Activity-dependent switch of GABAergic inhibition into glutamatergic excitation in astrocyte-neuron networks

  1. Gertrudis Perea  Is a corresponding author
  2. Ricardo Gómez
  3. Sara Mederos
  4. Ana Covelo
  5. Jesús J Ballesteros
  6. Laura Schlosser
  7. Alicia Hernández-Vivanco
  8. Mario Martín-Fernández
  9. Ruth Quintana
  10. Abdelrahman Rayan
  11. Adolfo Díez
  12. Marco Fuenzalida
  13. Amit Agarwal
  14. Dwight E Bergles
  15. Bernhard Bettler
  16. Denise Manahan-Vaughan
  17. Eduardo D Martín
  18. Frank Kirchhoff
  19. Alfonso Araque  Is a corresponding author
  1. Instituto Cajal, Spain
  2. University of Minnesota, United States
  3. University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain
  4. University of Saarland, Germany
  5. Ruhr University Bochum, Germany
  6. Universidad de Valparaíso, Chile
  7. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, United States
  8. University of Basel, Switzerland

Abstract

Interneurons are critical for proper neural network function and can activate Ca2+ signaling in astrocytes. However, the impact of the interneuron-astrocyte signaling into neuronal network operation remains unknown. Using the simplest hippocampal Astrocyte-Neuron network, i.e., GABAergic interneuron, pyramidal neuron, single CA3-CA1 glutamatergic synapse, and astrocytes, we found that interneuron-astrocyte signaling dynamically affected excitatory neurotransmission in an activity- and time-dependent manner, and determined the sign (inhibition vs potentiation) of the GABA-mediated effects. While synaptic inhibition was mediated by GABAA receptors, potentiation involved astrocyte GABAB receptors, astrocytic glutamate release, and presynaptic metabotropic glutamate receptors. Using conditional astrocyte-specific GABAB receptor (Gabbr1) knockout mice, we confirmed the glial source of the interneuron-induced potentiation, and demonstrated the involvement of astrocytes in hippocampal theta and gamma oscillations in vivo. Therefore, astrocytes decode interneuron activity and transform inhibitory into excitatory signals, contributing to the emergence of novel network properties resulting from the interneuron-astrocyte interplay.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Gertrudis Perea

    Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Cajal, Madrid, Spain
    For correspondence
    gperea@cajal.csic.es
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5924-9175
  2. Ricardo Gómez

    Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Cajal, Madrid, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Sara Mederos

    Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Cajal, Madrid, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Ana Covelo

    Department of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jesús J Ballesteros

    Albacete Science and Technology Park, Institute for Research in Neurological Disabilities, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Albacete, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Laura Schlosser

    Molecular Physiology, Center for Integrative Physiology and Molecular Medicine, University of Saarland, Homburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Alicia Hernández-Vivanco

    Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Cajal, Madrid, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Mario Martín-Fernández

    Department of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ruth Quintana

    Department of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Abdelrahman Rayan

    Department of Neurophysiology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Adolfo Díez

    Department of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Marco Fuenzalida

    Center of Neurobiology and Brain Plasticity, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaiso, Chile
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Amit Agarwal

    Department of Neuroscience, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7948-4498
  14. Dwight E Bergles

    Department of Neuroscience, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Bernhard Bettler

    Department of Biomedicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Denise Manahan-Vaughan

    Department of Neurophysiology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Eduardo D Martín

    Albacete Science and Technology Park, Institute for Research in Neurological Disabilities, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Albacete, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Frank Kirchhoff

    Molecular Physiology, Center for Integrative Physiology and Molecular Medicine, University of Saarland, Homburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Alfonso Araque

    Department of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    For correspondence
    araque@umn.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad

  • Gertrudis Perea
  • Ricardo Gómez

European Commission

  • Frank Kirchhoff
  • Alfonso Araque

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

  • Denise Manahan-Vaughan
  • Frank Kirchhoff

Human Frontier Science Program

  • Alfonso Araque

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NIH-NINDS (R01NS097312-01))

  • Alfonso Araque

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Marlene Bartos, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All the procedures for handling and sacrificing animals followed the European Commission guidelines for the welfare of experimental animals (2010/63/EU), US National Institutes of Health and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the University of Minnesota (USA). The use of astrocyte-specific GABBR1 knockout mice was approved by the Saarland state´s "Landesamt fÃ1/4r Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz" in SaarbrÃ1/4cken/Germany (animal license number 72/2010).

Version history

  1. Received: August 5, 2016
  2. Accepted: December 23, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 24, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: January 12, 2017 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Perea 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

  • 7,101
    views
  • 1,778
    downloads
  • 127
    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. Gertrudis Perea
  2. Ricardo Gómez
  3. Sara Mederos
  4. Ana Covelo
  5. Jesús J Ballesteros
  6. Laura Schlosser
  7. Alicia Hernández-Vivanco
  8. Mario Martín-Fernández
  9. Ruth Quintana
  10. Abdelrahman Rayan
  11. Adolfo Díez
  12. Marco Fuenzalida
  13. Amit Agarwal
  14. Dwight E Bergles
  15. Bernhard Bettler
  16. Denise Manahan-Vaughan
  17. Eduardo D Martín
  18. Frank Kirchhoff
  19. Alfonso Araque
(2016)
Activity-dependent switch of GABAergic inhibition into glutamatergic excitation in astrocyte-neuron networks
eLife 5:e20362.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20362

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20362

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Ivan Tomić, Paul M Bays
    Research Article

    Probing memory of a complex visual image within a few hundred milliseconds after its disappearance reveals significantly greater fidelity of recall than if the probe is delayed by as little as a second. Classically interpreted, the former taps into a detailed but rapidly decaying visual sensory or ‘iconic’ memory (IM), while the latter relies on capacity-limited but comparatively stable visual working memory (VWM). While iconic decay and VWM capacity have been extensively studied independently, currently no single framework quantitatively accounts for the dynamics of memory fidelity over these time scales. Here, we extend a stationary neural population model of VWM with a temporal dimension, incorporating rapid sensory-driven accumulation of activity encoding each visual feature in memory, and a slower accumulation of internal error that causes memorized features to randomly drift over time. Instead of facilitating read-out from an independent sensory store, an early cue benefits recall by lifting the effective limit on VWM signal strength imposed when multiple items compete for representation, allowing memory for the cued item to be supplemented with information from the decaying sensory trace. Empirical measurements of human recall dynamics validate these predictions while excluding alternative model architectures. A key conclusion is that differences in capacity classically thought to distinguish IM and VWM are in fact contingent upon a single resource-limited WM store.

    1. Neuroscience
    Emilio Salinas, Bashirul I Sheikh
    Insight

    Our ability to recall details from a remembered image depends on a single mechanism that is engaged from the very moment the image disappears from view.