When a cell needs to make a protein, it makes a temporary copy of the corresponding gene so that the genetic code can be carried to its protein-making machinery. When the temporary copy of the code is no longer needed, the cell destroys it. This system is fine-tuned by other small stretches of genetic code called microRNAs, which speed up the destruction and so help to switch genes off faster.

Two genes called FOXP1 and FOXP2 are known to have roles in speech and language development in humans. When these genes do not work properly, people have severe difficulties when speaking and understanding speech. But scientists know little about how the brain controls them. The brains of animals with backbones – like birds and mammals – make a microRNA called miR-9. Scientists thought miR-9 may control how active the FOXP1 and FOXP2 genes are in the brain.

Like humans, zebra finches communicate vocally. Young male birds learn to sing by imitating the song of an adult tutor, usually their father. The process is controlled by a brain region called “Area X”. Now, Shi et al. report on the role of miR-9 in vocal learning and singing in zebra finches.

First, the gene for miR-9 was inserted into a virus-based genetic tool. Shi et al. then injected this virus into Area X of juvenile zebra finches, which delivered the gene to the brain cells and forced them to make excess miR-9. A control group received empty virus with no miR-9 gene for comparison. The juvenile finches then grew up with an adult bird that taught them to sing.

Shi et al. found that the birds that overproduced miR-9 did not learn as well as their normal counterparts. Their songs were shorter, they stuttered, and they missed out syllables, which meant that they simply sounded different to their tutors. These young birds also failed to change their tune in different situations, for example, when they met a female zebra finch. Examination of the birds’ brains four weeks after the viral injection showed that the bird versions of the FOXP1 and FOXP2 genes were less active. There were also changes in other genes involved in brain circuit development.

Humans have a brain area like Area X, called the basal ganglia. The link between miR-9 and vocal learning provides a starting point to understand more about language in general. This could lead to improved understanding of conditions like stuttering, Tourette’s syndrome, dyslexia and autism spectrum disorders.

Like humans developing speech and language, juvenile songbirds learn to sing by imitating the songs of an adult tutor early in life (Doupe and Kuhl, 1999; Immelmann and Hinde, 1969; Marler and Tamura, 1964; Tchernichovski et al., 2001). Juvenile zebra finches (pupils) first hear and memorize a tutor’s song, and then, at about post-hatching day 30 (30 d), the pupils begin to vocalize. Initially, juvenile songs are highly variable. Through thousands of trial-and-error practice sessions guided by auditory feedback, the juvenile song gradually matures into a stereotyped adult song that resembles the tutor’s song (Immelmann and Hinde, 1969; Konishi, 1965; Tchernichovski et al., 2001). The adult song, however, exhibits a residual level of variability. Depending on the social context, adult males sing a courtship song directed toward a female (DS) or an undirected song (UDS) when singing alone (Sossinka and Bohner, 1980). These two types of songs exhibit subtle differences in acoustic features, and the DS is more stereotyped than the UDS (Hessler and Doupe, 1999; Jarvis et al., 1998; Kao and Brainard, 2006; Murugan et al., 2013).

The neural circuit that controls song behavior is organized into two pathways: a motor pathway and an anterior forebrain pathway (AFP) (Figure 1A). The motor pathway controls song production, while the AFP, a cortical-basal ganglia circuit required for song learning and maintenance, guides motor output through a reinforcement mechanism (Bottjer et al., 1984; Brainard and Doupe, 2000; Doupe and Kuhl, 1999; Kao et al., 2005; Nottebohm et al., 1976, 1982; Olveczky et al., 2005; Simpson and Vicario, 1990). Area X is a basal ganglia nucleus within the AFP. Lesions in Area X of juveniles prevent them from crystallizing their song (Scharff and Nottebohm, 1991). Area X receives dopaminergic innervation from the midbrain ventral tegmental area (VTA), and it also modulates the activity of VTA dopaminergic neurons in response to auditory experience, implicating Area X in reinforcement learning (Ding and Perkel, 2002; Gadagkar et al., 2016; Gale and Perkel, 2006, 2010; Lewis et al., 1981).

Figure 1 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small, non-protein-coding RNA molecules that regulate gene expression post-transcriptionally. miR-9 is an evolutionarily conserved miRNA that is highly expressed in vertebrate brains (Landgraf et al., 2007; Luo et al., 2012). In the zebra finch, miR-9 is expressed in Area X. Its expression is regulated during developmental vocal learning and in adult males singing undirected songs (Shi et al., 2013), suggesting that miR-9 plays an active role in these processes. miRNAs regulate gene expression by targeting the 3’ untranslated regions (3’UTRs) of mRNAs, leading to mRNA degradation or suppression of protein synthesis. Many of the genes expressed in the nervous system have long 3’UTRs (Mayr, 2016), highlighting the importance of miRNAs in fine-tuning gene expression in nervous system development and function. FOXP1 and FOXP2 are a pair of paralogous transcription factors that have important roles in nervous system development. Deletions, mutations, and copy number variations of the FOXP1 gene have been implicated in a range of neural developmental disorders, including language delay, intellectual disability, and autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) (Hamdan et al., 2010; Horn et al., 2010; O'Roak et al., 2011). Heterozygous mutations in the FOXP2 gene cause severe speech and language impairments (Lai et al., 2001; Vargha-Khadem et al., 1995), accompanied by structural and functional abnormalities in multiple brain regions. These regions include the basal ganglia (Watkins et al., 2002), which is thought to be a component of the distributed neural circuitry that underlies speech and language (Graham and Fisher, 2013). FOXP1 and FOXP2 regulate the transcription of a large number of downstream genes, many of which are critically involved in neural differentiation, neurite outgrowth, synapse formation, and synaptic transmission (Konopka et al., 2009; Spiteri et al., 2007; Tang et al., 2012; Vernes et al., 2007, 2011). Thus, the functional dosage of FOXP1 and FOXP2 needs to be tightly regulated.

