Mechanosensory neurons control the timing of spinal microcircuit selection during locomotion

Abstract

Despite numerous physiological studies about reflexes in the spinal cord, the contribution of mechanosensory feedback to active locomotion and the nature of underlying spinal circuits remains elusive. Here we investigate how mechanosensory feedback shapes active locomotion in a genetic model organism exhibiting simple locomotion—the zebrafish larva. We show that mechanosensory feedback enhances the recruitment of motor pools during active locomotion. Furthermore, we demonstrate that inputs from mechanosensory neurons increase locomotor speed by prolonging fast swimming at the expense of slow swimming during stereotyped acoustic escape responses. This effect could be mediated by distinct mechanosensory neurons. In the spinal cord, we show that connections compatible with monosynaptic inputs from mechanosensory Rohon-Beard neurons onto ipsilateral V2a interneurons selectively recruited at high speed can contribute to the observed enhancement of speed. Altogether, our study reveals the basic principles and a circuit diagram enabling speed modulation by mechanosensory feedback in the vertebrate spinal cord.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Steven Knafo

    Institut du Cerveau et la Moelle épinière, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, Inserm, CNRS, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Kevin Fidelin

    Institut du Cerveau et la Moelle épinière, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, Inserm, CNRS, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Andrew Prendergast

    Institut du Cerveau et la Moelle épinière, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, Inserm, CNRS, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Po-En Brian Tseng

    Institut du Cerveau et la Moelle épinière, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, Inserm, CNRS, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Alexandre Parrin

    Institut du Cerveau et la Moelle épinière, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, Inserm, CNRS, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Charles William Dickey

    Institut du Cerveau et la Moelle épinière, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, Inserm, CNRS, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Urs Lucas Böhm

    Institut du Cerveau et la Moelle épinière, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, Inserm, CNRS, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Sophie Nunes FIgueiredo

    Institut du Cerveau et la Moelle épinière, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, Inserm, CNRS, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Olivier Thouvenin

    Institut du Cerveau et la Moelle épinière, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, Inserm, CNRS, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4853-7555
  10. Hugues Pascal-Moussellard

    Institut du Cerveau et la Moelle épinière, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, Inserm, CNRS, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Claire Wyart

    Institut du Cerveau et la Moelle épinière, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, Inserm, CNRS, Paris, France
    For correspondence
    claire.wyart@icm-institute.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1668-4975

Funding

European Research Council (311673)

  • Claire Wyart

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ronald L Calabrese, Emory University, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All procedures were approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee at the Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle épinière (ICM), Paris, France, the Ethical Committee Charles Darwin and received subsequent approval from the EEC (2010/63/EU).

Version history

  1. Received: January 19, 2017
  2. Accepted: June 17, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 17, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: June 19, 2017 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: July 6, 2017 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2017, Wyart 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

  • 6,149
    views
  • 664
    downloads
  • 46
    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. Steven Knafo
  2. Kevin Fidelin
  3. Andrew Prendergast
  4. Po-En Brian Tseng
  5. Alexandre Parrin
  6. Charles William Dickey
  7. Urs Lucas Böhm
  8. Sophie Nunes FIgueiredo
  9. Olivier Thouvenin
  10. Hugues Pascal-Moussellard
  11. Claire Wyart
(2017)
Mechanosensory neurons control the timing of spinal microcircuit selection during locomotion
eLife 6:e25260.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25260

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25260

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    John J Stout, Allison E George ... Amy L Griffin
    Research Article

    Functional interactions between the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, as revealed by strong oscillatory synchronization in the theta (6–11 Hz) frequency range, correlate with memory-guided decision-making. However, the degree to which this form of long-range synchronization influences memory-guided choice remains unclear. We developed a brain-machine interface that initiated task trials based on the magnitude of prefrontal-hippocampal theta synchronization, then measured choice outcomes. Trials initiated based on strong prefrontal-hippocampal theta synchrony were more likely to be correct compared to control trials on both working memory-dependent and -independent tasks. Prefrontal-thalamic neural interactions increased with prefrontal-hippocampal synchrony and optogenetic activation of the ventral midline thalamus primarily entrained prefrontal theta rhythms, but dynamically modulated synchrony. Together, our results show that prefrontal-hippocampal theta synchronization leads to a higher probability of a correct choice and strengthens prefrontal-thalamic dialogue. Our findings reveal new insights into the neural circuit dynamics underlying memory-guided choices and highlight a promising technique to potentiate cognitive processes or behavior via brain-machine interfacing.

    1. Neuroscience
    Tianhao Chu, Zilong Ji ... Si Wu
    Research Article

    Hippocampal place cells in freely moving rodents display both theta phase precession and procession, which is thought to play important roles in cognition, but the neural mechanism for producing theta phase shift remains largely unknown. Here, we show that firing rate adaptation within a continuous attractor neural network causes the neural activity bump to oscillate around the external input, resembling theta sweeps of decoded position during locomotion. These forward and backward sweeps naturally account for theta phase precession and procession of individual neurons, respectively. By tuning the adaptation strength, our model explains the difference between ‘bimodal cells’ showing interleaved phase precession and procession, and ‘unimodal cells’ in which phase precession predominates. Our model also explains the constant cycling of theta sweeps along different arms in a T-maze environment, the speed modulation of place cells’ firing frequency, and the continued phase shift after transient silencing of the hippocampus. We hope that this study will aid an understanding of the neural mechanism supporting theta phase coding in the brain.