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

  • 3,599
    views
  • 618
    downloads
  • 64
    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
    Zhujun Shao, Mengya Zhang, Qing Yu
    Research Article

    When holding visual information temporarily in working memory (WM), the neural representation of the memorandum is distributed across various cortical regions, including visual and frontal cortices. However, the role of stimulus representation in visual and frontal cortices during WM has been controversial. Here, we tested the hypothesis that stimulus representation persists in the frontal cortex to facilitate flexible control demands in WM. During functional MRI, participants flexibly switched between simple WM maintenance of visual stimulus or more complex rule-based categorization of maintained stimulus on a trial-by-trial basis. Our results demonstrated enhanced stimulus representation in the frontal cortex that tracked demands for active WM control and enhanced stimulus representation in the visual cortex that tracked demands for precise WM maintenance. This differential frontal stimulus representation traded off with the newly-generated category representation with varying control demands. Simulation using multi-module recurrent neural networks replicated human neural patterns when stimulus information was preserved for network readout. Altogether, these findings help reconcile the long-standing debate in WM research, and provide empirical and computational evidence that flexible stimulus representation in the frontal cortex during WM serves as a potential neural coding scheme to accommodate the ever-changing environment.

    1. Neuroscience
    Gáspár Oláh, Rajmund Lákovics ... Gábor Tamás
    Research Article

    Human-specific cognitive abilities depend on information processing in the cerebral cortex, where the neurons are significantly larger and their processes longer and sparser compared to rodents. We found that, in synaptically connected layer 2/3 pyramidal cells (L2/3 PCs), the delay in signal propagation from soma to soma is similar in humans and rodents. To compensate for the longer processes of neurons, membrane potential changes in human axons and/or dendrites must propagate faster. Axonal and dendritic recordings show that the propagation speed of action potentials (APs) is similar in human and rat axons, but the forward propagation of excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs) and the backward propagation of APs are 26 and 47% faster in human dendrites, respectively. Experimentally-based detailed biophysical models have shown that the key factor responsible for the accelerated EPSP propagation in human cortical dendrites is the large conductance load imposed at the soma by the large basal dendritic tree. Additionally, larger dendritic diameters and differences in cable and ion channel properties in humans contribute to enhanced signal propagation. Our integrative experimental and modeling study provides new insights into the scaling rules that help maintain information processing speed albeit the large and sparse neurons in the human cortex.