A stochastic framework of neurogenesis underlies the assembly of neocortical cytoarchitecture

  1. Alfredo Llorca
  2. Gabriele Ciceri
  3. Robert Beattie
  4. Fong Kuan Wong
  5. Giovanni Diana
  6. Eleni Serafeimidou-Pouliou
  7. Marian Fernández-Otero
  8. Carmen Streicher
  9. Sebastian J Arnold
  10. Martin Meyer
  11. Simon Hippenmeyer
  12. Miguel Maravall
  13. Oscar Marin  Is a corresponding author
  1. King's College London, United Kingdom
  2. Institute of Science and Technology Austria, Austria
  3. University of Freiburg, Germany
  4. University of Sussex, United Kingdom

Abstract

The cerebral cortex contains multiple areas with distinctive cytoarchitectonical patterns, but the cellular mechanisms underlying the emergence of this diversity remain unclear. Here, we have investigated the neuronal output of individual progenitor cells in the developing mouse neocortex using a combination of methods that together circumvent the biases and limitations of individual approaches. Our experimental results indicate that progenitor cells generate pyramidal cell lineages with a wide range of sizes and laminar configurations. Mathematical modelling indicates that these outcomes are compatible with a stochastic model of cortical neurogenesis in which progenitor cells undergo a series of probabilistic decisions that lead to the specification of very heterogeneous progenies. Our findings support a mechanism for cortical neurogenesis whose flexibility would make it capable to generate the diverse cytoarchitectures that characterize distinct neocortical areas.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Alfredo Llorca

    Centre for Developmental Neurobiology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Gabriele Ciceri

    Centre for Developmental Neurobiology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Robert Beattie

    Institute of Science and Technology Austria, Klosterneuburg, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Fong Kuan Wong

    Centre for Developmental Neurobiology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Giovanni Diana

    Centre for Developmental Neurobiology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7497-5271
  6. Eleni Serafeimidou-Pouliou

    Centre for Developmental Neurobiology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Marian Fernández-Otero

    Centre for Developmental Neurobiology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Carmen Streicher

    Institute of Science and Technology Austria, Klosterneuburg, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Sebastian J Arnold

    Institute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Martin Meyer

    Centre for Developmental Neurobiology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Simon Hippenmeyer

    Institute of Science and Technology Austria, Klosterneuburg, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2279-1061
  12. Miguel Maravall

    Sussex Neuroscience, School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8869-7206
  13. Oscar Marin

    Centre for Developmental Neurobiology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    oscar.marin@kcl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6264-7027

Funding

H2020 European Research Council (ERC-2017-AdG 787355)

  • Oscar Marin

H2020 European Research Council (ERC-2016-CoG 725780)

  • Simon Hippenmeyer

European Molecular Biology Organization

  • Fong Kuan Wong

H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions

  • Fong Kuan Wong

Austrian Science Fund (Lise-Meitner program M 2416)

  • Robert Beattie

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 approved by King's College London and IST Austria, and were performed under UK Home Office project licenses, and in accordance with Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Research license, and European regulations (EU directive 86/609, EU decree 2001- 486).

Reviewing Editor

  1. Sonia Garel, Ecole Normale Superieure, France

Publication history

  1. Received: August 27, 2019
  2. Accepted: November 15, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 18, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: January 17, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Llorca 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

  • 4,944
    Page views
  • 1,043
    Downloads
  • 46
    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. Alfredo Llorca
  2. Gabriele Ciceri
  3. Robert Beattie
  4. Fong Kuan Wong
  5. Giovanni Diana
  6. Eleni Serafeimidou-Pouliou
  7. Marian Fernández-Otero
  8. Carmen Streicher
  9. Sebastian J Arnold
  10. Martin Meyer
  11. Simon Hippenmeyer
  12. Miguel Maravall
  13. Oscar Marin
(2019)
A stochastic framework of neurogenesis underlies the assembly of neocortical cytoarchitecture
eLife 8:e51381.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.51381
  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Emily L Heckman, Chris Q Doe
    Research Advance

    The organization of neural circuits determines nervous system function. Variability can arise during neural circuit development (e.g. neurite morphology, axon/dendrite position). To ensure robust nervous system function, mechanisms must exist to accommodate variation in neurite positioning during circuit formation. Previously we developed a model system in the Drosophila ventral nerve cord to conditionally induce positional variability of a proprioceptive sensory axon terminal, and used this model to show that when we altered the presynaptic position of the sensory neuron, its major postsynaptic interneuron partner modified its dendritic arbor to match the presynaptic contact, resulting in functional synaptic input (Sales et al., 2019). Here we investigate the cellular mechanisms by which the interneuron dendrites detect and match variation in presynaptic partner location and input strength. We manipulate the presynaptic sensory neuron by (a) ablation; (b) silencing or activation; or (c) altering its location in the neuropil. From these experiments we conclude that there are two opposing mechanisms used to establish functional connectivity in the face of presynaptic variability: presynaptic contact stimulates dendrite outgrowth locally, whereas presynaptic activity inhibits postsynaptic dendrite outgrowth globally. These mechanisms are only active during an early larval critical period for structural plasticity. Collectively, our data provide new insights into dendrite development, identifying mechanisms that allow dendrites to flexibly respond to developmental variability in presynaptic location and input strength.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Feng Xian, Julia Regina Sondermann ... Manuela Schmidt
    Tools and Resources

    The age and sex of studied animals profoundly impact experimental outcomes in biomedical research. However, most preclinical studies in mice use a wide-spanning age range from 4 to 20 weeks and do not assess male and female mice in parallel. This raises concerns regarding reproducibility and neglects potentially relevant age and sex differences, which are largely unknown at the molecular level in naïve mice. Here, we employed an optimized quantitative proteomics workflow in order to deeply profile mouse paw skin and sciatic nerves (SCN) – two tissues implicated in nociception and pain as well as diseases linked to inflammation, injury, and demyelination. Remarkably, we uncovered significant differences when comparing male and female mice at adolescent (4 weeks) and adult (14 weeks) age. Our analysis deciphered protein subsets and networks that were correlated with the age and/or sex of mice. Notably, among these were proteins/biological pathways with known (patho)physiological relevance, e.g., homeostasis and epidermal signaling in skin, and, in SCN, multiple myelin proteins and regulators of neuronal development. Extensive comparisons with available databases revealed that various proteins associated with distinct skin diseases and pain exhibited significant abundance changes in dependence on age and/or sex. Taken together, our study uncovers hitherto unknown sex and age differences at the level of proteins and protein networks. Overall, we provide a unique proteome resource that facilitates mechanistic insights into somatosensory and skin biology, and integrates age and sex as biological variables – a prerequisite for successful preclinical studies in mouse disease models.