Cell-type specific innervation of cortical pyramidal cells at their apical dendrites

  1. Ali Karimi
  2. Jan Odenthal
  3. Florian Drawitsch
  4. Kevin M Boergens
  5. Moritz Helmstaedter  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, Germany

Abstract

We investigated the synaptic innervation of apical dendrites of cortical pyramidal cells in a region between layers (L) 1 and 2 using 3-D electron microscopy applied to four cortical regions in mouse. We found the relative inhibitory input at the apical dendrite's main bifurcation to be more than 2-fold larger for L2 than L3 and L5 thick-tufted pyramidal cells. Towards the distal tuft dendrites in upper L1, the relative inhibitory input was at least about 2-fold larger for L5 pyramidal cells than for all others. Only L3 pyramidal cells showed homogeneous inhibitory input fraction. The inhibitory-to-excitatory synaptic ratio is thus specific for the types of pyramidal cells. Inhibitory axons preferentially innervated either L2 or L3/5 apical dendrites, but not both. These findings describe connectomic principles for the control of pyramidal cells at their apical dendrites and support differential computational properties of L2,L3 and subtypes of L5 pyramidal cells in cortex.

Data availability

All 6 datasets are available for browsing at webknossos.org using the following links.S1: https://wklink.org/8732V2: https://wklink.org/9812PPC: https://wklink.org/1262ACC: https://wklink.org/6712LPtA: https://wklink.org/8912PPC2: https://wklink.org/6347All software used for analysis is available at (https://gitlab.mpcdf.mpg.de/connectomics/apicaltuftpaper) under the MIT license.

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ali Karimi

    Department of Connectomics, Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6477-2523
  2. Jan Odenthal

    Department of Connectomics, Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Florian Drawitsch

    Department of Connectomics, Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9543-1417
  4. Kevin M Boergens

    Department of Connectomics, Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Moritz Helmstaedter

    Department of Connectomics, Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, Frankfurt, Germany
    For correspondence
    mh@brain.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    Moritz Helmstaedter, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7973-0767

Funding

Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Open-access funding)

  • Ali Karimi
  • Jan Odenthal
  • Florian Drawitsch
  • Kevin M Boergens
  • Moritz Helmstaedter

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Carol A Mason, Columbia University, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experimental procedures were performed according to the law of animal experimentation issued by the German Federal Government under the supervision of local ethics committees and according to the guidelines of the Max Planck Society. The experimental procedures were approved by Regierungspräsidium Darmstadt, under protocol ID V54 - 19c20/15 F126/1015 (LPtA, PPC2) or V54 - 19 c 20/15 - F126/1002 (V2, PPC, ACC). The S1 sample was prepared following experimental procedures approved by Regierung von Oberbayern, 55.2-1-54-2532.3-103-12.

Version history

  1. Received: March 14, 2019
  2. Accepted: February 26, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 28, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: June 16, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Karimi 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

  • 6,001
    Page views
  • 856
    Downloads
  • 39
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

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. Ali Karimi
  2. Jan Odenthal
  3. Florian Drawitsch
  4. Kevin M Boergens
  5. Moritz Helmstaedter
(2020)
Cell-type specific innervation of cortical pyramidal cells at their apical dendrites
eLife 9:e46876.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46876

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46876

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Kiwamu Kudo, Kamalini G Ranasinghe ... Srikantan S Nagarajan
    Research Article

    Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-β and misfolded tau proteins causing synaptic dysfunction, and progressive neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. Altered neural oscillations have been consistently demonstrated in AD. However, the trajectories of abnormal neural oscillations in AD progression and their relationship to neurodegeneration and cognitive decline are unknown. Here, we deployed robust event-based sequencing models (EBMs) to investigate the trajectories of long-range and local neural synchrony across AD stages, estimated from resting-state magnetoencephalography. The increases in neural synchrony in the delta-theta band and the decreases in the alpha and beta bands showed progressive changes throughout the stages of the EBM. Decreases in alpha and beta band synchrony preceded both neurodegeneration and cognitive decline, indicating that frequency-specific neuronal synchrony abnormalities are early manifestations of AD pathophysiology. The long-range synchrony effects were greater than the local synchrony, indicating a greater sensitivity of connectivity metrics involving multiple regions of the brain. These results demonstrate the evolution of functional neuronal deficits along the sequence of AD progression.

    1. Medicine
    2. Neuroscience
    Luisa Fassi, Shachar Hochman ... Roi Cohen Kadosh
    Research Article

    In recent years, there has been debate about the effectiveness of treatments from different fields, such as neurostimulation, neurofeedback, brain training, and pharmacotherapy. This debate has been fuelled by contradictory and nuanced experimental findings. Notably, the effectiveness of a given treatment is commonly evaluated by comparing the effect of the active treatment versus the placebo on human health and/or behaviour. However, this approach neglects the individual’s subjective experience of the type of treatment she or he received in establishing treatment efficacy. Here, we show that individual differences in subjective treatment - the thought of receiving the active or placebo condition during an experiment - can explain variability in outcomes better than the actual treatment. We analysed four independent datasets (N = 387 participants), including clinical patients and healthy adults from different age groups who were exposed to different neurostimulation treatments (transcranial magnetic stimulation: Studies 1 and 2; transcranial direct current stimulation: Studies 3 and 4). Our findings show that the inclusion of subjective treatment can provide a better model fit either alone or in interaction with objective treatment (defined as the condition to which participants are assigned in the experiment). These results demonstrate the significant contribution of subjective experience in explaining the variability of clinical, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes. We advocate for existing and future studies in clinical and non-clinical research to start accounting for participants’ subjective beliefs and their interplay with objective treatment when assessing the efficacy of treatments. This approach will be crucial in providing a more accurate estimation of the treatment effect and its source, allowing the development of effective and reproducible interventions.