Brain networks manifest a continuous interplay between internal ongoing activity and stimulus-driven (evoked) responses to form perception. Numerous studies have shown that cortical states modulate ongoing activity and its interaction with sensory-evoked input (Arieli et al., 1996; Deneux and Grinvald, 2016; Ferezou and Deneux, 2017; Ferezou et al., 2007; Fiser et al., 2010; Fox et al., 2006; Haider et al., 2007; He, 2013; Kasanetz et al., 2002; Kenet et al., 2003; Luczak et al., 2009; Markram et al., 1998; McGinley et al., 2015; Niell and Stryker, 2010; Raichle, 2015; Schölvinck et al., 2015; Shimaoka et al., 2019) that is further controlled by various gain mechanisms (Carandini and Heeger, 2012). Neuromodulators that affect the state of cortical networks (Marder, 2012), however, can alter the balance between ongoing (partly top-down) and evoked (largely bottom-up) activity. Therefore, they can crucially influence the formation of perceptual events (Cassidy et al., 2018; Pinto et al., 2013; Yu and Dayan, 2002) and higher cognitive functions (Doya, 2008; Hesselmann et al., 2008; Hurley et al., 2004; Sadaghiani et al., 2010). One prominent neuromodulator involved in the modulation of the cortical state is serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) (Rapport et al., 1948), which is mainly released from 5-HT neurons in the dorsal raphe (DR) and median raphe (MR) nuclei (Dahlström and Fuxe, 1964; Descarries et al., 1982; Ishimura et al., 1988; Mengod et al., 2006). The serotonergic system comprises widespread projections to all cortical and subcortical areas (Hale and Lowry, 2011; Jacobs and Azmitia, 1992; Mengod et al., 2006; Vertes and Linley, 2007; Waterhouse et al., 1986) with different 5-HT receptors (inhibitory or depolarizing) co-distributed across different cortical cell types (Hannon and Hoyer, 2008; Leysen, 2004; Santana et al., 2004). Altogether, this makes 5-HT a likely candidate for the contribution to fine-tuned scaling of both ongoing and evoked activity (Shimegi et al., 2016) as well as their integration across brain networks (Berger et al., 2009; Conio et al., 2019; Lesch and Waider, 2012).

In the visual cortex, pioneering studies using electrical stimulation of the dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN) revealed its general modulatory influence on evoked cortical responses (Gasanov et al., 1989; Moyanova and Dimov, 1986). Cortical application of 5-HT or 5-HT receptor agonists via microiontophoresis and single-cell recordings in vivo showed either suppressive or facilitative effects (Krnjević and Phillis, 1963; Reader, 1978; Watakabe et al., 2009; Waterhouse et al., 1990). Iontophoretic application of 5-HT into the visual cortex of awake monkeys in a recent study demonstrated that at the population level, however, 5-HT decreases mainly the gain of evoked responses without effecting spontaneous activity (Seillier et al., 2017). Such a distinct 5-HT effect on response gain was recently attributed to selective activation of 5-HT2A receptors (Zhang and Stackman, 2015) via several different approaches: after subcutaneous injection of a hallucinogenic 5-HT2A receptor agonist in mice (Michaiel et al., 2019), through whole-brain modelling (Deco et al., 2018) of human 5-HT2A receptor density and stimulation with lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and by direct and specific optogenetic activation of 5-HT2A receptors in the mouse visual cortex (Eickelbeck et al., 2019). Intriguingly, using optogenetic stimulation of 5-HT neurons in the mouse DRN (Dugué et al., 2014; Kapoor et al., 2016; Matias et al., 2017), only one study in olfactory cortex has shown so far a 5-HT-induced (divisive) gain control of spontaneous firing, without any effect on the gain of stimulus-driven population responses (Lottem et al., 2016). This suggests that DRN activation could separately reduce the weight of ongoing cortical activity relative to evoked activity (Lottem et al., 2016), thereby possibly changing the balance of integration between internal priors (Berkes et al., 2011; Fiser et al., 2010) and external sensory input (Lottem et al., 2016).

In this study, we employed optogenetic stimulation of 5-HT neurons in the DRN to investigate 5-HT-induced effects on ongoing and evoked population activity in the mouse primary visual cortex (V1) using wide-field Ca²⁺ imaging of RCaMP signal complemented with recordings of multi-unit spiking activity. Our results provide evidence for 5-HT-induced separable suppression of evoked and ongoing activity, affecting the gain of both these components in a divisive manner. Concurrent iontophoretic application of specific antagonists of 5-HT1A and 5-HT2A receptors (Dyck and Cynader, 1993; Jakab and Goldman-Rakic, 1998; Leysen, 2004; Riga et al., 2016; Shukla et al., 2014) suggest a distinct role of these receptors in regulating suppression levels of spontaneous and evoked population activity, respectively (Azimi et al., 2018).

Finally, we investigated how the divisive nature of 5-HT modulation affects evoked population responses to varying input intensities and integration with ongoing activity (Deco et al., 2015). Addressing this question is important because it allows estimating the extent of 5-HT-induced scaling of activity preserving the information content, as formalized by a model of divisive normalization (Carandini and Heeger, 2012). We found that normalization of responses in the anesthetized state is achieved with additive contribution of ongoing activity, indicating integration of spontaneous and evoked activity with increased weight of internal priors. In awake mice, normalization is largely independent of suppression in ongoing activity. This suggests that 5-HT provides a discrete divisive gain control of spontaneous ongoing and evoked visual activity, while preserving information content and regulating the balance between these components depending on the cortical state.

To trigger the activation of 5-HT neurons in the DRN with precise timing, we used a transgenic ePet-Cre mouse line (Scott et al., 2005), which allows expression of Channelrhodopsin2 (ChR2) in 5-HT neurons by Cre-dependent expression of double-floxed adeno-associated virus (AAV, see Materials and methods). This enabled real-time activation of 5-HT neurons via photostimulation (Li et al., 2005; Figure 1) in vivo (see Figure 1—figure supplement 1 for an example of extracellular recordings in the DRN). In order to simultaneously record activity of a large number of neurons across V1, we employed wide-field optical imaging of Ca²⁺ signals, shown to reflect suprathreshold population activity across upper cortical layers (Kim et al., 2016; Lütcke et al., 2013; Lütcke et al., 2010; Wallace et al., 2008; Xiao et al., 2017). Specifically, we used the red-shifted fluorescent probe RCaMP (Akerboom et al., 2013; Dana et al., 2016; Figure 1a) to minimize interference with the blue light employed to activate serotonergic neurons in the DRN (Figure 1b) and to reduce light scattering caused by hemodynamic signals in comparison to GCaMP.

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Photostimulation of 5-HT neurons in the DRN suppresses neuronal responses in primary visual cortex (V1)

As control conditions we recorded evoked responses to visual stimuli (vertical grating with 100% contrast, presented 10 times at intervals of 3 s with 200 ms duration) and spontaneous activity over a total of 30 s (Figure 2ai, [V] and Figure 2aiii [S], respectively). In addition, we recorded the activity during these conditions with photostimulation (16 s train of 470 nm light pulses at 20 Hz and 50% duty cycle, marked as blue bars in Figure 2aii, [V_ph] and Figure 2aiv, [S_ph]) to activate 5-HT neurons in the DRN. For each condition, Figure 2a shows the time course of RCaMP signals as mean spatial averages across V1 (25–50 trials per condition) derived from eight animals under anesthesia. Under control conditions without DRN photostimulation, activation over V1 shows each stimulus occurrence as a rapid ramp-up of the RCaMP signal followed by a slower decay towards baseline level (Figure 2ai). In contrast, after the onset of photostimulation, a strong suppression of evoked visual responses is observed, succeeded by a subsequent increase of the Ca²⁺ signal above pre-stimulation levels after cessation of photostimulation (Figure 2aii).

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Importantly, 5-HT-mediated suppression of cortical activity is present without external visual input; that is, following photostimulation, ongoing cortical activity rapidly declines below baseline levels (Figure 2aiv). This suppression of spontaneous activity includes cortical areas beyond V1 (white contours in Figure 2b, 4th row; for assignment of cortical areas, see Figure 1aiv), suggesting 5-HT affects spontaneous drive through widespread ascending projections from the DRN across the entire cortex (Hale and Lowry, 2011).

Suppression of ongoing activity

We next quantified the effects of DRN photostimulation on spontaneous cortical activity. The traces in Figure 3ai depict spatial averages of Ca²⁺ signals over V1. A comparison between spontaneous activity under control conditions (black stippled lines) and upon DRN photostimulation (S_ph, light blue line) reveals a significant suppression (−0.10±0.02, n=8 animals, p=0.039; one-sample t test; Figure 3aii, left bar). The suppression is significant 680 ms (8 animals, p=0.04; paired t test with permutation correction) after the onset of DRN photostimulation, then it reaches a local minimum followed by an increase in activity (Figure 3ai). This later elevation in the RCaMP signal could indicate an increase of intracellular Ca²⁺ levels (Eickelbeck et al., 2019) associated with the 5-HT-receptor-mediated activation of the Gq/11 pathway (Millan et al., 2008) and concomitant activation of store-operated channels (Celada et al., 2013). By restricting the averaging window to the period where suppression of the RCaMP signal is significant (as marked with red rectangle in Figure 3ai), the amount of suppression increased to −0.33±0.02 (8 animals, p<0.001, one-sample t test; Figure 3aii, right bar).

Figure 3 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

To investigate whether the observed suppression is indeed sustained during photostimulation and whether it reflects a decrease in spiking output of V1, we recorded multi-unit activity (MUA), n=9 animals, 104 MUAs, using the same experimental paradigm as in the wide-field RCaMP imaging. Similar to RCaMP imaging, spontaneous activity revealed by MUAs is significantly (below two times standard deviation of pre-photostimulation activity) suppressed after 750±184 ms of DRN photostimulation in comparison to baseline spontaneous firing (Figure 3bi, light blue and stippled black line, respectively) when averaged over the early phase (red rectangle in Figure 3ai and 3bi) of suppression (−0.48±0.07, n=9 animals, p<0.001, one-sample t test; Figure 3bii, right bar). Note that in contrast to the RCaMP signal, spiking activity is devoid of a subsequent elevation. Instead, the suppression remains highly significant throughout photostimulation (−0.43±0.08; n=9 animals, p<0.001; one-sample t test; Figure 3bii, left bar). This further suggests that the observed rise of the RCaMP signal may represent intracellular accumulation of Ca²⁺, rather than increase in spiking activity. The assumption is also supported by subsequent 5-HT receptor blocking experiments (see below). Altogether, it can be inferred that augmented activity of 5-HT neurons via DRN photostimulation results in suppression of spontaneous activity in the visual cortex. Additional analysis using linear regression shows that this suppression is divisive (Figure 4).

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

Suppression of visually evoked activity

Next, we compared the conditions with visual input (V and V_ph). While visually evoked responses of control conditions are characterized by repeated increase of the Ca²⁺ signal with a small adaptive decrease in the response amplitudes over time (Figure 5ai and 5bii, black trace), the amplitude of activity declines toward negative values in the presence of DRN photostimulation (Figure 5aii, dark blue trace). Note that both the amplitude of the evoked responses and their baseline are reduced. To assess how much of the suppression in amplitude is due to the suppression of its baseline level, we subtracted image frames obtained under S_ph conditions from those under V_ph conditions (pixelwise and across single trials). The outcome (Figure 5aii, gray trace) is the photostimulation-induced suppression of the evoked response independent of suppression in spontaneous activity, that we refer to as the evoked component.

