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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. David Kleinfeld, University of California, San Diego, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: July 5, 2019
  2. Accepted: December 25, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 17, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 11, 2020 (version 2)

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

  • 3,145
    Page views
  • 561
    Downloads
  • 24
    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. 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

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Tarek Amer, Lila Davachi
    Review Article

    Pattern separation, or the process by which highly similar stimuli or experiences in memory are represented by non-overlapping neural ensembles, has typically been ascribed to processes supported by the hippocampus. Converging evidence from a wide range of studies, however, suggests that pattern separation is a multistage process supported by a network of brain regions. Based on this evidence, considered together with related findings from the interference resolution literature, we propose the ‘cortico-hippocampal pattern separation’ (CHiPS) framework, which asserts that brain regions involved in cognitive control play a significant role in pattern separation. Particularly, these regions may contribute to pattern separation by (1) resolving interference in sensory regions that project to the hippocampus, thus regulating its cortical input, or (2) directly modulating hippocampal processes in accordance with task demands. Considering recent interest in how hippocampal operations are modulated by goal states likely represented and regulated by extra-hippocampal regions, we argue that pattern separation is similarly supported by neocortical–hippocampal interactions.

    1. Medicine
    2. Neuroscience
    Christian Büchel
    Review Article

    Chronic, or persistent pain affects more than 10% of adults in the general population. This makes it one of the major physical and mental health care problems. Although pain is an important acute warning signal that allows the organism to take action before tissue damage occurs, it can become persistent and its role as a warning signal thereby inadequate. Although per definition, pain can only be labeled as persistent after 3 months, the trajectory from acute to persistent pain is likely to be determined very early and might even start at the time of injury. The biopsychosocial model has revolutionized our understanding of chronic pain and paved the way for psychological treatments for persistent pain, which routinely outperform other forms of treatment. This suggests that psychological processes could also be important in shaping the very early trajectory from acute to persistent pain and that targeting these processes could prevent the development of persistent pain. In this review, we develop an integrative model and suggest novel interventions during early pain trajectories, based on predictions from this model.