Recent in vitro studies have shown that miR-9 regulates the expression of FOXP2 by targeting specific sequences in its 3’UTR (Fu et al., 2014; Shi et al., 2013). miR-9 also regulates avian FoxP1 in embryonic chicken spinal cord (Otaegi et al., 2011). These findings raise the possibility that miR-9 has a role in language development through regulating FOXP1 and/or FOXP2. Taking advantage of the unique vocal behavior and the underlying neural circuitry of songbirds, we sought to assess the consequences of miR-9 overexpression in Area X of juvenile zebra finches on vocal learning and performance. For these studies, we overexpressed miR-9 using a lentiviral approach. We report here that overexpression of miR-9 in juvenile Area X profoundly impairs basal ganglia-dependent developmental vocal learning in juveniles and impairs song performance in adulthood. We further show that these behavioral deficits are accompanied by downregulation of FoxP1 and FoxP2 expression, disruption of dopamine signaling, and widespread changes in the expression of numerous genes that are important for neural circuit development and function.

We show here that overexpression of miR-9 in the basal ganglia nucleus Area X of juvenile zebra finches impaired developmental vocal learning and adult vocal performance. On the global motif structural level, the most pronounced impairment was that birds with miR-9 overexpression sang shorter song motifs, omitting some of the tutor syllables. This phenomenon in miR-9 pupils (in which FoxP1 and FoxP2 were downregulated) may mirror the limited vocabulary observed in human individuals carrying deletions in the FOXP1 gene, who typically exhibit a working vocabulary of fewer than 100 words at the age of seven (Horn et al., 2010). Songs of birds with miR-9 overexpression in Area X exhibited higher trial-by-trial variability, which was reflected in a more variable sequence of syllable order, truncated motifs, and syllable stuttering. Syntax change has not been reported in prior studies in which FoxP2 was either knocked down or overexpressed in Area X (Haesler et al., 2007; Heston and White, 2015; Murugan et al., 2013). That miR-9 regulates the expression of both FoxP1 and FoxP2 and potentially of other genes in Area X may explain the robust deficits in vocal learning we observed here. Effects of miR-9 on song performance also occurred in a social context-dependent manner. Similar to birds with reduced FoxP2 expression in adult Area X (Murugan et al., 2013), birds with miR-9 overexpression failed to modulate song variability when singing a directed song. Perhaps not coincidentally, miR-9 expression is higher in Area X when adult males naturally sing an undirected song (Shi et al., 2013). It appears that, whether naturally or artificially induced, higher miR-9 levels in Area X render the circuit permissive to a more variable song or interfere with the production of a more stereotyped directed song.

Vocal learning is a developmental process during which a less-structured and highly variable juvenile song gradually transitions to a stereotyped adult song that matches the tutor’s song (Immelmann and Hinde, 1969; Tchernichovski et al., 2001). The effects of miR-9 overexpression on song imitation were apparent at 65 days after hatching, and these birds failed to improve their imitation thereafter (Figure 6A). Acoustic features of syllables of miR-9 pupils also exhibited higher trial-by-trial variability throughout development (Figure 6C–E). It is not clear whether or how higher song variability affects a pupil’s ability to match its song to a tutor’s song. In normal birds, the developmental vocal learning process is accompanied with a gradual increase in the miR-9 level in Area X, reaching its high point as juveniles become adults, and songs become stabilized; meanwhile, throughout the process, the FoxP2 level gradually decreases (Haesler et al., 2004; Shi et al., 2013; Teramitsu et al., 2004). Our current data indicate that an artificially increased miR-9 level (and reduced FoxP2 level) does not result in premature stabilization of a juvenile’s song nor in an increase in similarity to the tutor’s song. Rather, miR-9 overexpression appears to lock Area X in a plasticity-dominant state, preventing further progression toward song stereotypy. Previous lesion studies have shown that lesions in Area X and lMAN, two nuclei in the anterior forebrain pathway, have different consequences on song development. While lesions in lMAN lead to a prematurely stabilized song, birds with Area X lesions never achieve song stability as control birds do (Scharff and Nottebohm, 1991). Although the experimental approaches used in these studies are unrelated (molecular manipulation vs. electrolytic lesion), our observations are more aligned with the effects of lesions in Area X, suggesting that the effect of miR-9 overexpression (gene manipulation) might be restrained by circuit functions, in this case functions of Area X.