Figure 5 with 3 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

To quantify these observations, three measurements are depicted in Figure 5b. (see Methods for details). The first measurement is the amplitude of evoked activity, defined as an average over the time window w₁ (Figure 5ai inset). Following DRN photostimulation, amplitudes of evoked responses (Figure 5bi dark blue curve) and evoked component (Figure 5bi gray curve) are significantly lower than those of the control condition (Figure 5bi black curve; p<0.05; paired t test with permutation correction). In the early part of the photostimulation window (stimulus #2–4), however, amplitudes of evoked responses are also significantly below amplitudes of the evoked component (p<0.05; paired t test with permutation correction). Using a second measurement, that is, the baseline of the traces (averaged over a 200 ms time window before the onset of each visual stimulus (w₂, Figure 5ai inset) indicates that this difference arises from additional suppression seen in spontaneous activity (Figure 3ai). Indeed, the time course of the baseline in the evoked responses during photostimulation is analogous to spontaneous activity during photostimulation (Figure 5bii, cf. dark blue and light blue traces, respectively); both are characterized by an initial suppression followed by the previously referred rise in RCaMP signal. We, therefore, define the baseline of the evoked response as the baseline component and it is approximated via spontaneous activity.

In order to verify that the suppression of the evoked component is independent of the suppression of spontaneous activity, the magnitude of responses (i.e. response gain, calculated as absolute change of the amplitude from baseline) is calculated as a third measurement (Figure 5biii). The suppression of magnitude is highly significant as compared to control (Figure 5biii, blue and black curves, respectively; p<0.05, paired t test with permutation correction). Moreover, in the photostimulated condition the magnitude of the evoked response resembles the evoked component (Figure 5biii, cf. overlapping blue and gray curves, respectively; across all stimuli, #1:10, p>0.21, paired t test with permutation correction), confirming that the suppression in response magnitude is separable from suppression of spontaneous activity.

Extracellular recordings of MUA in V1 substantiate the observed suppressive effects on evoked responses and their independence of baseline suppression at the spiking level (Figure 5—figure supplement 1). Figure 5—figure supplement 1b shows the quantification of the spike recordings using similar analysis as applied to the Ca²⁺ imaging data and Figure 5—figure supplement 1c shows an example recording of MUA.

Figure 5c summarizes a comparison between Ca²⁺ imaging data and MUA data using average of amplitude and magnitude values during the period of photostimulation (stimulus #2–7) after subtraction of controls. Evoked responses (blue) and evoked component (gray), obtained with Ca²⁺ imaging and MUA indicate a highly significant reduction in amplitude (Figure 5ci, Ca²⁺ imaging data: −0.450.02 [blue] and −0.39±0.02 [gray], n=8 animals, p<0.001, one-sample t test; MUA data: −0.55±0.04 [blue] and −0.41±0.04 [gray], n=9 animals, p<0.001, one-sample t test). The smaller suppression in the amplitude of the Ca²⁺ signal compared to MUA data reflects that the chosen averaging window also includes the rising baseline of the Ca²⁺ signal (Figure 5bii). Consequently, the magnitude of the responses which is independent from baseline changes reveals a similar significant reduction in Ca²⁺ and MUA data (Figure 5cii, Ca²⁺ imaging data: −0.38±0.01 [blue], −0.41±0.01 [gray], n=8 animals, p<0.001, one-sample t test; MUA data: −0.38±0.02 [blue], −0.39±0.02 [gray], n=9 animals, p<0.001, one-sample t test). This again demonstrates that 5-HT-induced reduction in the gain of evoked activity is independent of the reduction of ongoing activity and is well-captured by response magnitude in both recording methods. Analogous to spontaneous activity, using linear regression, we found that the suppression of the evoked component is divisive (Figure 5—figure supplement 2). Altogether, these results suggest that increasing activity of 5-HT neurons in the DRN affects cortical activity in a divisive manner via two suppressive components: one suppressing ongoing activity and another reducing the gain of visually evoked activity.

Distinct and independent contribution of 5-HT2A and 5-HT1A receptors to suppression of evoked and spontaneous activity

We next asked whether the observed two suppressive components might be mediated via different 5-HT receptors (Hannon and Hoyer, 2008; Leysen, 2004; Santana et al., 2004). After blocking 5-HT2A receptors via microiontophoresis of MDL (see Methods) and parallel photostimulation of 5-HT neurons in the DRN, the amplitude of the evoked response remains suppressed, while its magnitude is only slightly reduced (Figure 6ai, blue). Hence, after subtraction of the spontaneous component (Figure 6ai, light blue), the trace of the evoked component (Figure 6aii, gray) is nearly identical to control conditions (Figure 6aii, black) with no significant difference between magnitude values (Figure 6bi) except for a period immediately after onset of drug application (Figure 6bi, stimulus #2). This is most likely due to delayed onset of the drug effect. In contrast, the suppression of the baseline is preserved (Figure 6bii, dark blue) and is similar to spontaneous activity during photostimulation and MDL treatment (Figure 6bii, light blue). It is noteworthy that the rising part of the RCaMP signal in the S_ph condition during MDL application (Figure 6bii, light blue, values #5:7) is significantly reduced as compared to S_ph without MDL treatment (Figure 5bii, light blue; p=0.04, two-sample t test on the detrended traces). This suggests a reduction of the aforementioned intracellular Ca²⁺ accumulation (Eickelbeck et al., 2019) by effectively blocking 5-HT2A receptors. However, the continued rise of the RCaMP signal after the initial dip suggests contribution of further 5-HT receptor types (Jang et al., 2012; Millan et al., 2008) involved in intracellular Ca²⁺ accumulation that remain active during MDL application (Villalobos et al., 2005; Varga et al., 2009).

Figure 6

Download asset Open asset

Conversely, blocking of 5-HT1A receptors by microiontophoresis of WAY (see Materials and methods) abolishes the suppression in spontaneous activity (Figure 6ci, light blue and Figure 6dii), whereas the evoked component (Figure 6cii, gray) and hence, the magnitude of the response, remain significantly suppressed almost the entire time of drug application and photostimulation (Figure 6di, p<0.05, paired t test with permutation correction).

To compare 5-HT-induced effect on evoked and spontaneous components with and without drug application, time-averaged values during photostimulation are summarized in Figure 7. Suppression of the response magnitude (Figure 7a, left two bars) is significantly (p<0.01, two-sample t test) reduced via blocking 5-HT2A receptors (−0.18±0.03 [blue] and −0.16±0.03 [gray], middle two bars, n=6 animals, p>0.05; one-sample t test). No significant difference was found in magnitude of the evoked component by blocking 5-HT1A receptors (−0.36±0.05 [blue] and −0.37±0.05 [gray], right two bars; n=4 animals, p<0.001, one-sample t test). This suggests that 5-HT2A receptors dominantly contribute to the suppression of the evoked component by controlling the gain of the evoked response. In contrast, suppression of spontaneous activity (Figure 7b, left blue bar) is abolished via blocking of 5-HT1A receptors (0.02±0.02, n=4 animals, p>0.5, one-sample t test; Figure 7b, right blue bar), while no such change is seen by blocking 5-HT2A receptors (−0.4±0.02, n=6 animals, p<0.01; one-sample t test; Figure 7b, middle blue bar). Thus, activation of 5-HT1A receptors dominantly contributes to suppression of spontaneous activity.

Figure 7

Download asset Open asset

Together these results establish 5-HT1A and 5-HT2A receptors as major contributors to the suppression of activity in V1 induced by activation of 5-HT neurons in the DRN with separable impact on the gain of evoked and spontaneous components.

Intensity of visual input is scaled by 5-HT-induced normalization of cortical activity

To explore how sensitively 5-HT-induced suppression affects scaling of cortical activity, we employed the well-studied sensitivity of neurons in V1 to different stimulus contrasts. To obtain a contrast response function for different stimulus intensities, we presented gratings at 100, 50, 25, 12.5, and 6.25% contrast. Responses were imaged under control conditions (Figure 8ai) interleaved with conditions in which the DRN was photostimulated (Figure 8aii). As expected from earlier studies in mice (Porciatti et al., 1999), visual responses progressively decline in amplitude with decreasing contrast. To obtain an objective measure of the underlying contrast tuning the maximum of evoked response (peak) for each contrast is fitted to the Naka-Rushton function (Equation 6 in Materials and methods). The resulting fit is shown in Figure 8di as solid black curve (R²=0.93). Upon photostimulation of the DRN, we found that overall amplitudes for each contrast are systematically suppressed (Figure 8aii, dark blue traces), leading to a strong downward shift of the fitted tuning curve (Figure 8di, solid blue, R²=0.93). Furthermore, we found a systematic increase in the latency and significant decrease in the duration of evoked response (Figure 8—figure supplement 1). In addition, we confirmed the suppression of spontaneous activity independent of visual input (Figure 8aii, light blue trace). Above we showed that this suppressive spontaneous component contributes additively to the 5-HT-induced overall suppression of visual responses (Figure 5). Note that the evoked component is obtained by subtraction of the spontaneous component from the evoked responses for each contrast (Figure 8aiii). Therefore, the fitted tuning curve of the evoked component (Figure 8di, solid gray, R²=0.92) shows a shift toward tuning of control conditions that reflects the portion of suppression in the evoked response (Figure 8di, solid blue) attributed to the spontaneous component.

Figure 8 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Next, to account for normalization the traces of evoked responses (Figure 8aii) and evoked component (Figure 8aiii) are scaled by their maximum value at 100% contrast (Figure 8ci and cii, respectively). Such divisive scaling fails to fully replicate contrast tuning of controls (Figure 8di, solid black curve) when considering evoked responses, particularly at low stimulus contrasts (Figure 8di, blue stippled curve, R²=0.92). This is because of a significant contribution of the spontaneous component to the overall suppression (i.e., gain) of evoked responses at low stimulus contrasts: Whereas the magnitude of the evoked component shows no further reduction at these lower contrasts (Figure 8bi, two right gray bars), the corresponding suppression in the magnitude of evoked responses (which include the suppression in spontaneous activity) are significant (Figure 8bi, two right blue bars; 12%: −0.19±0.005, p<0.001; 6%: −0.15±0.003, p<0.01; n=18 animals, one-sample t test). This indicates that at low contrast suppression is mainly due to the suppression in the spontaneous component. Also note that the suppression at these lower contrasts is similar to 5-HT-induced suppression of spontaneous activity (S_ph; −0.17±0.02, n=18 animals, p<0.001, one-sample t test; Figure 8bii). Consequently, fitting the Naka-Rushton function to the added values of evoked and spontaneous components (Figure 8di, gray stippled curve; R²=0.93) reveals a close match to contrast tuning of control conditions (Figure 8di, solid black curve), indicating normalization across all contrasts. Importantly, following the same experimental paradigm and quantification methods, MUA recordings leads to equivalent findings (Figure 8dii, 108 MUAs, n=3 animals; see Figure 8—figure supplement 2 for response traces and similar analysis). We conclude that in the anesthetized state, 5-HT-induced normalization of visual responses to different stimulus intensities is achieved by a linear combination of 5-HT-induced suppression of spontaneous and evoked components of cortical activity.

