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

  • 3,641
    Page views
  • 785
    Downloads
  • 67
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, 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

Share this article

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

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Kristine B Walhovd, Stine K Krogsrud ... Didac Vidal-Pineiro
    Research Article

    Human fetal development has been associated with brain health at later stages. It is unknown whether growth in utero, as indexed by birth weight (BW), relates consistently to lifespan brain characteristics and changes, and to what extent these influences are of a genetic or environmental nature. Here we show remarkably stable and lifelong positive associations between BW and cortical surface area and volume across and within developmental, aging and lifespan longitudinal samples (N = 5794, 4–82 y of age, w/386 monozygotic twins, followed for up to 8.3 y w/12,088 brain MRIs). In contrast, no consistent effect of BW on brain changes was observed. Partly environmental effects were indicated by analysis of twin BW discordance. In conclusion, the influence of prenatal growth on cortical topography is stable and reliable through the lifespan. This early-life factor appears to influence the brain by association of brain reserve, rather than brain maintenance. Thus, fetal influences appear omnipresent in the spacetime of the human brain throughout the human lifespan. Optimizing fetal growth may increase brain reserve for life, also in aging.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Marcos Moreno-Aguilera, Alba M Neher ... Carme Gallego
    Research Article

    Alternative RNA splicing is an essential and dynamic process in neuronal differentiation and synapse maturation, and dysregulation of this process has been associated with neurodegenerative diseases. Recent studies have revealed the importance of RNA-binding proteins in the regulation of neuronal splicing programs. However, the molecular mechanisms involved in the control of these splicing regulators are still unclear. Here we show that KIS, a kinase upregulated in the developmental brain, imposes a genome-wide alteration in exon usage during neuronal differentiation in mice. KIS contains a protein-recognition domain common to spliceosomal components and phosphorylates PTBP2, counteracting the role of this splicing factor in exon exclusion. At the molecular level, phosphorylation of unstructured domains within PTBP2 causes its dissociation from two co-regulators, Matrin3 and hnRNPM, and hinders the RNA-binding capability of the complex. Furthermore, KIS and PTBP2 display strong and opposing functional interactions in synaptic spine emergence and maturation. Taken together, our data uncover a post-translational control of splicing regulators that link transcriptional and alternative exon usage programs in neuronal development.