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.

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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Constance L Cepko, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, United States

Publication 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

  • 3,380
    Page views
  • 757
    Downloads
  • 59
    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. 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

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Simon Desch, Petra Schweinhardt ... Susanne Becker
    Research Article

    Relief of ongoing pain is a potent motivator of behavior, directing actions to escape from or reduce potentially harmful stimuli. Whereas endogenous modulation of pain events is well characterized, relatively little is known about the modulation of pain relief and its corresponding neurochemical basis. Here we studied pain modulation during a probabilistic relief-seeking task (a 'wheel of fortune' gambling task), in which people actively or passively received reduction of a tonic thermal pain stimulus. We found that relief perception was enhanced by active decisions and unpredictability, and greater in high novelty-seeking trait individuals, consistent with a model in which relief is tuned by its informational content. We then probed the roles of dopaminergic and opioidergic signaling, both of which are implicated in relief processing, by embedding the task in a double-blinded cross-over design with administration of the dopamine precursor levodopa and the opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone. We found that levodopa enhanced each of these information-specific aspects of relief modulation but no significant effects of the opioidergic manipulation. These results show that dopaminergic signaling has a key role in modulating the perception of pain relief to optimize motivation and behavior.

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Neuroscience
    Colleen M Palmateer, Catherina Artikis ... Michelle N Arbeitman
    Research Article

    Drosophila melanogaster reproductive behaviors are orchestrated by fruitless neurons. We performed single-cell RNA-sequencing on pupal neurons that produce sex-specifically spliced fru transcripts, the fru P1-expressing neurons. Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) with clustering generates an atlas containing 113 clusters. While the male and female neurons overlap in UMAP space, more than half the clusters have sex differences in neuron number, and nearly all clusters display sex-differential expression. Based on an examination of enriched marker genes, we annotate clusters as circadian clock neurons, mushroom body Kenyon cell neurons, neurotransmitter- and/or neuropeptide-producing, and those that express doublesex. Marker gene analyses also show that genes that encode members of the immunoglobulin superfamily of cell adhesion molecules, transcription factors, neuropeptides, neuropeptide receptors, and Wnts have unique patterns of enriched expression across the clusters. In vivo spatial gene expression links to the clusters are examined. A functional analysis of fru P1 circadian neurons shows they have dimorphic roles in activity and period length. Given that most clusters are comprised of male and female neurons indicates that the sexes have fru P1 neurons with common gene expression programs. Sex-specific expression is overlaid on this program, to build the potential for vastly different sex-specific behaviors.