Finally, we explored the extent to which the above conclusion depends on the cortical state. Previous studies suggest that during awake state the cortical 5-HT levels are increased (Mukaida et al., 2007; Portas et al., 2000). Because our results characterize 5-HT-induced suppression as divisive, both for spontaneous and evoked activity (Figure 4 and Figure 5—figure supplement 2, respectively), 5-HT baseline levels may crucially affect the quantity of inducible suppression. Hence, the impact of activating the DRN on cortical activity may differ under wakeful conditions compared to conditions where the animals are anesthetized. Therefore, we recorded cortical activity of awake mice (5) that were head-fixed and habituated to walk and stay on a treadmill (using the same experimental paradigm as shown in Figure 8). Figure 9a depicts the time traces of spatially averaged RCaMP signals across V1, evoked by different stimulus contrasts. As in anesthetized animals, following DRN photostimulation cortical activity was suppressed as compared to controls (Figure 9ai and aii, blue and black (control) traces, respectively). In comparison to the anesthetized state, however, suppression at higher contrast (100%–25%) is significantly reduced (100%: p=0.010, 50%: p=0.012, 25%: p=0.019, 12%: p=0.392, 6%: p=0.694, n=5 animals, two-paired t test; Figure 9—figure supplement 1 shows the data derived from the same animals when they were anesthetized). Importantly, in the awake state, the contrast-dependent decline in the magnitudes is not different between suppression of evoked activity and evoked component (Figure 9bi, blue and gray bars, respectively; p>0.31, paired t test). This suggests that normalization is largely controlled without the contribution of the spontaneous component (Figure 9ci, blue (R²=0.98) and gray (R²=0.95) curves for evoked response and evoked component, respectively). Indeed, fitting normalized data (i.e. traces scaled by their maximum value at 100% contrast) to the Naka-Rushton function reveals a similar contrast tuning function for evoked responses and evoked component (Figure 9cii, stippled blue (R²=0.97) and gray (R²=0.98) curves, respectively) as controls (Figure 9cii, solid black curve). Thus, in the awake state, suppression of spontaneous activity (−0.11±0.3, n=5 animals, p=0.022, one-sample t test; Figure 9bii, left blue bar), even though similarly significant as in the anesthetized state (−0.17±0.04, n=5 animals, p=0.005, one-sample t test; Figure 9bii, right blue bar), constitutes an independent component with little influence on the magnitude and consequently, on normalization of stimulus-evoked responses.

Figure 9 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

We show that activation of the serotonergic system impacts two entities of population activity in the visual cortex (V1): internally ongoing (spontaneous) and visually driven (evoked) responses, affecting both in a separable and divisive manner. Each of these components is scaled through separate suppressive effects of 5-HT1A and 5-HT2A receptors, respectively.

Previous studies in V1, using specific agonists for 5-HT1B and 5-HT2A receptors combined with single-unit recordings in anesthetized monkey, found a bi-directional modulation dependent on instantaneous firing levels. Application of 5-HT2A agonist caused suppression of neurons with strong responses and facilitation of those with weak responses, the opposite occurred when applying 5-HT1B receptor agonist (Shimegi et al., 2016; Watakabe et al., 2009). At the population level, 5-HT microiontophoresis in awake monkey revealed predominant suppressive effects (Seillier et al., 2017), similar to our study. In contrast to our findings, suppression was restricted to divisive scaling of evoked responses while no change in spontaneous activity was observed (Seillier et al., 2017). This discrepancy may indeed point to species-specific differences in individual 5-HT receptor sets or ‘receptomes’. On the other hand, limitations associated with local iontophoretic 5-HT application, such as determining the exact onset of drug effects or the inevitable lack of cortical stimulation with layer- and cell type-specific synaptic weights of DRN synapses could be an alternative explanation. Here, we applied optogenetic approaches to activate 5-HT neurons in the DRN and to specifically target the serotonergic system as a whole circuit (Jacobs and Azmitia, 1992; Ogawa et al., 2014; Pollak Dorocic et al., 2014; Weissbourd et al., 2014) in order to explore subsequent changes in V1. Considering the broad topographic organization within the DRN (Muzerelle et al., 2016), other cortical and subcortical areas modulated by activation of 5-HT neurons may additionally influence activity in V1 (Gilbert and Li, 2013). It should also be noted that besides 5-HT neurons, subpopulations of glutamatergic cells in the raphe nuclei express ePet (McDevitt et al., 2014; Sos et al., 2017). ePet in non-serotonergic neurons is mainly observed in the median raphe nucleus (Pelosi et al., 2014; Sos et al., 2017), while in the dorsal and caudal nuclei (B6 and B7) only few neurons positive for ePet are non-serotonergic (Pelosi et al., 2014). Thus, by using the ePet-Cre mouse line and the fact that 5-HT-neurons may use glutamate co-transmission (Kapoor et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2014; Szőnyi et al., 2016), an indirect activation of other (none-5-HT) circuits could principally be involved in the observed suppressive effects. However, as seen in our experiments pharmacological blocking of 5-HT receptors in V1 largely diminished the induced suppressive effects, contribution from other modulatory systems appears negligible for the present study.

The DRN was photostimulated for 16 s in the first set of our experiments. This is relatively long in comparison to the brisk activation of DRN neurons observed in certain behavioral contexts (Heym et al., 1982; Ranade and Mainen, 2009). However, this does not exclude additional longer-lasting tonic increase in DRN activity under natural conditions. For instance, direct retinal projections to the DRN (Pickard et al., 2015; Ren et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2016) suggest its regulation well beyond the stimulation time window chosen in our study. In addition, slow periodic changes in 5-HT release occur naturally during day-night cycle (Portas et al., 2000; Tyree and de Lecea, 2017) and depend on seasonal factors (Spindelegger et al., 2012). Importantly, using the ePet-Cre mouse model and comparable photostimulation parameters as in our experiments (i.e. similar blue light intensity and frequency) to activate the DRN via fiber optics, a consistent increase of DRN activity in fMRI and MUA recordings over 20 s of photostimulation was revealed (Grandjean et al., 2019). Prolonged (12 s) photostimulation of the DRN in SERT-Cre mice increased perceptual thresholds for tactile stimuli (Dugué et al., 2014), altogether suggesting that sustained or repeated elevation of DRN activity correlates with meaningful and behaviorally relevant changes in neuronal responses (Correia et al., 2017; Lőrincz and Adamantidis, 2017; Miyazaki et al., 2011).

We used wide-field RCaMP imaging, an optogenetic method that enables recordings of suprathreshold neuronal activity across several millimeters of cortical target areas (Kirmse et al., 2015; Michaiel et al., 2019; Shimaoka et al., 2019; Silasi et al., 2016; Xiao et al., 2017), carrying information encoded by large populations of neurons (Dayan and Abbott, 2001). Wide-field recordings of RCaMP signals may also correlate with activity in the neuropil (Allen et al., 2017). To rule out this possibility, we performed complementary recordings of MUA. These largely reproduced the imaged suppressive effects, indicating that the observed reduction of RCaMP signals indeed reflects reduced spiking output at the cortical population level. Our recorded RCaMP signals also showed an increase above the baseline level before the end of DRN photostimulation. Autoreceptor-mediated suppression of 5-HT neurons within the DRN is an unlikely explanation for producing such late increase. First, the applied photostimulation parameters induce sustained elevation in activity of 5-HT neurons in the DRN during the entire time window of photostimulation (Figure 1—figure supplement 1 and see Grandjean et al., 2019). Second, we show using MUA that spiking activity in V1 is consistently suppressed during photostimulation. Third, the evoked component of visual responses remains suppressed during DRN photostimulation and finally, the late increase of RCaMP signals was selectively reduced by 5-HT2A antagonist. We suggest that intracellular Ca²⁺ accumulation of cortical neurons produces the late rise in the RCaMP signal (Eickelbeck et al., 2019) due to 5-HT receptor-mediated activation of the Gq/11 pathway (Jang et al., 2012; Millan et al., 2008) with further activation of store-operated channels (Celada et al., 2013). Additionally, Ca²⁺ signals could increase through activation of 5-HT3 receptors (Nichols and Mollard, 1996) that are also capable of providing fast disynaptic inhibition via activation of interneurons (Varga et al., 2009). Finally, the late increase of the RCaMP signal did not affect our conclusions but may be considered when using wide-field Ca²⁺ recordings of cortical activity in future studies.

Using different stimulus intensities, we identified normalization of visual responses. In anesthetized animals, ongoing activity supplemented response normalization as a subtractive factor. In the awake state, normalization was controlled by the gain of the evoked component and independent of concomitant suppression in ongoing activity. Inhibition tends to dominate activity in awake cortex (Haider et al., 2013), possibly accompanied by increased 5-HT levels (Mukaida et al., 2007; Portas et al., 2000). Therefore, because suppression of spontaneous activity is divisive (i.e., dependent on initial baseline levels), the additional contribution of the spontaneous component to normalization in the anesthetized state may result from large fluctuations in its amplitude rarely exhibited during wakefulness (Haider et al., 2013). Thus, the degree of 5-HT-controlled integration of sensory input and ongoing activity depends on cortical state and initial 5-HT levels.

Our pharmacological blocking experiments suggest that (hyperpolarizing) 5-HT1A receptors convey the suppression of the spontaneous component to a large extent. However, both RCaMP imaging and measurements of multi-unit activity, as applied here, do not allow identifying cell type specific contributions. At the population level, suppression of ongoing activity may reflect an overall reduction of pyramidal cell spiking caused by hyperpolarization or by decrease in synaptic transmission (Lőrincz and Adamantidis, 2017). In fact, hyperpolarization of excitatory neurons was recently shown as an additional source of normalization processes (Sato et al., 2014). In contrast, divisive scaling of evoked responses is most likely conveyed by predominant activation of (excitatory) 5-HT2A receptors, as suppression of the evoked component largely diminished after specific blocking. Moreover, 5-HT2A receptors couple to the Gq/11 pathway (Hannon and Hoyer, 2008) leading to an increase in neuronal firing rather than suppression. Therefore, activation of GABAergic neurons may mediate reduction in activity of pyramidal neurons (Gellman and Aghajanian, 1993). In fact, divisive modulation of visual cortical responses was shown to be specifically dependent on activation of soma-targeting parvalbumin expressing interneurons (Wilson et al., 2012, but see Lee et al. (2012) and Seybold et al., 2015) that dominantly express 5-HT2A receptors (Puig and Gulledge, 2011; Weber and Andrade, 2010). Activation of 5-HT2A receptors may also cause concomitant increase in depolarizing currents in pyramidal neurons, producing shunting inhibition, which results in increased conductance. Such a mechanism is known to affect the gain and the time constant of neuronal responses (Carandini and Heeger, 2012). Consistent with shunting inhibition, we find that response-onset latency decreases as a function of stimulus contrast while response duration in both control and photostimulated conditions increases. Furthermore, we find the duration of responses declined during photostimulation of the DRN as compared to controls. This suggests a shortened time window for temporal summation that in turn reduces response amplitudes (Mante et al., 2008). Thus, reduction in response duration under the influence of 5-HT may indicate involvement of shunting inhibition in pyramidal neurons to effectively control response gain. Suprathreshold excitatory drive by 5-HT2A activation may further be amplified by shaping the duration of 5-HT1A-mediated inhibition (Avesar and Gulledge, 2012; Stephens et al., 2014). Altogether, we propose that 5-HT circuits modulate evoked visual population responses by partly plugging into the existing canonical machinery performing divisive normalization (Atallah et al., 2012; Carandini and Heeger, 2012; Lee et al., 2012; Wilson et al., 2012). Further studies are needed to clarify 5-HT-dependent microcircuit mechanisms at the single-cell level (Tang and Trussell, 2017).