According to the reinforcement learning theory, Area X and the AFP guide song motor learning through processes that evaluate the motor output patterns according to auditory feedback, and reinforce favorable motor actions. These processes involve dopamine signaling via D1R and D2R receptors expressed in Area X (Kubikova et al., 2010) and dopaminergic projections from the VTA to Area X (Ding and Perkel, 2002; Doupe et al., 2005; Doya and Tesauro, 1995; Gadagkar et al., 2016; Lewis et al., 1981). Dopamine levels in Area X are higher when birds sing DS (Sasaki et al., 2006). Blocking D1R pharmacologically or reducing D1R expression by knocking down FoxP2 in Area X results in a more variable DS (Leblois et al., 2010; Murugan et al., 2013). Our findings that miR-9 overexpression in Area X selectively downregulated D1R but not D2R provide further evidence of the importance of dopamine signaling in vocal learning and performance. Studies in mammals suggest that the D1R-expressing direct pathway and the D2R-expressing indirect pathway act in an opposing but coordinated manner in the basal ganglia to finely control the timing and synchronization of motor actions; imbalances between the two pathways may lead to movement and cognitive disorders (Cazorla et al., 2015; Gerfen and Surmeier, 2011). The downregulation of D1R but not D2R in Area X, as a consequence of miR-9 overexpression, may have produced a functional imbalance between the two signaling pathways, which may have contributed to impaired song learning and performance. In normal birds, miR-9 expression in Area X is regulated during vocal development, and is upregulated by adult singing UDS (Shi et al., 2013). Thus, the miR-9–FoxP2–dopamine signaling network provides a mechanism that dynamically adjusts the functional balance between the D1R and D2R signaling pathways, allowing birds to adapt to the changing maturation state of song in juveniles and to modulate song stereotypy according to the social context in which a song is produced.

Many of the FOXP1 and FOXP2 downstream transcriptional target genes were identified by genome-wide chromatin immunoprecipitation assays, which depend on the binding of transcription factors FOXP1 or FOXP2 to promoter sequences (Konopka et al., 2009; Spiteri et al., 2007; Vernes et al., 2011). The changes in expression of these downstream genes in Area X when FoxP1 and FoxP2 were downregulated by miR-9 provides further evidence for a regulatory relationship between these genes and FOXP1 or FOXP2 in the basal ganglia circuit critical for vocal communication. Among the genes we tested, many have direct roles in neural circuit development and functions, and their dysregulation has been implicated in various neural developmental disorders. For example, GRIK2, GRIN2B, and GRM8 encode subunits of glutamate receptors. Their altered expression can affect synaptic transmission of Area X neurons. KCNA4 encodes a voltage-gated potassium channel (Ovsepian et al., 2016), and mutations in KCNA4 have been identified in patients exhibiting linguistic disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disroder (ADHD), and cognitive impairments (Kaya et al., 2016). MMP2, a member of the matrix metalloproteinase family, plays critical roles in synaptogenesis, dendrite remodeling, and neurogenesis (Fujioka et al., 2012). In songbird brain, MMP2 has been implicated in angiogenesis and neurogenesis in HVC, another song nucleus essential for song learning and production (Kim et al., 2008), suggesting that MMP2 may have a role in Area X circuit development as well. CNTNAP2 encodes a cell surface protein that belongs to the neurexin family, and is important for synaptic formation and clustering of K⁺ channels at synaptic terminals (Poliak et al., 1999). FOXP2 is known to regulate CNTNAP2 expression by binding to a regulatory sequence in its first intron, and CNTNAP2 dysfunctions have been implicated in specific language impairments, intellectual disabilities, and ASDs (Rodenas-Cuadrado et al., 2014; Vernes et al., 2008). DISC1 (Disrupted in schizophrenia 1) plays important roles in cell migration and dendrite development, and it has been linked to schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, and ASDs (Millar et al., 2000; Thomson et al., 2013). The widespread changes in gene expression caused by miR-9 overexpression touch upon an array of cellular functions, including synaptic transmission, dendrite growth, synapse formation, gene regulation, neurotrophin (BDNF) signaling, and protein degradation. We only tested expression changes in a small fraction of FOXP1 and FOXP2 downstream genes; however, given the fact that two-thirds (26 of 37) of these genes changed expression, it is likely that many of the genes we did not test also changed their expression. Thus, a large number of these affected genes may have collectively contributed to the deficits in vocal behavior.

We noted that the magnitudes of changes in gene expression were moderate. Intriguingly, a recent study of a large cohort of schizophrenia patients found moderate changes (ranging from 10% to 40%) in the expression of several hundred genes in the prefrontal cortex (Fromer et al., 2016). Our observations support the emerging view that subtle but broad changes in gene expression might be a molecular signature underlying complex neural developmental and/or neural psychiatric disorders (Fromer et al., 2016; Purcell et al., 2014). Evidence implicating particular genes in language impairments and autism is often established through genome-wide analysis such as screening for mutations and/or copy number variations in human subjects (O'Roak et al., 2012; Sanders et al., 2012; Yuen et al., 2015). Our findings showing that these genes are expressed in the basal ganglia, and that alterations in their expression are accompanied by impairments in vocal communication, provide additional evidence that these genes function in language processes and development. Among the genes we tested, CNTNAP2 and DISC1 have each been implicated in multiple disorders, including language impairments, ASDs, ADHD, intellectual disabilities, and schizophrenia (Fromer et al., 2016; Purcell et al., 2014), suggesting that these neural developmental disorders, cognitive impairments, and psychiatric disorders share common molecular substrates. It is possible that distinct but overlapping phenotypes are manifested depending on where and when these genes are expressed and how they are regulated, emphasizing the need to study these genes in the context of specific functional neural circuits.

