1. Neuroscience
Download icon

Single-cell transcriptomic evidence for dense intracortical neuropeptide networks

Research Article
  • Cited 11
  • Views 3,343
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2019;8:e47889 doi: 10.7554/eLife.47889

Abstract

Seeking new insights into the homeostasis, modulation and plasticity of cortical synaptic networks, we have analyzed results from a single-cell RNA-seq study of 22,439 mouse neocortical neurons. Our analysis exposes transcriptomic evidence for dozens of molecularly distinct neuropeptidergic modulatory networks that directly interconnect all cortical neurons. This evidence begins with a discovery that transcripts of one or more neuropeptide precursor (NPP) and one or more neuropeptide-selective G-protein-coupled receptor (NP-GPCR) genes are highly abundant in all, or very nearly all, cortical neurons. Individual neurons express diverse subsets of NP signaling genes from palettes encoding 18 NPPs and 29 NP-GPCRs. These 47 genes comprise 37 cognate NPP/NP-GPCR pairs, implying the likelihood of local neuropeptide signaling. Here we use neuron-type-specific patterns of NP gene expression to offer specific, testable predictions regarding 37 peptidergic neuromodulatory networks that may play prominent roles in cortical homeostasis and plasticity.

Data availability

The present study is an analysis of a large transcriptomic dataset that is now freely available for download in its entirety athttp://celltypes.brain-map.org/rnaseq/ and is described fully in a rigorously peer-reviewed publication (Tasic, et al., Nature 563:72-78, 2018). All code and intermediate data products involved in preparing this manuscript are freely available from a well-documented GitHub repository: https://github.com/AllenInstitute/PeptidergicNetworks

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Stephen J Smith

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    stephens@alleninstitute.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2290-8701
  2. Uygar Sümbül

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7134-8897
  3. Lucas T Graybuck

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8814-6818
  4. Forrest Collman

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Shamishtaa Seshamani

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Rohan Gala

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Olga Gliko

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Leila Elabbady

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Jeremy A Miller

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4549-588X
  10. Trygve E Bakken

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3373-7386
  11. Jean Rossier

    Neuroscience Paris Seine, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Zizhen Yao

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Ed Lein

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9012-6552
  14. Hongkui Zeng

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0326-5878
  15. Bosiljka Tasic

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6861-4506
  16. Michael Hawrylycz

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    MikeH@alleninstitute.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01NS092474)

  • Stephen J Smith

National Institutes of Health (R01MH104227)

  • Stephen J Smith

National Institutes of Health (1U24NS109113)

  • Stephen J Smith

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 D Ginty, Harvard Medical School, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: April 23, 2019
  2. Accepted: November 10, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 11, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: November 27, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Smith 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

  • 3,343
    Page views
  • 537
    Downloads
  • 11
    Citations

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

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)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Neuroscience
    Ibrahim T Mughrabi et al.
    Tools and Resources Updated

    Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) suppresses inflammation and autoimmune diseases in preclinical and clinical studies. The underlying molecular, neurological, and anatomical mechanisms have been well characterized using acute electrophysiological stimulation of the vagus. However, there are several unanswered mechanistic questions about the effects of chronic VNS, which require solving numerous technical challenges for a long-term interface with the vagus in mice. Here, we describe a scalable model for long-term VNS in mice developed and validated in four research laboratories. We observed significant heart rate responses for at least 4 weeks in 60–90% of animals. Device implantation did not impair vagus-mediated reflexes. VNS using this implant significantly suppressed TNF levels in endotoxemia. Histological examination of implanted nerves revealed fibrotic encapsulation without axonal pathology. This model may be useful to study the physiology of the vagus and provides a tool to systematically investigate long-term VNS as therapy for chronic diseases modeled in mice.

    1. Neuroscience
    Shinya Ohara et al.
    Research Article Updated

    The entorhinal cortex, in particular neurons in layer V, allegedly mediate transfer of information from the hippocampus to the neocortex, underlying long-term memory. Recently, this circuit has been shown to comprise a hippocampal output recipient layer Vb and a cortical projecting layer Va. With the use of in vitro electrophysiology in transgenic mice specific for layer Vb, we assessed the presence of the thus necessary connection from layer Vb-to-Va in the functionally distinct medial (MEC) and lateral (LEC) subdivisions; MEC, particularly its dorsal part, processes allocentric spatial information, whereas the corresponding part of LEC processes information representing elements of episodes. Using identical experimental approaches, we show that connections from layer Vb-to-Va neurons are stronger in dorsal LEC compared with dorsal MEC, suggesting different operating principles in these two regions. Although further in vivo experiments are needed, our findings imply a potential difference in how LEC and MEC mediate episodic systems consolidation.