A visual circuit uses complementary mechanisms to support transient and sustained pupil constriction

  1. William Thomas Keenan
  2. Alan C Rupp
  3. Rachel A Ross
  4. Preethi Somasundaram
  5. Suja Hiriyanna
  6. Zhijian Wu
  7. Tudor C Badea
  8. Phyllis R Robinson
  9. Bradford B Lowell
  10. Samer S Hattar  Is a corresponding author
  1. Johns Hopkins University, United States
  2. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, United States
  3. University of Marlyand, United States
  4. National Institutes of Health, United States
  5. Harvard Medical School, United States

Abstract

Rapid and stable control of pupil size in response to light is critical for vision, but the neural coding mechanisms remain unclear. Here, we investigated the neural basis of pupil control by monitoring pupil size across time while manipulating each photoreceptor input or neurotransmitter output of intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGCs), a critical relay in the control of pupil size. We show that transient and sustained pupil responses are mediated by distinct photoreceptors and neurotransmitters. Transient responses utilize input from rod photoreceptors and output by the classical neurotransmitter glutamate , but adapt within minutes. In contrast, sustained responses are dominated by non-conventional signaling mechanisms: melanopsin phototransduction in ipRGCs and output by the neuropeptide PACAP, which provide stable pupil maintenance across the day. These results highlight a temporal switch in the coding mechanisms of a neural circuit to support proper behavioral dynamics.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. William Thomas Keenan

    Department of Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3381-744X
  2. Alan C Rupp

    Department of Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Rachel A Ross

    Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Preethi Somasundaram

    Department of Biological Sciences, University of Marlyand, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Suja Hiriyanna

    National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Zhijian Wu

    National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Tudor C Badea

    National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Phyllis R Robinson

    Department of Biological Sciences, University of Marlyand, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Bradford B Lowell

    Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Samer S Hattar

    Department of Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    For correspondence
    shattar@jhu.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3124-9525

Funding

National Eye Institute (R21)

  • William Thomas Keenan
  • Alan C Rupp
  • Samer S Hattar

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (RO1)

  • William Thomas Keenan
  • Alan C Rupp
  • Samer S Hattar

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Constance L Cepko, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, 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 mice were housed according to guidelines from the Animal Care and Use Committee of Johns Hopkins University (Protocol # MO16A212), and used protocols approved by the JHU animal care and use committee.

Version history

  1. Received: February 19, 2016
  2. Accepted: September 22, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 26, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: October 7, 2016 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: October 25, 2016 (version 3)

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 3,703
    views
  • 793
    downloads
  • 79
    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. William Thomas Keenan
  2. Alan C Rupp
  3. Rachel A Ross
  4. Preethi Somasundaram
  5. Suja Hiriyanna
  6. Zhijian Wu
  7. Tudor C Badea
  8. Phyllis R Robinson
  9. Bradford B Lowell
  10. Samer S Hattar
(2016)
A visual circuit uses complementary mechanisms to support transient and sustained pupil constriction
eLife 5:e15392.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15392

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15392

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Noah J Steinberg, Zvi N Roth ... Elisha Merriam
    Research Article

    In the ‘double-drift’ illusion, local motion within a window moving in the periphery of the visual field alters the window’s perceived path. The illusion is strong even when the eyes track a target whose motion matches the window so that the stimulus remains stable on the retina. This implies that the illusion involves the integration of retinal signals with non-retinal eye-movement signals. To identify where in the brain this integration occurs, we measured BOLD fMRI responses in visual cortex while subjects experienced the double-drift illusion. We then used a combination of univariate and multivariate decoding analyses to identify (1) which brain areas were sensitive to the illusion and (2) whether these brain areas contained information about the illusory stimulus trajectory. We identified a number of cortical areas that responded more strongly during the illusion than a control condition that was matched for low-level stimulus properties. Only in area hMT+ was it possible to decode the illusory trajectory. We additionally performed a number of important controls that rule out possible low-level confounds. Concurrent eye tracking confirmed that subjects accurately tracked the moving target; we were unable to decode the illusion trajectory using eye position measurements recorded during fMRI scanning, ruling out explanations based on differences in oculomotor behavior. Our results provide evidence for a perceptual representation in human visual cortex that incorporates extraretinal information.

    1. Neuroscience
    Evan D Vickers, David A McCormick
    Tools and Resources

    The flow of neural activity across the neocortex during active sensory discrimination is constrained by task-specific cognitive demands, movements, and internal states. During behavior, the brain appears to sample from a broad repertoire of activation motifs. Understanding how these patterns of local and global activity are selected in relation to both spontaneous and task-dependent behavior requires in-depth study of densely sampled activity at single neuron resolution across large regions of cortex. In a significant advance toward this goal, we developed procedures to record mesoscale 2-photon Ca2+ imaging data from two novel in vivo preparations that, between them, allow for simultaneous access to nearly all 0f the mouse dorsal and lateral neocortex. As a proof of principle, we aligned neural activity with both behavioral primitives and high-level motifs to reveal the existence of large populations of neurons that coordinated their activity across cortical areas with spontaneous changes in movement and/or arousal. The methods we detail here facilitate the identification and exploration of widespread, spatially heterogeneous neural ensembles whose activity is related to diverse aspects of behavior.