types of V2a neurons. For both descending and bifurcating V2a neurons, only the first type (the fast type) were active during the fast swims, while only the second type (the slow type) were active during the slow swims (Figure 1 right).
Next, Agha et al. explored how other neurons connected to the V2a neurons could affect their activity and ability to support different swim speeds by activating (exciting) or suppressing (inhibiting) the V2a neurons. For descending V2a neurons, the researchers found that both fast and slow types were contacted by excitatory and inhibitory partners. Unexpectedly, however, neurons of the first type (the fast type) were primarily inhibited by neurons that were located on the other side of the body (crossed inhibition), which helps them to maintain a fast rhythm, whereas neurons of the second type (slow) were inhibited by neurons on the same side of the body, which is preferable for maintaining a steady, slow rhythm (Figure 1 right).
In bifurcating V2a neurons, the opposite occurs: the fast type are inhibited by neurons on the same side of the body, while the slow type are inhibited by neurons on the opposite side. Moreover, there was more variability in the timing of the inhibitory/excitatory signals sent to the bifurcating V2a neurons, which is consistent with them being mostly involved in influencing the pattern of muscle activation, rather than controlling the speed of the rhythm (Figure 1 right).
Finally, Agha et al. studied zebrafish that had been genetically modified to remove an important source of crossed inhibition. As expected, this modification primarily impacted fast swims, proving that fast and slow movements do indeed require distinct types of V2a neurons (i.e., fast types and slow types) and their specific connecting partners.
These findings advance our knowledge in two key ways. First, they show that speed-specific groups of cells extend from the periphery (muscles) all the way into the central nervous system (spinal V2a neurons). Second, they provide a mechanistic understanding of how neurons combine their intrinsic activity and connections to execute different needs. So, you can walk or run, but you cannot hide, the spinal rhythms will get you.
References
-
Circuits controlling vertebrate locomotion: moving in a new directionNature Reviews Neuroscience 10:507–518.https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2608
-
Central pattern generators and the control of rhythmic movementsCurrent Biology 11:R986–R996.https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9822(01)00581-4
-
Peeling back the layers of locomotor control in the spinal cordCurrent Opinion in Neurobiology 33:63–70.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2015.03.001
-
Spinal interneurons: Diversity and connectivity in motor controlAnnual Review of Neuroscience 46:79–99.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-083122-025325
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
Copyright
© 2024, Sengupta
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 398
- views
-
- 35
- downloads
-
- 0
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
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)
Further reading
-
- Neuroscience
When retrieved, seemingly stable memories can become sensitive to significant events, such as acute stress. The mechanisms underlying these memory dynamics remain poorly understood. Here, we show that noradrenergic stimulation after memory retrieval impairs subsequent remembering, depending on hippocampal and cortical signals emerging during retrieval. In a three-day study, we measured brain activity using fMRI during initial encoding, 24 hr-delayed memory cueing followed by pharmacological elevations of glucocorticoid or noradrenergic activity, and final recall. While post-retrieval glucocorticoids did not affect subsequent memory, the impairing effect of noradrenergic arousal on final recall depended on hippocampal reactivation and category-level reinstatement in the ventral temporal cortex during memory cueing. These effects did not require a reactivation of the original memory trace and did not interact with offline reinstatement during rest. Our findings demonstrate that, depending on the retrieval-related neural reactivation of memories, noradrenergic arousal after retrieval can alter the future accessibility of consolidated memories.
-
- Neuroscience
Insulin plays a key role in metabolic homeostasis. Drosophila insulin-producing cells (IPCs) are functional analogues of mammalian pancreatic beta cells and release insulin directly into circulation. To investigate the in vivo dynamics of IPC activity, we quantified the effects of nutritional and internal state changes on IPCs using electrophysiological recordings. We found that the nutritional state strongly modulates IPC activity. IPC activity decreased with increasing periods of starvation. Refeeding flies with glucose or fructose, two nutritive sugars, significantly increased IPC activity, whereas non-nutritive sugars had no effect. In contrast to feeding, glucose perfusion did not affect IPC activity. This was reminiscent of the mammalian incretin effect, where glucose ingestion drives higher insulin release than intravenous application. Contrary to IPCs, Diuretic hormone 44-expressing neurons in the pars intercerebralis (DH44PINs) responded to glucose perfusion. Functional connectivity experiments demonstrated that these DH44PINs do not affect IPC activity, while other DH44Ns inhibit them. Hence, populations of autonomously and systemically sugar-sensing neurons work in parallel to maintain metabolic homeostasis. Accordingly, activating IPCs had a small, satiety-like effect on food-searching behavior and reduced starvation-induced hyperactivity, whereas activating DH44Ns strongly increased hyperactivity. Taken together, we demonstrate that IPCs and DH44Ns are an integral part of a modulatory network that orchestrates glucose homeostasis and adaptive behavior in response to shifts in the metabolic state.