In two recent studies, selective activation of 5-HT2A receptors produced a strikingly consistent suppressive effect on the gain of visually evoked population responses (Eickelbeck et al., 2019; Michaiel et al., 2019), despite cell-type and layer-specific differences across single cells (Michaiel et al., 2019). These results strongly support our current finding of DRN-triggered scaling of evoked responses by cortical 5-HT2A receptors at the neuronal population level. It also implicates that the distribution of a single neurotransmitter receptor density (‘receptome’) can account for a distinct function in sensory processing (Akimova et al., 2009; Carhart-Harris et al., 2016; Deco et al., 2018; Goldberg and Finnerty, 1979; González-Maeso et al., 2007; Tauscher et al., 2001). While 5-HT2A receptors control response gain, DRN-triggered scaling of ongoing V1 activity seems dominantly controlled by 5-HT1A receptors.

In summary, joint action of 5-HT1A and 5-HT2A receptors unfold a separable and powerful scaling of ongoing and evoked components of population activity in V1. A major difference that we observe in normalization between awake and anesthetized states is an overall stronger 5-HT-induced suppression of response gain in the anesthetized state, which implicates that in the awake state response normalization is less dependent on ongoing activity and is possibly less influenced by internal cortical broadcasts. Considering that ongoing activity contains (top-down) internal expectations, whereas evoked responses carry (bottom-up) signals about external sensory events, imbalance in the recruitment of these receptors (e.g. through specific agonist intake or disordered receptor expression pattern) affects integration of these components, and thus, cortical information flow. This may either lead to overemphasis of internally generated expectations (i.e. favoring ‘priors’ Berkes et al., 2011; Fiser et al., 2010) relative to sensory input or vice versa (Lottem et al., 2016). Long-term malfunction of such interplay facilitates psychiatric disorders like anxiety, depression and schizophrenia (Friston, 2005; Geyer and Vollenweider, 2008; Jardri et al., 2016; Lucki, 1998; Soubrié, 1986; Urban et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2016). Our study may help to develop new ways of diagnosis and therapy (Carhart-Harris et al., 2018) by rebalancing of these components.

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data file for Figure 3–9 are provided. Data can be downloaded from: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.931zcrjgk.

1. 1. Jancke D

   (2020) Dryad Digital Repository

   Separable gain control of ongoing and evoked activity in the visual cortex by serotonergic input.

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.931zcrjgk

1. 1. Akerboom J
   2. Carreras Calderón N
   3. Tian L
   4. Wabnig S
   5. Prigge M
   6. Tolö J
   7. Gordus A
   8. Orger MB
   9. Severi KE
   10. Macklin JJ
   11. Patel R
   12. Pulver SR
   13. Wardill TJ
   14. Fischer E
   15. Schüler C
   16. Chen T-W
   17. Sarkisyan KS
   18. Marvin JS
   19. Bargmann CI
   20. Kim DS
   21. Kügler S
   22. Lagnado L
   23. Hegemann P
   24. Gottschalk A
   25. Schreiter ER
   26. Looger LL

   (2013) Genetically encoded calcium indicators for multi-color neural activity imaging and combination with optogenetics

   Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience 6:2.

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fnmol.2013.00002

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Akimova E
   2. Lanzenberger R
   3. Kasper S

   (2009) The serotonin-1A receptor in anxiety disorders

   Biological Psychiatry 66:627–635.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.03.012

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Allen WE
   2. Kauvar IV
   3. Chen MZ
   4. Richman EB
   5. Yang SJ
   6. Chan K
   7. Gradinaru V
   8. Deverman BE
   9. Luo L
   10. Deisseroth K

   (2017) Global representations of Goal-Directed behavior in distinct cell types of mouse neocortex

   Neuron 94:891–907.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.04.017

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Arieli A
   2. Sterkin A
   3. Grinvald A
   4. Aertsen A

   (1996) Dynamics of ongoing activity: explanation of the large variability in evoked cortical responses

   Science 273:1868–1871.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.273.5283.1868

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Atallah BV
   2. Bruns W
   3. Carandini M
   4. Scanziani M

   (2012) Parvalbumin-expressing interneurons linearly transform cortical responses to visual stimuli

   Neuron 73:159–170.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.12.013

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Avesar D
   2. Gulledge AT

   (2012) Selective serotonergic excitation of callosal projection neurons

   Frontiers in Neural Circuits 6:12.

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2012.00012

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. Preprint

   1. Azimi Z
   2. Spoida K
   3. Barzan R
   4. Wollenweber P
   5. Mark DM
   6. Herlitze S
   7. Jancke D

   (2018) Subtraction and division of visual cortical population responses by the serotonergic system

   bioRxiv.

   https://doi.org/10.1101/444943

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Berger M
   2. Gray JA
   3. Roth BL

   (2009) The expanded biology of serotonin

   Annual Review of Medicine 60:355–366.

   https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.med.60.042307.110802

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Berkes P
   2. Orbán G
   3. Lengyel M
   4. Fiser J

   (2011) Spontaneous cortical activity reveals hallmarks of an optimal internal model of the environment

   Science 331:83–87.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1195870

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Carandini M
    2. Heeger DJ

    (2012) Normalization as a canonical neural computation

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 13:51–62.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3136

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Carhart-Harris RL
    2. Muthukumaraswamy S
    3. Roseman L
    4. Kaelen M
    5. Droog W
    6. Murphy K
    7. Tagliazucchi E
    8. Schenberg EE
    9. Nest T
    10. Orban C
    11. Leech R
    12. Williams LT
    13. Williams TM
    14. Bolstridge M
    15. Sessa B
    16. McGonigle J
    17. Sereno MI
    18. Nichols D
    19. Hellyer PJ
    20. Hobden P
    21. Evans J
    22. Singh KD
    23. Wise RG
    24. Curran HV
    25. Feilding A
    26. Nutt DJ

    (2016) Neural correlates of the LSD experience revealed by multimodal neuroimaging

    PNAS 113:4853–4858.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518377113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Carhart-Harris RL
    2. Roseman L
    3. Haijen E
    4. Erritzoe D
    5. Watts R
    6. Branchi I
    7. Kaelen M

    (2018) Psychedelics and the essential importance of context

    Journal of Psychopharmacology 32:725–731.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881118754710

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Cassidy CM
    2. Balsam PD
    3. Weinstein JJ
    4. Rosengard RJ
    5. Slifstein M
    6. Daw ND
    7. Abi-Dargham A
    8. Horga G

    (2018) A perceptual inference mechanism for hallucinations linked to striatal dopamine

    Current Biology 28:503–514.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.12.059

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Celada P
    2. Puig MV
    3. Artigas F

    (2013) Serotonin modulation of cortical neurons and networks

    Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 7:25.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2013.00025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Conio B
    2. Martino M
    3. Magioncalda P
    4. Escelsior A
    5. Inglese M
    6. Amore M
    7. Northoff G

    (2019) Opposite effects of dopamine and serotonin on resting-state networks: review and implications for psychiatric disorders

    Molecular Psychiatry  25:82–93.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-019-0406-4

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Correia PA
    2. Lottem E
    3. Banerjee D
    4. Machado AS
    5. Carey MR
    6. Mainen ZF

    (2017) Transient inhibition and long-term facilitation of locomotion by phasic optogenetic activation of serotonin neurons

    eLife 6:e20975.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20975

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Dahlström A
    2. Fuxe K

    (1964) Localization of monoamines in the lower brain stem

    Experientia 20:398–399.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02147990

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Dana H
    2. Mohar B
    3. Sun Y
    4. Narayan S
    5. Gordus A
    6. Hasseman JP
    7. Tsegaye G
    8. Holt GT
    9. Hu A
    10. Walpita D
    11. Patel R
    12. Macklin JJ
    13. Bargmann CI
    14. Ahrens MB
    15. Schreiter ER
    16. Jayaraman V
    17. Looger LL
    18. Svoboda K
    19. Kim DS

    (2016) Sensitive red protein calcium indicators for imaging neural activity

    eLife 5:e12727.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12727

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Davidson C
    2. Ho M
    3. Price GW
    4. Jones BJ
    5. Stamford JA

    (1997) (+)-WAY 100135, a partial agonist, at native and recombinant 5-HT1B/1D receptors

    British Journal of Pharmacology 121:737–742.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0701197

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. Book

    1. Dayan P
    2. Abbott LF

    (2001)

    Theoretical Neuroscience : Computational and Mathematical Modeling of Neural Systems

    Cambridge: MIT press.

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Deco G
    2. Tononi G
    3. Boly M
    4. Kringelbach ML

    (2015) Rethinking segregation and integration: contributions of whole-brain modelling

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 16:430–439.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3963

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Deco G
    2. Cruzat J
    3. Cabral J
    4. Knudsen GM
    5. Carhart-Harris RL
    6. Whybrow PC
    7. Logothetis NK
    8. Kringelbach ML

    (2018) Whole-Brain multimodal neuroimaging model using serotonin receptor maps explains Non-linear functional effects of LSD

    Current Biology 28:3065–3074.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.07.083

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Deneux T
    2. Grinvald A

    (2016) Milliseconds of sensory input abruptly modulate the dynamics of cortical states for seconds

    Cerebral Cortex 19:4549–4563.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw259

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Descarries L
    2. Watkins KC
    3. Garcia S
    4. Beaudet A

    (1982) The serotonin neurons in nucleus raphe dorsalis of adult rat: a light and electron microscope radioautographic study

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 207:239–254.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902070305

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Doya K

    (2008) Modulators of decision making

    Nature Neuroscience 11:410–416.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn2077

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Dugué GP
    2. Lörincz ML
    3. Lottem E
    4. Audero E
    5. Matias S
    6. Correia PA
    7. Léna C
    8. Mainen ZF

    (2014) Optogenetic recruitment of dorsal raphe serotonergic neurons acutely decreases mechanosensory responsivity in behaving mice

    PLOS ONE 9:e105941.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105941

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Dyck RH
    2. Cynader MS

    (1993) An interdigitated columnar mosaic of cytochrome oxidase, zinc, and neurotransmitter-related molecules in cat and monkey visual cortex

    PNAS 90:9066–9069.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.90.19.9066

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Eickelbeck D
    2. Karapinar R
    3. Jack A
    4. Suess ST
    5. Barzan R
    6. Azimi Z
    7. Surdin T
    8. Grömmke M
    9. Mark MD
    10. Gerwert K
    11. Jancke D
    12. Wahle P
    13. Spoida K
    14. Herlitze S

    (2019) CaMello-XR enables visualization and optogenetic control of G_q/11 signals and receptor trafficking in GPCR-specific domains

    Communications Biology 2:60.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-019-0292-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Ferezou I
    2. Haiss F
    3. Gentet LJ
    4. Aronoff R
    5. Weber B
    6. Petersen CC

    (2007) Spatiotemporal dynamics of cortical sensorimotor integration in behaving mice

    Neuron 56:907–923.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.10.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Ferezou I
    2. Deneux T

    (2017) Review: how do spontaneous and sensory-evoked activities interact?

