Cell type specificity of neurovascular coupling in cerebral cortex

  1. Hana Uhlirova
  2. Kıvılcım Kılıç
  3. Peifang Tian
  4. Martin Thunemann
  5. Michele Desjardins
  6. Payam A Saisan
  7. Sava Sakadžić
  8. Torbjørn V Ness
  9. Celine Mateo
  10. Qun Cheng
  11. Kimberly L Weldy
  12. Florence Razoux
  13. Matthieu Vanderberghe
  14. Jonathan A Cremonesi
  15. Christopher GL Ferri
  16. Krystal Nizar
  17. Vishnu B Sridhar
  18. Tyler C Steed
  19. Maxim Abashin
  20. Yeshaiahu Fainman
  21. Eliezer Masliah
  22. Srdjan Djurovic
  23. Ole Andreassen
  24. Gabriel A Silva
  25. David A Boas
  26. David Kleinfeld
  27. Richard B Buxton
  28. Gaute T Einevoll
  29. Anders M Dale
  30. Anna Devor  Is a corresponding author
  1. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Brno University of Technology and Institute of Physical Engineering, Czech Republic
  2. University of California, San Diego, United States
  3. Harvard Medical School, United States
  4. Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway
  5. Oslo University Hospital, Norway
  6. University of Oslo, Norway

Abstract

Identification of the cellular players and molecular messengers that communicate neuronal activity to the vasculature driving cerebral hemodynamics is important for (1) the basic understanding of cerebrovascular regulation and (2) interpretation of functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) signals. Using a combination of optogenetic stimulation and 2-photon imaging in mice, we demonstrate that selective activation of cortical excitation and inhibition elicits distinct vascular responses and identify the vasoconstrictive mechanism as Neuropeptide Y (NPY) acting on Y1 receptors. The latter implies that task-related negative Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent (BOLD) fMRI signals in the cerebral cortex under normal physiological conditions may be mainly driven by the NPY-positive inhibitory neurons. Further, the NPY-Y1 pathway may offer a potential therapeutic target in cerebrovascular disease.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Hana Uhlirova

    CEITEC - Central European Institute of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Brno University of Technology and Institute of Physical Engineering, Brno, Czech Republic
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Kıvılcım Kılıç

    Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Peifang Tian

    Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Martin Thunemann

    Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Michele Desjardins

    Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Payam A Saisan

    Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Sava Sakadžić

    Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Torbjørn V Ness

    Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Celine Mateo

    Department of Physics, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Qun Cheng

    Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Kimberly L Weldy

    Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Florence Razoux

    Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Matthieu Vanderberghe

    Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Jonathan A Cremonesi

    Biology Undergraduate Program, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Christopher GL Ferri

    Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Krystal Nizar

    Neurosciences Graduate Program, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  17. Vishnu B Sridhar

    Department of Bioengineering, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  18. Tyler C Steed

    Neurosciences Graduate Program, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  19. Maxim Abashin

    Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  20. Yeshaiahu Fainman

    Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  21. Eliezer Masliah

    Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  22. Srdjan Djurovic

    Department of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  23. Ole Andreassen

    KG Jebsen Centre for Psychosis Research, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  24. Gabriel A Silva

    Department of Bioengineering, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  25. David A Boas

    Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  26. David Kleinfeld

    Department of Physics, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    David Kleinfeld, Reviewing editor, eLife.
  27. Richard B Buxton

    Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  28. Gaute T Einevoll

    Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  29. Anders M Dale

    Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  30. Anna Devor

    Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    For correspondence
    adevor@ucsd.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Sacha B Nelson, Brandeis University, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols (#S07360, S14275) of the University of California San Diego.

Version history

  1. Received: January 9, 2016
  2. Accepted: May 30, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 31, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: July 5, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Uhlirova 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

  • 5,965
    Page views
  • 1,443
    Downloads
  • 151
    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)

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. Hana Uhlirova
  2. Kıvılcım Kılıç
  3. Peifang Tian
  4. Martin Thunemann
  5. Michele Desjardins
  6. Payam A Saisan
  7. Sava Sakadžić
  8. Torbjørn V Ness
  9. Celine Mateo
  10. Qun Cheng
  11. Kimberly L Weldy
  12. Florence Razoux
  13. Matthieu Vanderberghe
  14. Jonathan A Cremonesi
  15. Christopher GL Ferri
  16. Krystal Nizar
  17. Vishnu B Sridhar
  18. Tyler C Steed
  19. Maxim Abashin
  20. Yeshaiahu Fainman
  21. Eliezer Masliah
  22. Srdjan Djurovic
  23. Ole Andreassen
  24. Gabriel A Silva
  25. David A Boas
  26. David Kleinfeld
  27. Richard B Buxton
  28. Gaute T Einevoll
  29. Anders M Dale
  30. Anna Devor
(2016)
Cell type specificity of neurovascular coupling in cerebral cortex
eLife 5:e14315.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.14315

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.14315

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Kiwamu Kudo, Kamalini G Ranasinghe ... Srikantan S Nagarajan
    Research Article

    Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-β and misfolded tau proteins causing synaptic dysfunction, and progressive neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. Altered neural oscillations have been consistently demonstrated in AD. However, the trajectories of abnormal neural oscillations in AD progression and their relationship to neurodegeneration and cognitive decline are unknown. Here, we deployed robust event-based sequencing models (EBMs) to investigate the trajectories of long-range and local neural synchrony across AD stages, estimated from resting-state magnetoencephalography. The increases in neural synchrony in the delta-theta band and the decreases in the alpha and beta bands showed progressive changes throughout the stages of the EBM. Decreases in alpha and beta band synchrony preceded both neurodegeneration and cognitive decline, indicating that frequency-specific neuronal synchrony abnormalities are early manifestations of AD pathophysiology. The long-range synchrony effects were greater than the local synchrony, indicating a greater sensitivity of connectivity metrics involving multiple regions of the brain. These results demonstrate the evolution of functional neuronal deficits along the sequence of AD progression.

    1. Medicine
    2. Neuroscience
    Luisa Fassi, Shachar Hochman ... Roi Cohen Kadosh
    Research Article

    In recent years, there has been debate about the effectiveness of treatments from different fields, such as neurostimulation, neurofeedback, brain training, and pharmacotherapy. This debate has been fuelled by contradictory and nuanced experimental findings. Notably, the effectiveness of a given treatment is commonly evaluated by comparing the effect of the active treatment versus the placebo on human health and/or behaviour. However, this approach neglects the individual’s subjective experience of the type of treatment she or he received in establishing treatment efficacy. Here, we show that individual differences in subjective treatment - the thought of receiving the active or placebo condition during an experiment - can explain variability in outcomes better than the actual treatment. We analysed four independent datasets (N = 387 participants), including clinical patients and healthy adults from different age groups who were exposed to different neurostimulation treatments (transcranial magnetic stimulation: Studies 1 and 2; transcranial direct current stimulation: Studies 3 and 4). Our findings show that the inclusion of subjective treatment can provide a better model fit either alone or in interaction with objective treatment (defined as the condition to which participants are assigned in the experiment). These results demonstrate the significant contribution of subjective experience in explaining the variability of clinical, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes. We advocate for existing and future studies in clinical and non-clinical research to start accounting for participants’ subjective beliefs and their interplay with objective treatment when assessing the efficacy of treatments. This approach will be crucial in providing a more accurate estimation of the treatment effect and its source, allowing the development of effective and reproducible interventions.