Mechanisms underlying the response of mouse cortical networks to optogenetic manipulation

  1. Alexandre Mahrach
  2. Guang Chen
  3. Nuo Li
  4. Carl van Vreeswijk
  5. David Hansel  Is a corresponding author
  1. CNRS-UMR 8002, France
  2. Baylor College of Medicine, United States

Abstract

GABAergic Interneurons can be subdivided into three subclasses: parvalbumin positive (PV), somatostatin positive (SOM) and serotonin positive neurons. With principal cells (PCs) they form complex networks. We examine PCs and PV responses in mouse anterior lateral motor cortex (ALM) and barrel cortex (S1) upon PV photostimulation in vivo. In ALM layer 5 and S1, the PV response is paradoxical: photoexcitation reduces their activity. This is not the case in ALM layer 2/3. We combine analytical calculations and numerical simulations to investigate how these results constrain the architecture. Two-population models cannot explain the results. Four-population networks with V1-like architecture account for the data in ALM layer 2/3 and layer 5. Our data in S1 can be explained if SOM neurons receive inputs only from PCs and PV neurons. In both four-population models, the paradoxical effect implies not too strong recurrent excitation. It is not evidence for stabilization by inhibition.

Data availability

Electrophysiology data and code used are available at Github (https://github.com/Amahrach/Paper4pop).

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Alexandre Mahrach

    Integrative Neuroscience and Cognition Center, CNRS-UMR 8002, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Guang Chen

    Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Nuo Li

    Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Carl van Vreeswijk

    Integrative Neuroscience and Cognition Center, CNRS-UMR 8002, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. David Hansel

    Integrative Neuroscience and Cognition Center, CNRS-UMR 8002, Paris, France
    For correspondence
    david.hansel@parisdescartes.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1352-6592

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (14-NEUC-0001-01)

  • Carl van Vreeswijk

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (13-BSV4-0014-02)

  • David Hansel

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (09-SYSC-002-01)

  • David Hansel

Helen Hay Whitney Foundation

  • Nuo Li

Robert and Janice McNair Foundation

  • Nuo Li

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

  • Nuo Li

National Institutes of Health (NS104781)

  • Nuo Li

Pew Charitable Trusts

  • Nuo Li

Simons Collaboration on the Global Brain (543005)

  • Nuo Li

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 procedures were in accordance with protocols approved by the Janelia Research Campus and Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Copyright

© 2020, Mahrach 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

  • 3,541
    views
  • 616
    downloads
  • 53
    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. Alexandre Mahrach
  2. Guang Chen
  3. Nuo Li
  4. Carl van Vreeswijk
  5. David Hansel
(2020)
Mechanisms underlying the response of mouse cortical networks to optogenetic manipulation
eLife 9:e49967.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49967

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49967

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Claire Meissner-Bernard, Friedemann Zenke, Rainer W Friedrich
    Research Article

    Biological memory networks are thought to store information by experience-dependent changes in the synaptic connectivity between assemblies of neurons. Recent models suggest that these assemblies contain both excitatory and inhibitory neurons (E/I assemblies), resulting in co-tuning and precise balance of excitation and inhibition. To understand computational consequences of E/I assemblies under biologically realistic constraints we built a spiking network model based on experimental data from telencephalic area Dp of adult zebrafish, a precisely balanced recurrent network homologous to piriform cortex. We found that E/I assemblies stabilized firing rate distributions compared to networks with excitatory assemblies and global inhibition. Unlike classical memory models, networks with E/I assemblies did not show discrete attractor dynamics. Rather, responses to learned inputs were locally constrained onto manifolds that ‘focused’ activity into neuronal subspaces. The covariance structure of these manifolds supported pattern classification when information was retrieved from selected neuronal subsets. Networks with E/I assemblies therefore transformed the geometry of neuronal coding space, resulting in continuous representations that reflected both relatedness of inputs and an individual’s experience. Such continuous representations enable fast pattern classification, can support continual learning, and may provide a basis for higher-order learning and cognitive computations.

    1. Neuroscience
    Mi-Seon Kong, Ethan Ancell ... Larry S Zweifel
    Research Article

    The central amygdala (CeA) has emerged as an important brain region for regulating both negative (fear and anxiety) and positive (reward) affective behaviors. The CeA has been proposed to encode affective information in the form of valence (whether the stimulus is good or bad) or salience (how significant is the stimulus), but the extent to which these two types of stimulus representation occur in the CeA is not known. Here, we used single cell calcium imaging in mice during appetitive and aversive conditioning and found that majority of CeA neurons (~65%) encode the valence of the unconditioned stimulus (US) with a smaller subset of cells (~15%) encoding the salience of the US. Valence and salience encoding of the conditioned stimulus (CS) was also observed, albeit to a lesser extent. These findings show that the CeA is a site of convergence for encoding oppositely valenced US information.