    Neurophotonics 4:031221.

    https://doi.org/10.1117/1.NPh.4.3.031221

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Fiser J
    2. Berkes P
    3. Orbán G
    4. Lengyel M

    (2010) Statistically optimal perception and learning: from behavior to neural representations

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14:119–130.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.01.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Fletcher A
    2. Forster EA
    3. Bill DJ
    4. Brown G
    5. Cliffe IA
    6. Hartley JE
    7. Jones DE
    8. McLenachan A
    9. Stanhope KJ
    10. Critchley DJP
    11. Childs KJ
    12. Middlefell VC
    13. Lanfumey L
    14. Corradetti R
    15. Laporte A-M
    16. Gozlan H
    17. Hamon M
    18. Dourish CT

    (1995) Electrophysiological, biochemical, neurohormonal and behavioural studies with WAY-100635, a potent, selective and silent 5-HT1A receptor antagonist

    Behavioural Brain Research 73:337–353.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4328(96)00118-0

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Forster EA
    2. Cliffe IA
    3. Bill DJ
    4. Dover GM
    5. Jones D
    6. Reilly Y
    7. Fletcher A

    (1995) A pharmacological profile of the selective silent 5-HT1A receptor antagonist, WAY-100635

    European Journal of Pharmacology 281:81–88.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2999(95)00234-C

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Fox MD
    2. Snyder AZ
    3. Zacks JM
    4. Raichle ME

    (2006) Coherent spontaneous activity accounts for trial-to-trial variability in human evoked brain responses

    Nature Neuroscience 9:23–25.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1616

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Friston K

    (2005) Disconnection and cognitive dysmetria in schizophrenia

    American Journal of Psychiatry 162:429–432.

    https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.3.429

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Gasanov GG
    2. Mamedov ZG
    3. Samedova NF

    (1989) Changes in reactivity of neurons of the visual cortex under influence of the posterolateral hypothalamus and the nuclei of the midbrain raphe

    Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology 19:169–175.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01190464

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Gellman RL
    2. Aghajanian GK

    (1993) Pyramidal cells in piriform cortex receive a convergence of inputs from monoamine activated GABAergic interneurons

    Brain Research 600:63–73.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(93)90402-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Geyer MA
    2. Vollenweider FX

    (2008) Serotonin research: contributions to understanding psychoses

    Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 29:445–453.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2008.06.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Gilbert CD
    2. Li W

    (2013) Top-down influences on visual processing

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14:350–363.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3476

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Goldberg HL
    2. Finnerty RJ

    (1979) The comparative efficacy of buspirone and diazepam in the treatment of anxiety

    The American Journal of Psychiatry 136:1184–1187.

    https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.136.9.1184

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. González-Maeso J
    2. Weisstaub NV
    3. Zhou M
    4. Chan P
    5. Ivic L
    6. Ang R
    7. Lira A
    8. Bradley-Moore M
    9. Ge Y
    10. Zhou Q
    11. Sealfon SC
    12. Gingrich JA

    (2007) Hallucinogens recruit specific cortical 5-HT(2A) receptor-mediated signaling pathways to affect behavior

    Neuron 53:439–452.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.01.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Grandjean J
    2. Corcoba A
    3. Kahn MC
    4. Upton AL
    5. Deneris ES
    6. Seifritz E
    7. Helmchen F
    8. Mann EO
    9. Rudin M
    10. Saab BJ

    (2019) A brain-wide functional map of the serotonergic responses to acute stress and fluoxetine

    Nature Communications 10:350.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08256-w

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Haider B
    2. Duque A
    3. Hasenstaub AR
    4. Yu Y
    5. McCormick DA

    (2007) Enhancement of visual responsiveness by spontaneous local network activity in vivo

    Journal of Neurophysiology 97:4186–4202.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01114.2006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Haider B
    2. Häusser M
    3. Carandini M

    (2013) Inhibition dominates sensory responses in the awake cortex

    Nature 493:97–100.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11665

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Hale MW
    2. Lowry CA

    (2011) Functional topography of midbrain and pontine serotonergic systems: implications for synaptic regulation of serotonergic circuits

    Psychopharmacology 213:243–264.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-010-2089-z

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Hannon J
    2. Hoyer D

    (2008) Molecular biology of 5-HT receptors

    Behavioural Brain Research 195:198–213.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2008.03.020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. He BJ

    (2013) Spontaneous and Task-Evoked brain activity negatively interact

    The Journal of Neuroscience 33:4672–4682.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2922-12.2013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Hesselmann G
    2. Kell CA
    3. Eger E
    4. Kleinschmidt A

    (2008) Spontaneous local variations in ongoing neural activity Bias perceptual decisions

    PNAS 105:10984–10989.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0712043105

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Heym J
    2. Trulson ME
    3. Jacobs BL

    (1982) Raphe unit activity in freely moving cats: effects of phasic auditory and visual stimuli

    Brain Research 232:29–39.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(82)90608-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Hurley LM
    2. Devilbiss DM
    3. Waterhouse BD

    (2004) A matter of focus: monoaminergic modulation of stimulus coding in mammalian sensory networks

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 14:488–495.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2004.06.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Ishimura K
    2. Takeuchi Y
    3. Fujiwara K
    4. Tominaga M
    5. Yoshioka H
    6. Sawada T

    (1988) Quantitative analysis of the distribution of serotonin-immunoreactive cell bodies in the mouse brain

    Neuroscience Letters 91:265–270.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3940(88)90691-X

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Jacobs BL
    2. Azmitia EC

    (1992) Structure and function of the brain serotonin system

    Physiological Reviews 72:165–229.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.1992.72.1.165

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Jakab RL
    2. Goldman-Rakic PS

    (1998) 5-Hydroxytryptamine2A serotonin receptors in the primate cerebral cortex: possible site of action of hallucinogenic and antipsychotic drugs in pyramidal cell apical dendrites

    PNAS 95:735–740.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.2.735

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Jang HJ
    2. Cho KH
    3. Park SW
    4. Kim MJ
    5. Yoon SH
    6. Rhie DJ

    (2012) Layer-specific serotonergic facilitation of IPSC in layer 2/3 pyramidal neurons of the visual cortex

    Journal of Neurophysiology 107:407–416.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00535.2011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Jardri R
    2. Hugdahl K
    3. Hughes M
    4. Brunelin J
    5. Waters F
    6. Alderson-Day B
    7. Smailes D
    8. Sterzer P
    9. Corlett PR
    10. Leptourgos P
    11. Debbané M
    12. Cachia A
    13. Denève S

    (2016) Are hallucinations due to an imbalance between excitatory and inhibitory influences on the brain?

    Schizophrenia Bulletin 42:1124–1134.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbw075

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Kapoor V
    2. Provost AC
    3. Agarwal P
    4. Murthy VN

    (2016) Activation of raphe nuclei triggers rapid and distinct effects on parallel olfactory bulb output channels

    Nature Neuroscience 19:271–282.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4219

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Kasanetz F
    2. Riquelme LA
    3. Murer MG

    (2002) Disruption of the two-state membrane potential of striatal neurones during cortical desynchronisation in anaesthetised rats

    The Journal of Physiology 543:577–589.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2002.0024786

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Kenet T
    2. Bibitchkov D
    3. Tsodyks M
    4. Grinvald A
    5. Arieli A

    (2003) Spontaneously emerging cortical representations of visual attributes

    Nature 425:954–956.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02078

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Kim TH
    2. Zhang Y
    3. Lecoq J
    4. Jung JC
    5. Li J
    6. Zeng H
    7. Niell CM
    8. Schnitzer MJ

    (2016) Long-Term optical access to an estimated one million neurons in the live mouse cortex

    Cell Reports 17:3385–3394.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.12.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Kirmse K
    2. Kummer M
    3. Kovalchuk Y
    4. Witte OW
    5. Garaschuk O
    6. Holthoff K

    (2015) GABA depolarizes immature neurons and inhibits network activity in the neonatal neocortex in vivo

    Nature Communications 6:7750.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8750

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Krnjević K
    2. Phillis JW

    (1963) Iontophoretic studies of neurones in the mammalian cerebral cortex

    The Journal of Physiology 165:274–304.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1963.sp007057

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Lee SH
    2. Kwan AC
    3. Zhang S
    4. Phoumthipphavong V
    5. Flannery JG
    6. Masmanidis SC
    7. Taniguchi H
    8. Huang ZJ
    9. Zhang F
    10. Boyden ES
    11. Deisseroth K
    12. Dan Y

    (2012) Activation of specific interneurons improves V1 feature selectivity and visual perception

    Nature 488:379–383.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11312

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Lesch KP
    2. Waider J

    (2012) Serotonin in the modulation of neural plasticity and networks: implications for neurodevelopmental disorders

    Neuron 76:175–191.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.09.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Leysen JE

    (2004) 5-HT2 receptors

    Current Drug Targets. CNS and Neurological Disorders 3:11–26.

    https://doi.org/10.2174/1568007043482598

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Li X
    2. Gutierrez DV
    3. Hanson MG
    4. Han J
    5. Mark MD
    6. Chiel H
    7. Hegemann P
    8. Landmesser LT
    9. Herlitze S

    (2005) Fast noninvasive activation and inhibition of neural and network activity by vertebrate rhodopsin and green algae channelrhodopsin

    PNAS 102:17816–17821.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0509030102

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Liu Z
    2. Zhou J
    3. Li Y
    4. Hu F
    5. Lu Y
    6. Ma M
    7. Feng Q
    8. Zhang JE
    9. Wang D
    10. Zeng J
    11. Bao J
    12. Kim JY
    13. Chen ZF
    14. El Mestikawy S
    15. Luo M

    (2014) Dorsal raphe neurons signal reward through 5-HT and glutamate

    Neuron 81:1360–1374.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.02.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Lőrincz ML
    2. Adamantidis AR

    (2017) Monoaminergic control of brain states and sensory processing: Existing knowledge and recent insights obtained with optogenetics

    Progress in Neurobiology 151:237–253.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2016.09.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Lottem E
    2. Lörincz ML
    3. Mainen ZF

    (2016) Optogenetic activation of dorsal raphe serotonin neurons rapidly inhibits spontaneous but not Odor-Evoked activity in olfactory cortex

    Journal of Neuroscience 36:7–18.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3008-15.2016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Lowery RL
    2. Majewska AK

    (2010) Intracranial injection of Adeno-associated viral vectors

    Journal of Visualized Experiments 17:2140.

    https://doi.org/10.3791/2140

    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Lucki I

    (1998) The spectrum of behaviors influenced by serotonin

    Biological Psychiatry 44:151–162.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(98)00139-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Luczak A
    2. Barthó P
    3. Harris KD

    (2009) Spontaneous events outline the realm of possible sensory responses in neocortical populations

    Neuron 62:413–425.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.03.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Lütcke H
    2. Murayama M
    3. Hahn T
    4. Margolis DJ
    5. Astori S
    6. Zum Alten Borgloh SM
    7. Göbel W
    8. Yang Y
    9. Tang W
    10. Kügler S
    11. Sprengel R
    12. Nagai T
    13. Miyawaki A
    14. Larkum ME
    15. Helmchen F
    16. Hasan MT

