Excitatory and inhibitory synapse reorganization immediately after critical sensory experience in a vocal learner
Abstract
Excitatory and inhibitory synapses are the brain's most abundant synapse types. However, little is known about their formation during critical periods of motor skill learning, when sensory experience defines a motor target that animals strive to imitate. In songbirds, we find that exposure to tutor song leads to elimination of excitatory synapses in HVC (used here as a proper name), a key song generating brain area. A similar pruning is associated with song maturation, because juvenile birds have fewer excitatory synapses, the better their song imitations. In contrast, tutoring is associated with rapid insertion of inhibitory synapses, but the tutoring-induced structural imbalance between excitation and inhibition is eliminated during subsequent song maturation. Our work suggests that sensory exposure triggers the developmental onset of goal-specific motor circuits by increasing the relative strength of inhibition and it suggests a synapse-elimination model of song memorization.
Data availability
We provide all SSEM synaptic density data for Experiments I and II in the Matlab file ssSEM_exp1and2_groupSeperated.mat. We provide all FIBSEM data for Experiment I in the Matlab file FIBSEM_exp1.mat. HVC volume data for Experiment II is provided in the Matlab file HVCvolume_exp2.mat.To reproduce our linear mixed effects analyses, we provide the Matlab function getLME. For example, to reproduce the comparison between synaptic densities in LONG and LONG60 birds, one first needs to load the data: load ssSEM_exp1and2_groupSeperated, then one needs to concatenate the relevant variables: data=vertcat(data_ssSEM_exp1_LONG,data_ssSEM_exp2_TUT60), and finally, one needs to run the function: getLME(data), followed by typing 1 for running the analysis for asymmetric synapses for example. All Matlab files can be retrieved from https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/handle/20.500.11850/285394, DOI 10.3929/ethz-b-000285394.
Article and author information
Author details
Funding
Swiss National Science Foundation (31003A_127024)
- Richard HR Hahnloser
ETH Zürich Foundation (Project 2015-48 3)
- Richard HR Hahnloser
Swiss National Science Foundation (31003A_156976)
- Richard HR Hahnloser
Swiss National Science Foundation (ZKOZ3_160663)
- Richard HR Hahnloser
European Research Council (FP7/2007-2013 / ERC Grant AdG 268911)
- Richard HR Hahnloser
Susan Todd Horton Class of 1910 Trust
- Houda G Khaled
Hubel Neuroscience Summer Research Fellowship
- Houda G Khaled
Seven College Conference Junior Year Abroad Award
- Houda G Khaled
Five Faculty Awards from Wellesley College
- Sharon MH Gobes
National Institutes of Health (R15HD085143)
- Sharon MH Gobes
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Ethics
Animal experimentation: All experimental procedures were in accordance with the Veterinary Office of the Canton of Zurich (207-2013).
Copyright
© 2018, Huang 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
-
- 11,866
- views
-
- 434
- downloads
-
- 13
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
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)
Further reading
-
- Neuroscience
During rest and sleep, memory traces replay in the brain. The dialogue between brain regions during replay is thought to stabilize labile memory traces for long-term storage. However, because replay is an internally-driven, spontaneous phenomenon, it does not have a ground truth - an external reference that can validate whether a memory has truly been replayed. Instead, replay detection is based on the similarity between the sequential neural activity comprising the replay event and the corresponding template of neural activity generated during active locomotion. If the statistical likelihood of observing such a match by chance is sufficiently low, the candidate replay event is inferred to be replaying that specific memory. However, without the ability to evaluate whether replay detection methods are successfully detecting true events and correctly rejecting non-events, the evaluation and comparison of different replay methods is challenging. To circumvent this problem, we present a new framework for evaluating replay, tested using hippocampal neural recordings from rats exploring two novel linear tracks. Using this two-track paradigm, our framework selects replay events based on their temporal fidelity (sequence-based detection), and evaluates the detection performance using each event's track discriminability, where sequenceless decoding across both tracks is used to quantify whether the track replaying is also the most likely track being reactivated.
-
- Neuroscience
Spinal cord interneurons play critical roles shaping motor output, but their precise identity and connectivity remain unclear. Focusing on the V1 interneuron cardinal class we defined four major V1 subsets in the mouse according to neurogenesis, genetic lineage-tracing, synaptic output to motoneurons, and synaptic inputs from muscle afferents. Sequential neurogenesis delineates different V1 subsets: two early born (Renshaw and Pou6f2) and two late born (Foxp2 and Sp8). Early born Renshaw cells and late born Foxp2-V1 interneurons are tightly coupled to motoneurons, while early born Pou6f2-V1 and late born Sp8-V1 interneurons are not, indicating that timing of neurogenesis does not correlate with motoneuron targeting. V1 clades also differ in cell numbers and diversity. Lineage labeling shows that the Foxp2-V1 clade contains over half of all V1 interneurons, provides the largest inhibitory input to motoneuron cell bodies, and includes subgroups that differ in birthdate, location, and proprioceptive input. Notably, one Foxp2-V1 subgroup, defined by postnatal Otp expression, is positioned near the LMC and receives substantial input from proprioceptors, consistent with an involvement in reciprocal inhibitory pathways. Combined tracing of ankle flexor sensory afferents and interneurons monosynaptically connected to ankle extensors confirmed placement of Foxp2-V1 interneurons in reciprocal inhibitory pathways. Our results validate previously proposed V1 clades as unique functional subtypes that differ in circuit placement, with Foxp2-V1 cells forming the most heterogeneous subgroup. We discuss how V1 organizational diversity enables understanding of their roles in motor control, with implications for their diverse ontogenetic and phylogenetic origins.