miR-9 is expressed in the embryonic human brain and has been shown to regulate human FOXP2 gene expression (Fu et al., 2014). It is likely that miR-9 plays a role in human language development by fine-tuning FOXP1 and FOXP2 expression, thereby coordinating the expression of a large number of genes that are active in neural development and function. Both FOXP1 and FOXP2 mRNAs have long 3’UTRs containing numerous miRNA binding sites, suggesting that these genes can be regulated by many miRNAs in addition to miR-9. Dysregulation of these miRNAs or of miRNA–FOXP1/FOXP2 interactions by genetic, environmental, or physiological factors, thus, may contribute to language impairments and related neurodevelopmental disorders.

1. 1. Bottjer SW
   2. Miesner EA
   3. Arnold AP

   (1984) Forebrain lesions disrupt development but not maintenance of song in passerine birds

   Science 224:901–903.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6719123

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Bowers JM
   2. Konopka G

   (2012) The role of the FOXP family of transcription factors in ASD

   Disease Markers 33:251–260.

   https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/456787

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Brainard MS
   2. Doupe AJ

   (2000) Interruption of a basal ganglia-forebrain circuit prevents plasticity of learned vocalizations

   Nature 404:762–766.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/35008083

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Cazorla M
   2. Kang UJ
   3. Kellendonk C

   (2015) Balancing the basal ganglia circuitry: a possible new role for dopamine D2 receptors in health and disease

   Movement Disorders 30:895–903.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.26282

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Ding L
   2. Perkel DJ

   (2002)

   Dopamine modulates excitability of spiny neurons in the avian basal ganglia

   Journal of Neuroscience 22:5210–5218.

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Doupe AJ
   2. Kuhl PK

   (1999) Birdsong and human speech: common themes and mechanisms

   Annual Review of Neuroscience 22:567–631.

   https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.22.1.567

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Doupe AJ
   2. Perkel DJ
   3. Reiner A
   4. Stern EA

   (2005) Birdbrains could teach basal ganglia research a new song

   Trends in Neurosciences 28:353–363.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2005.05.005

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. Book

   1. Doya K ST

   (1995)

   A novel reinforcement model of birdsong vocalization learning

   In: Tesauro, D G. T, L. T, editors. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. MIT press. pp. 101–108.

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Edbauer D
   2. Neilson JR
   3. Foster KA
   4. Wang CF
   5. Seeburg DP
   6. Batterton MN
   7. Tada T
   8. Dolan BM
   9. Sharp PA
   10. Sheng M

   (2010) Regulation of synaptic structure and function by FMRP-associated microRNAs miR-125b and miR-132

   Neuron 65:373–384.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.01.005

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Fromer M
    2. Roussos P
    3. Sieberts SK
    4. Johnson JS
    5. Kavanagh DH
    6. Perumal TM
    7. Ruderfer DM
    8. Oh EC
    9. Topol A
    10. Shah HR
    11. Klei LL
    12. Kramer R
    13. Pinto D
    14. Gümüş ZH
    15. Cicek AE
    16. Dang KK
    17. Browne A
    18. Lu C
    19. Xie L
    20. Readhead B
    21. Stahl EA
    22. Xiao J
    23. Parvizi M
    24. Hamamsy T
    25. Fullard JF
    26. Wang YC
    27. Mahajan MC
    28. Derry JM
    29. Dudley JT
    30. Hemby SE
    31. Logsdon BA
    32. Talbot K
    33. Raj T
    34. Bennett DA
    35. De Jager PL
    36. Zhu J
    37. Zhang B
    38. Sullivan PF
    39. Chess A
    40. Purcell SM
    41. Shinobu LA
    42. Mangravite LM
    43. Toyoshiba H
    44. Gur RE
    45. Hahn CG
    46. Lewis DA
    47. Haroutunian V
    48. Peters MA
    49. Lipska BK
    50. Buxbaum JD
    51. Schadt EE
    52. Hirai K
    53. Roeder K
    54. Brennand KJ
    55. Katsanis N
    56. Domenici E
    57. Devlin B
    58. Sklar P

    (2016) Gene expression elucidates functional impact of polygenic risk for schizophrenia

    Nature Neuroscience 19:1442–1453.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4399

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Fu L
    2. Shi Z
    3. Luo G
    4. Tu W
    5. Wang X
    6. Fang Z
    7. Li X

    (2014) Multiple microRNAs regulate human FOXP2 gene expression by targeting sequences in its 3' untranslated region

    Molecular Brain 7:71.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13041-014-0071-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Fujioka H
    2. Dairyo Y
    3. Yasunaga K
    4. Emoto K

    (2012) Neural functions of matrix metalloproteinases: plasticity, neurogenesis, and disease

    Biochemistry Research International 2012:789083.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/789083

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Gadagkar V
    2. Puzerey PA
    3. Chen R
    4. Baird-Daniel E
    5. Farhang AR
    6. Goldberg JH

    (2016) Dopamine neurons encode performance error in singing birds

    Science 354:1278–1282.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6837

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Gale SD
    2. Perkel DJ

    (2006) Physiological properties of zebra finch ventral tegmental area and substantia nigra pars compacta neurons