    (2010) Optical recording of neuronal activity with a genetically-encoded calcium Indicator in anesthetized and freely moving mice

    Frontiers in Neural Circuits 4:9.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2010.00009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Lütcke H
    2. Gerhard F
    3. Zenke F
    4. Gerstner W
    5. Helmchen F

    (2013) Inference of neuronal network spike dynamics and topology from calcium imaging data

    Frontiers in Neural Circuits 7:201.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2013.00201

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Maeda S
    2. Inagaki S
    3. Kawaguchi H
    4. Song WJ

    (2001) Separation of signal and noise from in vivo optical recording in guinea pigs using independent component analysis

    Neuroscience Letters 302:137–140.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3940(01)01678-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Mante V
    2. Bonin V
    3. Carandini M

    (2008) Functional mechanisms shaping lateral geniculate responses to artificial and natural stimuli

    Neuron 58:625–638.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.03.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Marder E

    (2012) Neuromodulation of neuronal circuits: back to the future

    Neuron 76:1–11.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.09.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Markram H
    2. Wang Y
    3. Tsodyks M

    (1998) Differential signaling via the same axon of neocortical pyramidal neurons

    PNAS 95:5323–5328.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.9.5323

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Matias S
    2. Lottem E
    3. Dugué GP
    4. Mainen ZF

    (2017) Activity patterns of serotonin neurons underlying cognitive flexibility

    eLife 6:e20552.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20552

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. McDevitt RA
    2. Tiran-Cappello A
    3. Shen H
    4. Balderas I
    5. Britt JP
    6. Marino RAM
    7. Chung SL
    8. Richie CT
    9. Harvey BK
    10. Bonci A

    (2014) Serotonergic versus nonserotonergic dorsal raphe projection neurons: differential participation in reward circuitry

    Cell Reports 8:1857–1869.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.08.037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. McGinley MJ
    2. Vinck M
    3. Reimer J
    4. Batista-Brito R
    5. Zagha E
    6. Cadwell CR
    7. Tolias AS
    8. Cardin JA
    9. McCormick DA

    (2015) Waking state: rapid variations modulate neural and behavioral responses

    Neuron 87:1143–1161.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. Book

    1. Mengod G
    2. Vilaró MT
    3. Cortés R
    4. López-Giménez JF
    5. Raurich A
    6. Palacios JM

    (2006) The Serotonin Receptors: From Molecular Pharmacology to Human Therapeutics

    In: Roth B. L, editors. Chemical Neuroanatomy of 5-HT Receptor Subtypes in the Mammalian Brain. Springer. pp. 319–364.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-080-5

    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Michaiel AM
    2. Parker PRL
    3. Niell CM

    (2019) A hallucinogenic Serotonin-2A receptor agonist reduces visual response gain and alters temporal dynamics in mouse V1

    Cell Reports 26:3475–3483.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2019.02.104

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Millan MJ
    2. Marin P
    3. Bockaert J
    4. Mannoury la Cour C

    (2008) Signaling at G-protein-coupled serotonin receptors: recent advances and future research directions

    Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 29:454–464.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2008.06.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Miyazaki K
    2. Miyazaki KW
    3. Doya K

    (2011) Activation of dorsal raphe serotonin neurons underlies waiting for delayed rewards

    Journal of Neuroscience 31:469–479.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3714-10.2011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Moyanova S
    2. Dimov S

    (1986)

    Modulation of visual excitability cycles in some brain structures by high-frequency stimulation of raphe dorsal nucleus in cats

    Acta Physiologica Et Pharmacologica Bulgarica 12:17–25.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Mukaida K
    2. Shichino T
    3. Koyanagi S
    4. Himukashi S
    5. Fukuda K

    (2007) Activity of the serotonergic system during isoflurane anesthesia

    Anesthesia & Analgesia 104:836–839.

    https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000255200.42574.22

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Muzerelle A
    2. Scotto-Lomassese S
    3. Bernard JF
    4. Soiza-Reilly M
    5. Gaspar P

    (2016) Conditional anterograde tracing reveals distinct targeting of individual serotonin cell groups (B5–B9) to the forebrain and brainstem

    Brain Structure and Function 221:535–561.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-014-0924-4

    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Naka KI
    2. Rushton WA

    (1966) S-potentials from luminosity units in the retina of fish (Cyprinidae)

    The Journal of Physiology 185:587–599.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1966.sp008003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Nichols RA
    2. Mollard P

    (1996) Direct observation of serotonin 5-HT3 receptor-induced increases in calcium levels in individual brain nerve terminals

    Journal of Neurochemistry 67:581–592.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-4159.1996.67020581.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Niell CM
    2. Stryker MP

    (2010) Modulation of visual responses by behavioral state in mouse visual cortex

    Neuron 65:472–479.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.01.033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Ogawa SK
    2. Cohen JY
    3. Hwang D
    4. Uchida N
    5. Watabe-Uchida M

    (2014) Organization of monosynaptic inputs to the serotonin and dopamine neuromodulatory systems

    Cell Reports 8:1105–1118.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.06.042

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. Book

    1. Paxinos G
    2. Franklin KBJ

    (2004)

    Paxinos and Franklin’s the Mouse Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates

    Boston: Elsevier Academic Press.

    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Pelosi B
    2. Migliarini S
    3. Pacini G
    4. Pratelli M
    5. Pasqualetti M

    (2014) Generation of Pet1210-Cre transgenic mouse line reveals non-serotonergic expression domains of Pet1 both in CNS and periphery

    PLOS ONE 9:e104318.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104318

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Pickard GE
    2. So KF
    3. Pu M

    (2015) Dorsal raphe nucleus projecting retinal ganglion cells: why Y cells?

    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 57:118–131.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.08.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Pinto L
    2. Goard MJ
    3. Estandian D
    4. Xu M
    5. Kwan AC
    6. Lee SH
    7. Harrison TC
    8. Feng G
    9. Dan Y

    (2013) Fast modulation of visual perception by basal forebrain cholinergic neurons

    Nature Neuroscience 16:1857–1863.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3552

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Pollak Dorocic I
    2. Fürth D
    3. Xuan Y
    4. Johansson Y
    5. Pozzi L
    6. Silberberg G
    7. Carlén M
    8. Meletis K

    (2014) A whole-brain atlas of inputs to serotonergic neurons of the dorsal and median raphe nuclei

    Neuron 83:663–678.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.07.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Porciatti V
    2. Pizzorusso T
    3. Maffei L

    (1999) The visual physiology of the wild type mouse determined with pattern VEPs

    Vision Research 39:3071–3081.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(99)00022-X

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Portas CM
    2. Krakow K
    3. Allen P
    4. Josephs O
    5. Armony JL
    6. Frith CD

    (2000) Auditory processing across the sleep-wake cycle: simultaneous EEG and fMRI monitoring in humans

    Neuron 28:991–999.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(00)00169-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Puig MV
    2. Gulledge AT

    (2011) Serotonin and prefrontal cortex function: neurons, networks, and circuits

    Molecular Neurobiology 44:449–464.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12035-011-8214-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Raichle ME

     (2015) The restless brain: how intrinsic activity organizes brain function

     Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370:20140172.

     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0172

     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Ranade SP
     2. Mainen ZF

     (2009) Transient firing of dorsal raphe neurons encodes diverse and specific sensory, motor, and reward events

     Journal of Neurophysiology 102:3026–3037.

     https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00507.2009

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Rapport MM
     2. Grenn AA
     3. Page IH

     (1948)

     Serum vasoconstrictor, serotonin; chemical inactivation

     The Journal of Biological Chemistry 176:1237–1241.

     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Reader TA

     (1978) The effects of dopamine, noradrenaline and serotonin in the visual cortex of the cat

     Experientia 34:1586–1588.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02034690

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Ren C
     2. Luan L
     3. Wui-Man Lau B
     4. Huang X
     5. Yang J
     6. Zhou Y
     7. Wu X
     8. Gao J
     9. Pickard GE
     10. So KF
     11. Pu M

     (2013) Direct retino-raphe projection alters serotonergic tone and affective behavior

     Neuropsychopharmacology 38:1163–1175.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2013.35

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Riga MS
     2. Bortolozzi A
     3. Campa L
     4. Artigas F
     5. Celada P

     (2016) The serotonergic hallucinogen 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine disrupts cortical activity in a regionally-selective manner via 5-HT(1A) and 5-HT(2A) receptors

     Neuropharmacology 101:370–378.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2015.10.016

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Rossant C
     2. Kadir SN
     3. Goodman DFM
     4. Schulman J
     5. Hunter MLD
     6. Saleem AB
     7. Grosmark A
     8. Belluscio M
     9. Denfield GH
     10. Ecker AS
     11. Tolias AS
     12. Solomon S
     13. Buzsaki G
     14. Carandini M
     15. Harris KD

     (2016) Spike sorting for large, dense electrode arrays

     Nature Neuroscience 19:634–641.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4268

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
107. 1. Sadaghiani S
     2. Hesselmann G
     3. Friston KJ
     4. Kleinschmidt A

     (2010) The relation of ongoing brain activity, evoked neural responses, and cognition

     Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 4:20.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2010.00020

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Santana N
     2. Bortolozzi A
     3. Serrats J
     4. Mengod G
     5. Artigas F

     (2004) Expression of serotonin1A and serotonin2A receptors in pyramidal and GABAergic neurons of the rat prefrontal cortex

     Cerebral Cortex 14:1100–1109.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhh070

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
109. 1. Sato TK
     2. Häusser M
     3. Carandini M

     (2014) Distal connectivity causes summation and division across mouse visual cortex

     Nature Neuroscience 17:30–32.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3585

     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Schölvinck ML
     2. Saleem AB
     3. Benucci A
     4. Harris KD
     5. Carandini M

     (2015) Cortical state determines global variability and correlations in visual cortex

     Journal of Neuroscience 35:170–178.

     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4994-13.2015

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
111. 1. Scott MM
     2. Wylie CJ
     3. Lerch JK
     4. Murphy R
     5. Lobur K
     6. Herlitze S
     7. Jiang W
     8. Conlon RA
     9. Strowbridge BW
     10. Deneris ES

     (2005) A genetic approach to access serotonin neurons for in vivo and in vitro studies

     PNAS 102:16472–16477.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0504510102

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
112. 1. Seillier L
     2. Lorenz C
     3. Kawaguchi K
     4. Ott T
     5. Nieder A
     6. Pourriahi P
     7. Nienborg H

     (2017) Serotonin decreases the gain of visual responses in awake macaque V1

     The Journal of Neuroscience 37:11390–11405.

