Cell type composition and circuit organization of clonally related excitatory neurons in the juvenile mouse neocortex

  1. Cathryn R Cadwell  Is a corresponding author
  2. Federico Scala
  3. Paul G Fahey
  4. Dmitry Kobak
  5. Shalaka Mulherkar
  6. Fabian H Sinz
  7. Stelios Papadopoulos
  8. Zheng H Tan
  9. Per Johnsson
  10. Leonard Hartmanis
  11. Shuang Li
  12. Ronald J Cotton
  13. Kimberley F Tolias
  14. Rickard Sandberg
  15. Philipp Berens
  16. Xialong Jiang  Is a corresponding author
  17. Andreas Savas Tolias  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  2. Baylor College of Medicine, United States
  3. University of Tübingen, Germany
  4. Karolinska Institutet, Sweden

Abstract

Clones of excitatory neurons derived from a common progenitor have been proposed to serve as elementary information processing modules in the neocortex. To characterize the cell types and circuit diagram of clonally related neurons, we performed multi-cell patch clamp recordings and Patch-seq on neurons derived from Nestin-positive progenitors labeled by tamoxifen induction at embryonic day 10.5. The resulting clones are derived from two radial glia on average, span cortical layers 2-6, and are composed of a random sampling of transcriptomic cell types. We find an interaction between shared lineage and connectivity: related neurons are more likely to be connected vertically across cortical layers, but not laterally within the same layer. These findings challenge the view that related neurons show uniformly increased connectivity and suggest that integration of vertical intra-clonal input with lateral inter-clonal input may represent a developmentally programmed connectivity motif supporting the emergence of functional circuits.

Data availability

Sequencing data have been deposited in GEO under accession code GSE140946. All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4. The source data provided for Figure 4 also apply to Figure 5 and Table 1.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Cathryn R Cadwell

    Anatomic Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    Cathryn.Cadwell@ucsf.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1963-8285
  2. Federico Scala

    Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Paul G Fahey

    Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Dmitry Kobak

    Institute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Shalaka Mulherkar

    Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8736-527X
  6. Fabian H Sinz

    Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Stelios Papadopoulos

    Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Zheng H Tan

    Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Per Johnsson

    Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Leonard Hartmanis

    Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Shuang Li

    Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Ronald J Cotton

    Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Kimberley F Tolias

    Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2092-920X
  14. Rickard Sandberg

    Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Philipp Berens

    Institute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0199-4727
  16. Xialong Jiang

    Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    For correspondence
    xiaolonj@bcm.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Andreas Savas Tolias

    Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    For correspondence
    astolias@bcm.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4305-6376

Funding

Baylor College of Medicine (Optical Imaging and Vital Microscopy Core)

  • Andreas Savas Tolias

Baylor College of Medicine (Faculty start-up fund)

  • Xialong Jiang

National Institutes of Health (F30MH095440,T32GM007330)

  • Cathryn R Cadwell

National Institutes of Health (F30MH112312)

  • Paul G Fahey

Baylor Research Advocates for Student Scientists (BRASS Scholar Award)

  • Cathryn R Cadwell
  • Paul G Fahey

National Institutes of Health (R01MH103108,R01DA028525,DP1EY023176,P30EY002520,T32EY07001,DP1OD008301)

  • Andreas Savas Tolias

National Science Foundation (707359)

  • Andreas Savas Tolias

Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas

  • Rickard Sandberg

Vallee Foundation

  • Rickard Sandberg

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (EXC 2064,BE5601/4-1)

  • Philipp Berens

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (FKZ 01GQ1601)

  • Philipp Berens

McKnight Foundation (McKnight Scholar Award)

  • Andreas Savas Tolias

Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation (Young Investigator Award)

  • Andreas Savas Tolias

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to an approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocol of Baylor College of Medicine (protocol # AN-4703). Every effort was made to minimize suffering.

Copyright

© 2020, Cadwell 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

  • 4,198
    views
  • 640
    downloads
  • 44
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52951

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    Thomas A Bos, Elizaveta Polyakova ... Monique RM Jongbloed
    Research Article Updated

    Human autonomic neuronal cell models are emerging as tools for modeling diseases such as cardiac arrhythmias. In this systematic review, we compared 33 articles applying 14 different protocols to generate sympathetic neurons and 3 different procedures to produce parasympathetic neurons. All methods involved the differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells, and none employed permanent or reversible cell immortalization. Almost all protocols were reproduced in multiple pluripotent stem cell lines, and over half showed evidence of neural firing capacity. Common limitations in the field are a lack of three-dimensional models and models that include multiple cell types. Sympathetic neuron differentiation protocols largely mirrored embryonic development, with the notable absence of migration, axon extension, and target-specificity cues. Parasympathetic neuron differentiation protocols may be improved by including several embryonic cues promoting cell survival, cell maturation, or ion channel expression. Moreover, additional markers to define parasympathetic neurons in vitro may support the validity of these protocols. Nonetheless, four sympathetic neuron differentiation protocols and one parasympathetic neuron differentiation protocol reported more than two-thirds of cells expressing autonomic neuron markers. Altogether, these protocols promise to open new research avenues of human autonomic neuron development and disease modeling.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Sarah Y Coomson, Salil A Lachke
    Insight

    A study in mice reveals key interactions between proteins involved in fibroblast growth factor signaling and how they contribute to distinct stages of eye lens development.