A connectional hub in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex links areas of emotion and cognitive control

  1. Wei Tang
  2. Saad Jbabdi
  3. Ziyi Zhu
  4. Michiel Cottaar
  5. Giorgia Grisot
  6. Julia F Lehman
  7. Anastasia Yendiki
  8. Suzanne N Haber  Is a corresponding author
  1. McLean Hospital / Harvard Medical School, United States
  2. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  3. University of Rochester School of Medicine, United States
  4. Massachusetts General Hospital, United States

Abstract

We investigated afferent inputs from all areas in the frontal cortex (FC) to different subregions in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex (rACC). Using retrograde tracing in macaque monkeys, we quantified projection strength by counting retrogradely labeled cells in each FC area. The projection from different FC regions varied across injection sites in strength, following different spatial patterns. Importantly, a site at the rostral end of the cingulate sulcus stood out as having strong inputs from many areas in diverse FC regions. Moreover, it was at the integrative conjunction of three projection trends across sites. This site marks a connectional hub inside the rACC that integrates FC inputs across functional modalities. Tractography with monkey diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) located a similar hub region comparable to the tracing result. Applying the same tractography method to human dMRI data, we demonstrated that a similar hub can be located in the human rACC.

Data availability

All data analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. FreeSurfer label files have been provided for Figure 8A.

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Wei Tang

    Basic Neuroscience Division, McLean Hospital / Harvard Medical School, Belmont, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Saad Jbabdi

    Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain, Department of Clinical Neurology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Ziyi Zhu

    Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Michiel Cottaar

    Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain, Department of Clinical Neurology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Giorgia Grisot

    Athinoula A Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4349-1201
  6. Julia F Lehman

    Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Anastasia Yendiki

    Athinoula A Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Suzanne N Haber

    Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, United States
    For correspondence
    Suzanne_Haber@urmc.rochester.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5237-1941

Funding

National Institute of Mental Health (MH106435)

  • Wei Tang
  • Ziyi Zhu
  • Julia F Lehman
  • Suzanne N Haber

National Institute of Mental Health (MH045573)

  • Wei Tang
  • Ziyi Zhu
  • Julia F Lehman
  • Suzanne N Haber

Medical Research Council (MR/L009013/1)

  • Saad Jbabdi

National Institute of Mental Health (U01-MH109589)

  • Michiel Cottaar

NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research (U01-MH093765)

  • Giorgia Grisot
  • Anastasia Yendiki

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. David Badre, Brown University, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All nonhuman primate experiments were performed in accordance with the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and approved by the University Committee on Animal Resources at University of Rochester (Protocol Number UCAR-2008-122R).

Human subjects: The human data were obtained from the publicly available Human Connectome Project database. All procedures conformed to ethical standards approved by the Institutional Review Board of Partners Healthcare. All human subjects have provided written informed consent.

Version history

  1. Received: November 19, 2018
  2. Accepted: June 18, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 19, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: July 11, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Tang 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

  • 4,387
    views
  • 574
    downloads
  • 72
    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. Wei Tang
  2. Saad Jbabdi
  3. Ziyi Zhu
  4. Michiel Cottaar
  5. Giorgia Grisot
  6. Julia F Lehman
  7. Anastasia Yendiki
  8. Suzanne N Haber
(2019)
A connectional hub in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex links areas of emotion and cognitive control
eLife 8:e43761.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.43761

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.43761

Further reading

    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.

    1. Neuroscience
    Michael Berger, Michèle Fraatz ... Henrike Scholz
    Research Article

    The brain regulates food intake in response to internal energy demands and food availability. However, can internal energy storage influence the type of memory that is formed? We show that the duration of starvation determines whether Drosophila melanogaster forms appetitive short-term or longer-lasting intermediate memories. The internal glycogen storage in the muscles and adipose tissue influences how intensely sucrose-associated information is stored. Insulin-like signaling in octopaminergic reward neurons integrates internal energy storage into memory formation. Octopamine, in turn, suppresses the formation of long-term memory. Octopamine is not required for short-term memory because octopamine-deficient mutants can form appetitive short-term memory for sucrose and to other nutrients depending on the internal energy status. The reduced positive reinforcing effect of sucrose at high internal glycogen levels, combined with the increased stability of food-related memories due to prolonged periods of starvation, could lead to increased food intake.