    Journal of Neurophysiology 96:2295–2306.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01040.2005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Gale SD
    2. Perkel DJ

    (2010) A basal ganglia pathway drives selective auditory responses in songbird dopaminergic neurons via disinhibition

    Journal of Neuroscience 30:1027–1037.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3585-09.2010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Gerfen CR
    2. Surmeier DJ

    (2011) Modulation of striatal projection systems by dopamine

    Annual Review of Neuroscience 34:441–466.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-061010-113641

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Graham SA
    2. Fisher SE

    (2013) Decoding the genetics of speech and language

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 23:43–51.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.11.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Greengard P
    2. Allen PB
    3. Nairn AC

    (1999) Beyond the dopamine receptor: the DARPP-32/protein phosphatase-1 cascade

    Neuron 23:435–447.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80798-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Haesler S
    2. Wada K
    3. Nshdejan A
    4. Morrisey EE
    5. Lints T
    6. Jarvis ED
    7. Scharff C

    (2004) FoxP2 expression in avian vocal learners and non-learners

    Journal of Neuroscience 24:3164–3175.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4369-03.2004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Haesler S
    2. Rochefort C
    3. Georgi B
    4. Licznerski P
    5. Osten P
    6. Scharff C

    (2007) Incomplete and inaccurate vocal imitation after knockdown of FoxP2 in songbird basal ganglia nucleus Area X

    PLoS Biology 5:e321.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050321

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Hamdan FF
    2. Daoud H
    3. Rochefort D
    4. Piton A
    5. Gauthier J
    6. Langlois M
    7. Foomani G
    8. Dobrzeniecka S
    9. Krebs MO
    10. Joober R
    11. Lafrenière RG
    12. Lacaille JC
    13. Mottron L
    14. Drapeau P
    15. Beauchamp MH
    16. Phillips MS
    17. Fombonne E
    18. Rouleau GA
    19. Michaud JL

    (2010) De novo mutations in FOXP1 in cases with intellectual disability, autism, and language impairment

    The American Journal of Human Genetics 87:671–678.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.09.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Hessler NA
    2. Doupe AJ

    (1999) Social context modulates singing-related neural activity in the songbird forebrain

    Nature Neuroscience 2:209–211.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/6306

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Heston JB
    2. White SA

    (2015) Behavior-linked FoxP2 regulation enables zebra finch vocal learning

    Journal of Neuroscience 35:2885–2894.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3715-14.2015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Horn D
    2. Kapeller J
    3. Rivera-Brugués N
    4. Moog U
    5. Lorenz-Depiereux B
    6. Eck S
    7. Hempel M
    8. Wagenstaller J
    9. Gawthrope A
    10. Monaco AP
    11. Bonin M
    12. Riess O
    13. Wohlleber E
    14. Illig T
    15. Bezzina CR
    16. Franke A
    17. Spranger S
    18. Villavicencio-Lorini P
    19. Seifert W
    20. Rosenfeld J
    21. Klopocki E
    22. Rappold GA
    23. Strom TM

    (2010) Identification of FOXP1 deletions in three unrelated patients with mental retardation and significant speech and language deficits

    Human Mutation 31:E1851–E1860.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.21362

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Immelmann k

    (1969)

    Bird vocalisations

    Song development in zebra finch and other Estrildid finches, Bird vocalisations, London, UK, Cambridge University Press.

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Jarvis ED
    2. Scharff C
    3. Grossman MR
    4. Ramos JA
    5. Nottebohm F

    (1998) For whom the bird sings: context-dependent gene expression

    Neuron 21:775–788.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80594-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Kao MH
    2. Doupe AJ
    3. Brainard MS

    (2005) Contributions of an avian basal ganglia-forebrain circuit to real-time modulation of song

    Nature 433:638–643.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03127

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Kao MH
    2. Brainard MS

    (2006) Lesions of an avian basal ganglia circuit prevent context-dependent changes to song variability

    Journal of Neurophysiology 96:1441–1455.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01138.2005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Kaya N
    2. Alsagob M
    3. D'Adamo MC
    4. Al-Bakheet A
    5. Hasan S
    6. Muccioli M
    7. Almutairi FB
    8. Almass R
    9. Aldosary M
    10. Monies D
    11. Mustafa OM
    12. Alyounes B
    13. Kenana R
    14. Al-Zahrani J
    15. Naim E
    16. Binhumaid FS
    17. Qari A
    18. Almutairi F
    19. Meyer B
    20. Plageman TF
    21. Pessia M
    22. Colak D
    23. Al-Owain M

    (2016) KCNA4 deficiency leads to a syndrome of abnormal striatum, congenital cataract and intellectual disability

    Journal of Medical Genetics pp. 786–792.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103637

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Kim DH
    2. Lilliehook C
    3. Roides B
    4. Chen Z
    5. Chang M
    6. Mobashery S
    7. Goldman SA

    (2008) Testosterone-induced matrix metalloproteinase activation is a checkpoint for neuronal addition to the adult songbird brain

    Journal of Neuroscience 28:208–216.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3674-07.2008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Kojima S
    2. Doupe AJ

    (2011) Social performance reveals unexpected vocal competency in young songbirds

    PNAS 108:1687–1692.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010502108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Konishi M