     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1339-17.2017

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
113. 1. Seybold BA
     2. Phillips EAK
     3. Schreiner CE
     4. Hasenstaub AR

     (2015) Inhibitory actions unified by network integration

     Neuron 87:1181–1192.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.013

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
114. 1. Shimaoka D
     2. Steinmetz NA
     3. Harris KD
     4. Carandini M

     (2019) The impact of bilateral ongoing activity on evoked responses in mouse cortex

     eLife 8:e43533.

     https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.43533

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
115. 1. Shimegi S
     2. Kimura A
     3. Sato A
     4. Aoyama C
     5. Mizuyama R
     6. Tsunoda K
     7. Ueda F
     8. Araki S
     9. Goya R
     10. Sato H

     (2016) Cholinergic and serotonergic modulation of visual information processing in monkey V1

     Journal of Physiology-Paris 110:44–51.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2016.09.001

     • Google Scholar
116. 1. Shukla R
     2. Watakabe A
     3. Yamamori T

     (2014) mRNA expression profile of serotonin receptor subtypes and distribution of serotonergic terminations in marmoset brain

     Frontiers in Neural Circuits 8:52.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2014.00052

     • Google Scholar
117. 1. Siegle JH
     2. López AC
     3. Patel YA
     4. Abramov K
     5. Ohayon S
     6. Voigts J

     (2017) Open ephys: an open-source, plugin-based platform for multichannel electrophysiology

     Journal of Neural Engineering 14:045003.

     https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/aa5eea

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
118. 1. Silasi G
     2. Xiao D
     3. Vanni MP
     4. Chen AC
     5. Murphy TH

     (2016) Intact skull chronic windows for mesoscopic wide-field imaging in awake mice

     Journal of Neuroscience Methods 267:141–149.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2016.04.012

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
119. 1. Sos KE
     2. Mayer MI
     3. Cserép C
     4. Takács FS
     5. Szőnyi A
     6. Freund TF
     7. Nyiri G

     (2017) Cellular architecture and transmitter phenotypes of neurons of the mouse median raphe region

     Brain Structure and Function 222:287–299.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-016-1217-x

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
120. 1. Soubrié P

     (1986) Reconciling the role of central serotonin neurons in human and animal behavior

     Behavioral and Brain Sciences 9:319–335.

     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00022871

     • Google Scholar
121. 1. Spindelegger C
     2. Stein P
     3. Wadsak W
     4. Fink M
     5. Mitterhauser M
     6. Moser U
     7. Savli M
     8. Mien LK
     9. Akimova E
     10. Hahn A
     11. Willeit M
     12. Kletter K
     13. Kasper S
     14. Lanzenberger R

     (2012) Light-dependent alteration of serotonin-1A receptor binding in cortical and subcortical limbic regions in the human brain

     The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry 13:413–422.

     https://doi.org/10.3109/15622975.2011.630405

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
122. 1. Spors H
     2. Grinvald A

     (2002) Spatio-temporal dynamics of odor representations in the mammalian olfactory bulb

     Neuron 34:301–315.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00644-X

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
123. 1. Stephens EK
     2. Avesar D
     3. Gulledge AT

     (2014) Activity-dependent serotonergic excitation of callosal projection neurons in the mouse prefrontal cortex

     Frontiers in Neural Circuits 8:97.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2014.00097

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
124. 1. Szőnyi A
     2. Mayer MI
     3. Cserép C
     4. Takács VT
     5. Watanabe M
     6. Freund TF
     7. Nyiri G

     (2016) The ascending median raphe projections are mainly glutamatergic in the mouse forebrain

     Brain Structure and Function 221:735–751.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-014-0935-1

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
125. 1. Tang ZQ
     2. Trussell LO

     (2017) Serotonergic modulation of sensory representation in a central multisensory circuit is pathway specific

     Cell Reports 20:1844–1854.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2017.07.079

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
126. 1. Tauscher J
     2. Bagby RM
     3. Javanmard M
     4. Christensen BK
     5. Kasper S
     6. Kapur S

     (2001) Inverse relationship between serotonin 5-HT(1A) receptor binding and anxiety: a [(11)C]WAY-100635 PET investigation in healthy volunteers

     The American Journal of Psychiatry 158:1326–1328.

     https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.8.1326

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
127. 1. Tyree SM
     2. de Lecea L

     (2017) Optogenetic investigation of arousal circuits

     International Journal of Molecular Sciences 18:E1773.

     https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18081773

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
128. 1. Urban DJ
     2. Zhu H
     3. Marcinkiewcz CA
     4. Michaelides M
     5. Oshibuchi H
     6. Rhea D
     7. Aryal DK
     8. Farrell MS
     9. Lowery-Gionta E
     10. Olsen RH
     11. Wetsel WC
     12. Kash TL
     13. Hurd YL
     14. Tecott LH
     15. Roth BL

     (2016) Elucidation of the behavioral program and neuronal network encoded by dorsal raphe serotonergic neurons

     Neuropsychopharmacology 41:1404–1415.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2015.293

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
129. 1. Varga V
     2. Losonczy A
     3. Zemelman BV
     4. Borhegyi Z
     5. Nyiri G
     6. Domonkos A
     7. Hangya B
     8. Holderith N
     9. Magee JC
     10. Freund TF

     (2009) Fast synaptic subcortical control of hippocampal circuits

     Science 326:449–453.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1178307

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
130. Conference

     1. Vertes RP
     2. Linley SB

     (2007)

     Comparison of projections of the dorsal and median raphe nuclei, with some functional considerations

     International Congress Series.

     • Google Scholar
131. 1. Villalobos C
     2. Beique JC
     3. Gingrich JA
     4. Andrade R

     (2005) Serotonergic regulation of calcium-activated potassium currents in rodent prefrontal cortex

     European Journal of Neuroscience 22:1120–1126.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.04307.x

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
132. 1. Wallace DJ
     2. Meyer zum Alten Borgloh S
     3. Astori S
     4. Yang Y
     5. Bausen M
     6. Kügler S
     7. Palmer AE
     8. Tsien RY
     9. Sprengel R
     10. Kerr JN
     11. Denk W
     12. Hasan MT

     (2008) Single-spike detection in vitro and in vivo with a genetic ^Ca2+ sensor

     Nature Methods 5:797–804.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1242

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
133. 1. Watakabe A
     2. Komatsu Y
     3. Sadakane O
     4. Shimegi S
     5. Takahata T
     6. Higo N
     7. Tochitani S
     8. Hashikawa T
     9. Naito T
     10. Osaki H
     11. Sakamoto H
     12. Okamoto M
     13. Ishikawa A
     14. Hara S
     15. Akasaki T
     16. Sato H
     17. Yamamori T

     (2009) Enriched expression of serotonin 1B and 2A receptor genes in macaque visual cortex and their bidirectional modulatory effects on neuronal responses

     Cerebral Cortex 19:1915–1928.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn219

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
134. 1. Waterhouse BD
     2. Mihailoff GA
     3. Baack JC
     4. Woodward DJ

     (1986) Topographical distribution of dorsal and median raphe neurons projecting to motor, Sensorimotor, and visual cortical Areas in the rat

     The Journal of Comparative Neurology 249:460–476.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902490403

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
135. 1. Waterhouse BD
     2. Azizi SA
     3. Burne RA
     4. Woodward DJ

     (1990) Modulation of rat cortical area 17 neuronal responses to moving visual stimuli during norepinephrine and serotonin microiontophoresis

     Brain Research 514:276–292.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(90)91422-D

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
136. 1. Weber ET
     2. Andrade R

     (2010) Htr2a gene and 5-HT(2A) receptor expression in the cerebral cortex studied using genetically modified mice

     Frontiers in Neuroscience 4:36.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2010.00036

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
137. 1. Weissbourd B
     2. Ren J
     3. DeLoach KE
     4. Guenthner CJ
     5. Miyamichi K
     6. Luo L

     (2014) Presynaptic partners of dorsal raphe serotonergic and GABAergic neurons

     Neuron 83:645–662.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.06.024

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
138. 1. Wilson NR
     2. Runyan CA
     3. Wang FL
     4. Sur M

     (2012) Division and subtraction by distinct cortical inhibitory networks in vivo

     Nature 488:343–348.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11347

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
139. 1. Xiao D
     2. Vanni MP
     3. Mitelut CC
     4. Chan AW
     5. LeDue JM
     6. Xie Y
     7. Chen AC
     8. Swindale NV
     9. Murphy TH

     (2017) Mapping cortical mesoscopic networks of single spiking cortical or sub-cortical neurons

     eLife 6:e19976.

     https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.19976

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
140. 1. Yu AJ
     2. Dayan P

     (2002) Acetylcholine in cortical inference

     Neural Networks 15:719–730.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/s0893-6080(02)00058-8

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
141. 1. Zhang T
     2. Huang L
     3. Zhang L
     4. Tan M
     5. Pu M
     6. Pickard GE
     7. So KF
     8. Ren C

     (2016) ON and OFF retinal ganglion cells differentially regulate serotonergic and GABAergic activity in the dorsal raphe nucleus

     Scientific Reports 6:26060.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26060

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
142. 1. Zhang G
     2. Stackman RW

     (2015) The role of serotonin 5-HT2A receptors in memory and cognition

     Frontiers in Pharmacology 6:225.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2015.00225

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Acceptance summary:

This paper explores the effects of serotonergic photostimulation on the mouse visual cortex. By combining state-of-the-art optogenetics, wide-field optical imaging, electrophysiology and pharmacological manipulations in vivo, the authors show that serotonergic neurons modulate both spontaneous and visually evoked responses by two separable cellular mechanisms. This study highlights an important, yet less examined role of serotonin in sensory processing.

Decision letter after peer review:

[Editors’ note: the authors submitted for reconsideration following the decision after peer review. What follows is the decision letter after the first round of review.]

Thank you for submitting your work entitled "Subtraction and division of visual cortical population responses by the serotonergic system" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by three peer reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Senior Editor. The reviewers have opted to remain anonymous.

Our decision has been reached after consultation between the reviewers. Based on these discussions and the individual reviews below, we regret to inform you that your work will not be considered further for publication in eLife.

In coming to our decision, we were aware that you could make additional experiments that would address this issue, but those experiments are likely to require substantial time and effort. Therefore, as per eLife's review policies, we decided to reject the manuscript. However, if you are able to collect single-unit data that support your claims, we would be willing to reconsider a resubmission. In that case, it would again be evaluated first by a Senior Editor and members of the Board of Reviewing Editors, who would decide whether or not to send it out for review.

Reviewer #1:

The neuromodulator serotonin is involved in a wide range of cognitive processes. Most current theories focus on its effects on learning, valuation and affect, leaving its involvement in sensory processing relatively less explored. In this timely report, Azimi et al. study this question by examining the effect of stimulating serotonergic neurons in the dorsal raphe nucleus on spontaneous and visually evoked activities in primary visual cortex of the mouse. They show that both are reduced following stimulation, but through different mechanisms: spontaneous activity is reduced due to activation of inhibitory 5-HT-1A receptors, and evoked activity is suppressed due to activation of excitatory 5-HT-2A receptors, suggesting a disynaptic circuit. From these data, the authors conclude that the serotonergic system provides gain control over the visual cortex that acts through both subtractive and divisive normalizations.

The experiments were very elegant, combining state-of-the-art optogenetic stimulation, wide-field optical imaging and pharmacological manipulations in vivo. While I generally support the publication of this paper, there are significant weaknesses in the manuscript, particularly in the statistical analysis and figure presentation that should be addressed before publication.

– The authors had made considerable efforts in performing detailed IHC, including testing expression of ChR2 in both DRN 5-HT neurons and their axons in V1, and looking at patterns of 5-HT receptor expression in V1. However, to support their claims, they should also provide quantification and statistical testing of these data.

– Generally speaking, the figures are very hard to understand and should be revised considerably. More specifically:

1) The authors should add figure legends for colored curves, shaded patches, rectangles on curves etc.

