Salient experiences are represented by unique transcriptional signatures in the mouse brain

  1. Diptendu Mukherjee
  2. Bogna Marta Ignatowska-Jankowska
  3. Eyal Itskovits
  4. Ben Jerry Gonzales
  5. Hagit Turm
  6. Liz Izakson
  7. Doron Haritan
  8. Noa Bleistein
  9. Chen Cohen
  10. Ido Amit
  11. Tal Shay
  12. Brad Grueter
  13. Alon Zaslaver
  14. Ami Citri  Is a corresponding author
  1. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
  2. Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
  3. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
  4. Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, United States

Abstract

It is well established that inducible transcription is essential for the consolidation of salient experiences into long-term memory. However, whether inducible transcription relays information about the identity and affective attributes of the experience being encoded, has not been explored. To this end, we analyzed transcription induced by a variety of rewarding and aversive experiences, across multiple brain regions. Our results describe the existence of robust transcriptional signatures uniquely representing distinct experiences, enabling near-perfect decoding of recent experiences. Furthermore, experiences with shared attributes display commonalities in their transcriptional signatures, exemplified in the representation of valence, habituation and reinforcement. This study introduces the concept of a neural transcriptional code, which represents the encoding of experiences in the mouse brain. This code is comprised of distinct transcriptional signatures that correlate to attributes of the experiences that are being committed to long-term memory.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Diptendu Mukherjee

    Department of Biological Chemistry, Silberman Institute for Life Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Bogna Marta Ignatowska-Jankowska

    The Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Brain Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Eyal Itskovits

    Department of Genetics, Silberman Institute for Life Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Ben Jerry Gonzales

    Department of Biological Chemistry, Silberman Institute for Life Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Hagit Turm

    Department of Biological Chemistry, Silberman Institute for Life Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Liz Izakson

    Department of Biological Chemistry, Silberman Institute for Life Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Doron Haritan

    Department of Biological Chemistry, Silberman Institute for Life Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Noa Bleistein

    Department of Biological Chemistry, Silberman Institute for Life Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Chen Cohen

    Department of Biological Chemistry, Silberman Institute for Life Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Ido Amit

    Department of Immunology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Tal Shay

    Department of Life Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Brad Grueter

    Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4224-3866
  13. Alon Zaslaver

    Department of Genetics, Silberman Institute for Life Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Ami Citri

    Department of Biological Chemistry, Silberman Institute for Life Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
    For correspondence
    ami.citri@mail.huji.ac.il
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9914-0278

Funding

Israel Science Foundation (Personal Grant 393/12 & I-CORE 1796/12)

  • Ami Citri

The Lady Davis Postdoctoral Fellowship (Postdoctoral stipend)

  • Bogna Marta Ignatowska-Jankowska

German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development (Young Investigator Award 2299-2291.1./2011)

  • Ami Citri

Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (Young Investigator Award #18795)

  • Ami Citri

Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (Research Support)

  • Ami Citri

Binational United-States Israel Research Foundation (Research Grant #2011266)

  • Ami Citri

Milton Rosenbaum Research Foundation (Research Grant)

  • Ami Citri

National Institutes for Psychobiology in Israel (Research Grant 109-15-16)

  • Ami Citri

Shimon Peres Postdoctoral Award (Postdoctoral stipend)

  • Bogna Marta Ignatowska-Jankowska

ELSC Postdoctoral Award (Postdoctoral stipend)

  • Bogna Marta Ignatowska-Jankowska

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Sacha B Nelson, Brandeis University, 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 of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols (#NS-13-13895-3 ; NS-15-14668-3 ; NS-14-14088-3 ; NS-15-14312-3 ; NS-15-14348-3) of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The protocol was approved by the Committee on the Ethics of Animal Experiments of the Hebrew University. Every effort was made to minimize suffering.

Version history

  1. Received: September 4, 2017
  2. Accepted: February 5, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 7, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: February 22, 2018 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: March 21, 2018 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2018, Mukherjee 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

  • 6,849
    views
  • 1,057
    downloads
  • 31
    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. Diptendu Mukherjee
  2. Bogna Marta Ignatowska-Jankowska
  3. Eyal Itskovits
  4. Ben Jerry Gonzales
  5. Hagit Turm
  6. Liz Izakson
  7. Doron Haritan
  8. Noa Bleistein
  9. Chen Cohen
  10. Ido Amit
  11. Tal Shay
  12. Brad Grueter
  13. Alon Zaslaver
  14. Ami Citri
(2018)
Salient experiences are represented by unique transcriptional signatures in the mouse brain
eLife 7:e31220.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.31220

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.31220

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Alyssa D Huff, Marlusa Karlen-Amarante ... Jan-Marino Ramirez
    Research Advance

    Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a prevalent sleep-related breathing disorder that results in multiple bouts of intermittent hypoxia. OSA has many neurological and systemic comorbidities, including dysphagia, or disordered swallow, and discoordination with breathing. However, the mechanism in which chronic intermittent hypoxia (CIH) causes dysphagia is unknown. Recently, we showed the postinspiratory complex (PiCo) acts as an interface between the swallow pattern generator (SPG) and the inspiratory rhythm generator, the preBötzinger complex, to regulate proper swallow-breathing coordination (Huff et al., 2023). PiCo is characterized by interneurons co-expressing transporters for glutamate (Vglut2) and acetylcholine (ChAT). Here we show that optogenetic stimulation of ChATcre:Ai32, Vglut2cre:Ai32, and ChATcre:Vglut2FlpO:ChR2 mice exposed to CIH does not alter swallow-breathing coordination, but unexpectedly disrupts swallow behavior via triggering variable swallow motor patterns. This suggests that glutamatergic–cholinergic neurons in PiCo are not only critical for the regulation of swallow-breathing coordination, but also play an important role in the modulation of swallow motor patterning. Our study also suggests that swallow disruption, as seen in OSA, involves central nervous mechanisms interfering with swallow motor patterning and laryngeal activation. These findings are crucial for understanding the mechanisms underlying dysphagia, both in OSA and other breathing and neurological disorders.

    1. Neuroscience
    Vezha Boboeva, Alberto Pezzotta ... Athena Akrami
    Research Article

    The central tendency bias, or contraction bias, is a phenomenon where the judgment of the magnitude of items held in working memory appears to be biased toward the average of past observations. It is assumed to be an optimal strategy by the brain and commonly thought of as an expression of the brain’s ability to learn the statistical structure of sensory input. On the other hand, recency biases such as serial dependence are also commonly observed and are thought to reflect the content of working memory. Recent results from an auditory delayed comparison task in rats suggest that both biases may be more related than previously thought: when the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) was silenced, both short-term and contraction biases were reduced. By proposing a model of the circuit that may be involved in generating the behavior, we show that a volatile working memory content susceptible to shifting to the past sensory experience – producing short-term sensory history biases – naturally leads to contraction bias. The errors, occurring at the level of individual trials, are sampled from the full distribution of the stimuli and are not due to a gradual shift of the memory toward the sensory distribution’s mean. Our results are consistent with a broad set of behavioral findings and provide predictions of performance across different stimulus distributions and timings, delay intervals, as well as neuronal dynamics in putative working memory areas. Finally, we validate our model by performing a set of human psychophysics experiments of an auditory parametric working memory task.