    (1965)

    The role of auditory feedback in the control of vocalization in the white-crowned sparrow

    Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 22:770–783.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Konopka G
    2. Bomar JM
    3. Winden K
    4. Coppola G
    5. Jonsson ZO
    6. Gao F
    7. Peng S
    8. Preuss TM
    9. Wohlschlegel JA
    10. Geschwind DH

    (2009) Human-specific transcriptional regulation of CNS development genes by FOXP2

    Nature 462:213–217.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08549

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Kubikova L
    2. Wada K
    3. Jarvis ED

    (2010) Dopamine receptors in a songbird brain

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 518:741–769.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.22255

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Lai CS
    2. Fisher SE
    3. Hurst JA
    4. Vargha-Khadem F
    5. Monaco AP

    (2001) A forkhead-domain gene is mutated in a severe speech and language disorder

    Nature 413:519–523.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/35097076

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Landgraf P
    2. Rusu M
    3. Sheridan R
    4. Sewer A
    5. Iovino N
    6. Aravin A
    7. Pfeffer S
    8. Rice A
    9. Kamphorst AO
    10. Landthaler M
    11. Lin C
    12. Socci ND
    13. Hermida L
    14. Fulci V
    15. Chiaretti S
    16. Foà R
    17. Schliwka J
    18. Fuchs U
    19. Novosel A
    20. Müller RU
    21. Schermer B
    22. Bissels U
    23. Inman J
    24. Phan Q
    25. Chien M
    26. Weir DB
    27. Choksi R
    28. De Vita G
    29. Frezzetti D
    30. Trompeter HI
    31. Hornung V
    32. Teng G
    33. Hartmann G
    34. Palkovits M
    35. Di Lauro R
    36. Wernet P
    37. Macino G
    38. Rogler CE
    39. Nagle JW
    40. Ju J
    41. Papavasiliou FN
    42. Benzing T
    43. Lichter P
    44. Tam W
    45. Brownstein MJ
    46. Bosio A
    47. Borkhardt A
    48. Russo JJ
    49. Sander C
    50. Zavolan M
    51. Tuschl T

    (2007) A mammalian microRNA expression atlas based on small RNA library sequencing

    Cell 129:1401–1414.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2007.04.040

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Leblois A
    2. Wendel BJ
    3. Perkel DJ

    (2010) Striatal dopamine modulates basal ganglia output and regulates social context-dependent behavioral variability through D1 receptors

    Journal of Neuroscience 30:5730–5743.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5974-09.2010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Lewis JW
    2. Ryan SM
    3. Arnold AP
    4. Butcher LL

    (1981) Evidence for a catecholaminergic projection to area X in the zebra finch

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 196:347–354.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.901960212

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Li S
    2. Weidenfeld J
    3. Morrisey EE

    (2004) Transcriptional and DNA binding activity of the Foxp1/2/4 family is modulated by heterotypic and homotypic protein interactions

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 24:809–822.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.24.2.809-822.2004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Luo GZ
    2. Hafner M
    3. Shi Z
    4. Brown M
    5. Feng GH
    6. Tuschl T
    7. Wang XJ
    8. Li X

    (2012) Genome-wide annotation and analysis of zebra finch microRNA repertoire reveal sex-biased expression

    BMC Genomics 13:727.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-13-727

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Marler P
    2. Tamura M

    (1964) Culturally Transmitted Patterns of Vocal Behavior in Sparrows

    Science 146:1483–1486.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.146.3650.1483

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Mayr C

    (2016) Evolution and Biological Roles of Alternative 3'UTRs

    Trends in Cell Biology 26:227–237.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2015.10.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Millar JK
    2. Wilson-Annan JC
    3. Anderson S
    4. Christie S
    5. Taylor MS
    6. Semple CA
    7. Devon RS
    8. St Clair DM
    9. Muir WJ
    10. Blackwood DH
    11. Porteous DJ

    (2000) Disruption of two novel genes by a translocation co-segregating with schizophrenia

    Human Molecular Genetics 9:1415–1423.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/9.9.1415

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Murugan M
    2. Harward S
    3. Scharff C
    4. Mooney R

    (2013) Diminished FoxP2 levels affect dopaminergic modulation of corticostriatal signaling important to song variability

    Neuron 80:1464–1476.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.09.021

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Nottebohm F
    2. Stokes TM
    3. Leonard CM

    (1976) Central control of song in the canary, Serinus canarius

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 165:457–486.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.901650405

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Nottebohm F
    2. Kelley DB
    3. Paton JA

    (1982) Connections of vocal control nuclei in the canary telencephalon

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 207:344–357.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902070406

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. O'Roak BJ
    2. Deriziotis P
    3. Lee C
    4. Vives L
    5. Schwartz JJ
    6. Girirajan S
    7. Karakoc E
    8. Mackenzie AP
    9. Ng SB
    10. Baker C
    11. Rieder MJ
    12. Nickerson DA
    13. Bernier R
    14. Fisher SE
    15. Shendure J
    16. Eichler EE

    (2011) Exome sequencing in sporadic autism spectrum disorders identifies severe de novo mutations

    Nature Genetics 43:585–589.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.835

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. O'Roak BJ
    2. Vives L
    3. Girirajan S
    4. Karakoc E
    5. Krumm N
    6. Coe BP
    7. Levy R
    8. Ko A
    9. Lee C
    10. Smith JD
    11. Turner EH
    12. Stanaway IB
    13. Vernot B
    14. Malig M
    15. Baker C
    16. Reilly B
    17. Akey JM
    18. Borenstein E
    19. Rieder MJ
    20. Nickerson DA
    21. Bernier R
    22. Shendure J
    23. Eichler EE

    (2012) Sporadic autism exomes reveal a highly interconnected protein network of de novo mutations

    Nature 485:246–250.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10989

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Olveczky BP
    2. Andalman AS
    3. Fee MS

    (2005) Vocal experimentation in the juvenile songbird requires a basal ganglia circuit

    PLoS Biology 3:e153.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030153

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Otaegi G
    2. Pollock A
    3. Hong J
    4. Sun T

    (2011) MicroRNA miR-9 modifies motor neuron columns by a tuning regulation of FoxP1 levels in developing spinal cords

    Journal of Neuroscience 31:809–818.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4330-10.2011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Ovsepian SV
    2. LeBerre M
    3. Steuber V
    4. O'Leary VB
    5. Leibold C
    6. Oliver Dolly J

    (2016) Distinctive role of KV1.1 subunit in the biology and functions of low threshold K(+) channels with implications for neurological disease

    Pharmacology & Therapeutics 159:93–101.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2016.01.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Poliak S
    2. Gollan L
    3. Martinez R
    4. Custer A
    5. Einheber S
    6. Salzer JL
    7. Trimmer JS
    8. Shrager P
    9. Peles E

    (1999) Caspr2, a new member of the neurexin superfamily, is localized at the juxtaparanodes of myelinated axons and associates with K+ channels

    Neuron 24:1037–1047.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(00)81049-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Purcell SM
    2. Moran JL
    3. Fromer M
    4. Ruderfer D
    5. Solovieff N
    6. Roussos P
    7. O'Dushlaine C
    8. Chambert K
    9. Bergen SE
    10. Kähler A
    11. Duncan L
    12. Stahl E
    13. Genovese G
    14. Fernández E
    15. Collins MO
    16. Komiyama NH
    17. Choudhary JS
    18. Magnusson PK
    19. Banks E
    20. Shakir K
    21. Garimella K
    22. Fennell T
    23. DePristo M
    24. Grant SG
    25. Haggarty SJ
    26. Gabriel S
    27. Scolnick EM
    28. Lander ES
    29. Hultman CM
    30. Sullivan PF
    31. McCarroll SA
    32. Sklar P

    (2014) A polygenic burden of rare disruptive mutations in schizophrenia

    Nature 506:185–190.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12975

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Rodenas-Cuadrado P
    2. Ho J
    3. Vernes SC

    (2014) Shining a light on CNTNAP2: complex functions to complex disorders

    European Journal of Human Genetics 22:171–178.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2013.100

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Sanders SJ
    2. Murtha MT
    3. Gupta AR
    4. Murdoch JD
    5. Raubeson MJ
    6. Willsey AJ
    7. Ercan-Sencicek AG
    8. DiLullo NM
    9. Parikshak NN
    10. Stein JL
    11. Walker MF
    12. Ober GT
    13. Teran NA
    14. Song Y
    15. El-Fishawy P
    16. Murtha RC
    17. Choi M
    18. Overton JD
    19. Bjornson RD
    20. Carriero NJ
    21. Meyer KA
    22. Bilguvar K
    23. Mane SM
    24. Sestan N
    25. Lifton RP
    26. Günel M
    27. Roeder K
    28. Geschwind DH
    29. Devlin B
    30. State MW

    (2012) De novo mutations revealed by whole-exome sequencing are strongly associated with autism

    Nature 485:237–241.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10945

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Sasaki A
    2. Sotnikova TD
    3. Gainetdinov RR
    4. Jarvis ED

    (2006) Social context-dependent singing-regulated dopamine

    Journal of Neuroscience 26:9010–9014.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1335-06.2006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Scharff C
    2. Nottebohm F

    (1991)

    A comparative study of the behavioral deficits following lesions of various parts of the zebra finch song system: implications for vocal learning

    Journal of Neuroscience 11:2896–2913.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Shi Z
    2. Luo G
    3. Fu L
    4. Fang Z
    5. Wang X
    6. Li X

    (2013) miR-9 and miR-140-5p target FoxP2 and are regulated as a function of the social context of singing behavior in zebra finches

    Journal of Neuroscience 33:16510–16521.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0838-13.2013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Simpson HB
    2. Vicario DS

    (1990)

    Brain pathways for learned and unlearned vocalizations differ in zebra finches

    Journal of Neuroscience 10:1541–1556.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Sossinka R
    2. Bohner J

    (1980) Song Types in the Zebra Finch Poephila-Guttata-Castanotis

    Zeitschrift Fur Tierpsychologie-Journal of Comparative Ethology 53:123–132.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1980.tb01044.x

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Spiteri E
    2. Konopka G
    3. Coppola G
    4. Bomar J
    5. Oldham M
    6. Ou J
    7. Vernes SC
    8. Fisher SE
    9. Ren B
    10. Geschwind DH

    (2007) Identification of the transcriptional targets of FOXP2, a gene linked to speech and language, in developing human brain

    The American Journal of Human Genetics 81:1144–1157.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/522237

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Tang B
    2. Becanovic K
    3. Desplats PA
    4. Spencer B
    5. Hill AM
    6. Connolly C
    7. Masliah E
    8. Leavitt BR
    9. Thomas EA

    (2012) Forkhead box protein p1 is a transcriptional repressor of immune signaling in the CNS: implications for transcriptional dysregulation in Huntington disease

    Human Molecular Genetics 21:3097–3111.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/dds132

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Tchernichovski O
    2. Nottebohm F
    3. Ho CE
    4. Pesaran B
    5. Mitra PP

    (2000) A procedure for an automated measurement of song similarity

    Animal Behaviour 59:1167–1176.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1416

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Tchernichovski O
    2. Mitra PP
    3. Lints T
    4. Nottebohm F

    (2001) Dynamics of the vocal imitation process: how a zebra finch learns its song

    Science 291:2564–2569.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1058522

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Teramitsu I
    2. Kudo LC
    3. London SE
    4. Geschwind DH
    5. White SA

    (2004) Parallel FoxP1 and FoxP2 expression in songbird and human brain predicts functional interaction

    Journal of Neuroscience 24:3152–3163.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5589-03.2004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Teramitsu I
    2. White SA

    (2006) FoxP2 regulation during undirected singing in adult songbirds

    Journal of Neuroscience 26:7390–7394.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1662-06.2006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Thomson PA
    2. Malavasi EL
    3. Grünewald E
    4. Soares DC
    5. Borkowska M
    6. Millar JK

    (2013) DISC1 genetics, biology and psychiatric illness

    Frontiers in Biology 8:1–31.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11515-012-1254-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Vargha-Khadem F
    2. Watkins K
    3. Alcock K
    4. Fletcher P
    5. Passingham R

    (1995) Praxic and nonverbal cognitive deficits in a large family with a genetically transmitted speech and language disorder

    PNAS 92:930–933.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.92.3.930

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Vernes SC
    2. Spiteri E
    3. Nicod J
    4. Groszer M
    5. Taylor JM
    6. Davies KE
    7. Geschwind DH
    8. Fisher SE

    (2007) High-throughput analysis of promoter occupancy reveals direct neural targets of FOXP2, a gene mutated in speech and language disorders

    The American Journal of Human Genetics 81:1232–1250.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/522238

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Vernes SC
    2. Newbury DF
    3. Abrahams BS
    4. Winchester L
    5. Nicod J
    6. Groszer M
    7. Alarcón M
    8. Oliver PL
    9. Davies KE
    10. Geschwind DH
    11. Monaco AP
    12. Fisher SE

    (2008) A functional genetic link between distinct developmental language disorders

    New England Journal of Medicine 359:2337–2345.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0802828

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Vernes SC
    2. Oliver PL
    3. Spiteri E
    4. Lockstone HE
    5. Puliyadi R
    6. Taylor JM
    7. Ho J
    8. Mombereau C
    9. Brewer A
    10. Lowy E
    11. Nicod J
    12. Groszer M
    13. Baban D
    14. Sahgal N
    15. Cazier JB
    16. Ragoussis J
    17. Davies KE
    18. Geschwind DH
    19. Fisher SE

    (2011) Foxp2 regulates gene networks implicated in neurite outgrowth in the developing brain

    PLoS Genetics 7:e1002145.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002145

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Watkins KE
    2. Dronkers NF
    3. Vargha-Khadem F

    (2002) Behavioural analysis of an inherited speech and language disorder: comparison with acquired aphasia

    Brain 125:452–464.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awf058

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Yuen RK
    2. Thiruvahindrapuram B
    3. Merico D
    4. Walker S
    5. Tammimies K
    6. Hoang N
    7. Chrysler C
    8. Nalpathamkalam T
    9. Pellecchia G
    10. Liu Y
    11. Gazzellone MJ
    12. D'Abate L
    13. Deneault E
    14. Howe JL
    15. Liu RS
    16. Thompson A
    17. Zarrei M
    18. Uddin M
    19. Marshall CR
    20. Ring RH
    21. Zwaigenbaum L
    22. Ray PN
    23. Weksberg R
    24. Carter MT
    25. Fernandez BA
    26. Roberts W
    27. Szatmari P
    28. Scherer SW

    (2015) Whole-genome sequencing of quartet families with autism spectrum disorder

    Nature Medicine 21:185–191.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3792

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Zhimin Shi

   Neuroscience Center of Excellence, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

2. Zoe Piccus

   Neuroscience Center of Excellence, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Xiaofang Zhang

   Neuroscience Center of Excellence, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Huidi Yang

   Neuroscience Center of Excellence, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Hannah Jarrell

   Neuroscience Center of Excellence, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Yan Ding

   Neuroscience Center of Excellence, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Zhaoqian Teng

   Neuroscience Center of Excellence, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, United States

   Contribution

   Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Ofer Tchernichovski

   Department of Psychology, Hunter College, New York, United States

   Contribution

   Software, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing—review and editing

   For correspondence

   tchernichovski@gmail.com

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. XiaoChing Li

   Neuroscience Center of Excellence, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   For correspondence

   xli4@lsuhsc.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7544-494X

• 1,657

  views

• 192

  downloads

• 15

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.