2) Axes titles should be more informative (for example, what is amplitude_W3 in Figure 5C?) and panel headers will be helpful in cases where multiple panels present similar data (for example Figure 3A)

3) The authors should refrain from asking the reader to compare different figures (for example, comparing Figures 3A and 5B). If the claim is important, the comparison should be tested explicitly.

4) Figure 2, inhibition's delay in the example seems fairly long compared to the averages shown in Figure 3? It would be nice to see more detailed analysis of individual mouse effects (also showing individual mouse data, maybe as a supplementary figure).

5) It would also be nice to see schemes of experimental protocols, and, related to this, Figure 2 would benefit from an entire example session.

6) In Figure 4—figure supplement 1, it's hard to assess the effect of photostimulation on firing, perhaps adding PSTHs would help.

– Statistical analysis is lacking. The main text barely mentions which statistical tests were made (except for one test for the similarity of responses across cortical layers, which is not well described), what are the corresponding values being compared (in the form of mean ± SD, p values, n's etc.), and what are the justifications for choosing particular tests. The authors should add all this information, and also provide further details regarding the exact procedures for data normalization and averaging (for example, in Figure 5 "Values were averaged across time windows during photostimulation in which activity levels were significantly below baseline", sounds too arbitrary).

– In the Discussion, the authors only briefly mention the functional implications of their findings with respect to existing theories of 5-HT function, they should elaborate on this matter.

Reviewer #2:

Azimi et al. stimulated serotonergic neurons in the dorsal raphe nucleus while measuring activity in the primary visual cortex of anesthetized mice. They show that stimulation produces normalization of V1 responses, due to 5-HT1A and 5-HT2A receptors. This is an interesting set of experiments, that has important consequences for serotonin's function in cortex. Unfortunately, the data do not strongly support the conclusions.

1) My main concern regards the choice of widefield imaging to measure the effects of 5-HT stimulation in V1. Given the nonlinearities in the relationship between firing rates and RCaMP activity, couldn't subtraction (for example) be mistaken for normalization? Electrophysiological recordings are reported, but this is a small sample size, and it's unclear whether these are single-unit (as reported in the Materials and methods) or multi-unit (as reported in the main text) recordings. Related to this, it is not possible to determine the layer of the neurons recorded electrophysiologically, using the techniques reported.

2) There is a relatively sparse description of the methods. How were firing rates normalized? Why are some values > 1? I couldn't tell until reading the Materials and methods that mice were anesthetized.

3) 16 s of stimulation is quite long, and could have caused autoreceptor-mediated suppression of 5-HT neurons, producing the late excitatory effects in Figure 2. This could be discussed; ideally, the stimulation parameters should be manipulated in a more physiological range.

4) What is the baseline in Figure 6? Is it different for each contrast? Could it change by contrast (e.g. in Figure 2, it looks like there is a pre-stimulus decrease in activity)?

5) The references used to support statements in the Introduction and Discussion are peculiar. For example, some of the references in the third paragraph of the Introduction did not study sensory processing or use optogenetics. Why must the suppression observed here be mediated disynaptically (Discussion, second paragraph)? Wouldn't work from Gulledge and colleagues (Avesar and Gulldedge, 2012; Stephens, Avesar and Gulledge2014; Front Neural Circ 12, 2, 2018) suggest it could be done only using differential expression of different 5-HT receptors in pyramidal neurons?

Reviewer #3:

The manuscript by Azimi et al. Explores the effect of serotonergic photostimulation on the spontaneous activity and visual evoked responses in the visual cortex of mice. The authors perform a series of optogenetic experiments combined with bulk imaging and electrophysiology to show that by stimulating serotonergic neurons in the raphe nuclei both spontaneous and evoked responses are altered. Using pharmacological techniques they further show that the normalization of visual cortical activity by 5-HT PS consists of a subtractive suppression of spontaneous activity mediated by 5-HT1a receptors and a divisive suppression of response gain mediated by 5-HT2a receptors. In addition, I found the global cortical suppression by 5-HT PS very intriguing.

The topic of the manuscript is of broad interest, the experiments performed and data analysis sound, results intriguing and most conclusions drawn backed up by the data. Overall I think the manuscript is worthy of publication in a very good journal with a broad audience. I have several critiques, questions and observations and hope the authors take them in a constructive way. These do not lessen my overall support of the story.

1) The recordings of the present study were performed under anesthesia. This leads to two issues, first, the visual responses might be different (see Durand et al. 2016 JNeurosci for a comparison of awake vs. anesth visual responses) and second, photostimulation of 5-HT neurons in the anesthetized state might overestimate the effect of DRN photostimulation (in addition to the already unnaturally synchronous stimulation of neurons). Ideally a loss of function experiment in the awake state would nicely complement the results of this study, however I am aware that this might raise several technical concerns.

2) The authors have chosen to use ePet-cre mice, but ePet is not the most specific marker for 5-HT neurons (see two papers from Gabor Nyiri in Brain Struct Funct). This could be discussed in the manuscript, but the effects identified in the pharmacological experiments argue for specific serotonergic effects.

[Editors’ note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

Thank you for submitting your article "Separable gain control of ongoing and evoked activity in the visual cortex by serotonergic input" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by three peer reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors, and the evaluation has been overseen Joshua Gold as the Senior Editor. The following individual involved in review of your submission has agreed to reveal their identity: Magor Lorincz (Reviewer #3).

The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission.

Summary:

Azimi et al. stimulated serotonergic neurons in the dorsal raphe nucleus while measuring activity in the primary visual cortex of mice. They show that stimulation produces normalization of V1 responses, due to 5-HT1A and 5-HT2A receptors. This is an interesting set of experiments, which have important consequences for serotonin's function in cortex. The careful revisions in light of the reviewers' comments and the added extracellular recordings, as well as experiments in awake animals, led to significant improvements in the manuscript's quality. As it stands, this manuscript is well written, interesting and timely. We do have the following comments.

Essential revisions:

1) Subsection “Distinct and independent contribution of 5-HT2A and 5-HT1A receptors to suppression of evoked and spontaneous activity”, first paragraph: The authors claim that the late increase in RCaMP signal that is usually observed following DRN photostimulation is suppressed by the application of MDL, yet do not support this claim with a statistical test. Furthermore, while the response does remain negative throughout drug application, it is increasing after an initial dip, and this increase cannot be explained by 5-HT1A receptor dynamics since these seem to be constant during photostimulation.

2) I do not understand the analysis that led to the conclusion that normalization is different between anesthetized and awake conditions. Specifically, if V_ph / V is constant (as suggested by the analysis) then (V_ph – S_ph)/ V shouldn't be constant, and vice versa. This could be the case, however, if S_ph is equal to zero. By looking at the traces shown in Figure 8Aii, it seems that at the time of peak evoked response, S_ph is indeed close to 0. Thus, the difference between the two conditions may simply be the result of slower suppression of spontaneous activity or faster evoked responses in the awake states.

[Editors’ note: the authors resubmitted a revised version of the paper for consideration. What follows is the authors’ response to the first round of review.]

Reviewer #1:

[…] The experiments were very elegant, combining state-of-the-art optogenetic stimulation, wide-field optical imaging and pharmacological manipulations in vivo. While I generally support the publication of this paper, there are significant weaknesses in the manuscript, particularly in the statistical analysis and figure presentation that should be addressed before publication.

– The authors had made considerable efforts in performing detailed IHC, including testing expression of ChR2 in both DRN 5-HT neurons and their axons in V1, and looking at patterns of 5-HT receptor expression in V1. However, to support their claims, they should also provide quantification and statistical testing of these data.

The mentioned figure was meant as a proof of principle of the applied methodology rather than claiming quantifications. However, we agree with the reviewer that a thorough quantification would be necessary to support any specific claims about anatomical serotonergic innervation patterns in the visual cortex. As the focus of our study is on functional changes on V1 processing dynamics induced by activation of serotonergic neurons in the DRN and not on anatomical aspects (like projection pattern of fibers of 5-HT neurons in V1), we decided to skip this figure and refer to previous studies that have investigated such aspects in great detail (Dugué et al., 2014; Hale and Lowry, 2011; Leysen, 2004; Puig and Gulledge, 2011). However, we would like to keep the staining pattern of 5-HT neurons in the DRN expressing flx-ChR2 (former Figure 1C, now Figure 1B.) since it serves the depiction of experimental procedures.

– Generally speaking, the figures are very hard to understand and should be revised considerably. More specifically:

1) The authors should add figure legends for colored curves, shaded patches, rectangles on curves etc.

Done – we added figure legends for all such elements.

2) Axes titles should be more informative (for example, what is amplitude_W3 in Figure 5C?) and panel headers will be helpful in cases where multiple panels present similar data (for example Figure 3A).

Done – here applicable, axes titles were changed to exactly describe the presented parameter identities. Further, we added w of used abbreviations, and added panel headers (for instance, in Figure 5, former Figure 3, and Figures 6 and 7, several panel headers like “Visual stimulus”, “Amplitude”, “Magnitude”, etc. were added).

3) The authors should refrain from asking the reader to compare different figures (for example, comparing Figures 3A and 5B). If the claim is important, the comparison should be tested explicitly.

Done – To make the above-mentioned comparison easier to follow Figure 7 was added, which is summarizing the quantifications (magnitude and baseline values) shown in Figure 3 (spontaneous activity), Figure 5 (visually evoked activity) and Figure 6 (spontaneous and evoked activity with application of 5-HT1A and 5-HT2A receptors antagonists). Comparisons are verified by values and statistical tests in the main text.

4) Figure 2, inhibition's delay in the example seems fairly long compared to the averages shown in Figure 3? It would be nice to see more detailed analysis of individual mouse effects (also showing individual mouse data, maybe as a supplementary figure).

Done – Figure 2 depicts now all individual experiments. The difference in the onset of the suppression is calculated as mean ± SEM and stated in the main text. Average traces shown in Figure 3 and 5 were complemented with outlined SEM.

5) It would also be nice to see schemes of experimental protocols, and, related to this, Figure 2 would benefit from an entire example session.

Done – Figure 2A shows now all experimental protocols (systematically from top to bottom) and includes the time traces of activity recorded during the full time span of the trials. Also individual axes annotations and panel headers (depicting each stimulation condition) were added.

6) In Figure 4—figure supplement 1, it's hard to assess the effect of photostimulation on firing, perhaps adding PSTHs would help.

Done – PSTHs are added.

– Statistical analysis is lacking. The main text barely mentions which statistical tests were made (except for one test for the similarity of responses across cortical layers, which is not well described), what are the corresponding values being compared (in the form of mean ± SD, p values, n's etc.), and what are the justifications for choosing particular tests. The authors should add all this information, and also provide further details regarding the exact procedures for data normalization and averaging (for example, in Figure 5 "Values were averaged across time windows during photostimulation in which activity levels were significantly below baseline", sounds too arbitrary).

Done – whenever values mentioned in the main text the mean ± SEM is reported along with p values, type of the statistical test and number of subjects for that test. In addition, in the Materials and methods section the exact procedures of normalization, scaling or any other quantification steps are described. To find the onset of suppression and its effective duration (based on comparison between the traces of S and S_ph with paired t test corrected for multiple comparisons), we chose a window based on significance value: “The suppression is significant 680 ms (n=8 animals, p=0.04; paired t test with permutation correction) after the onset of DRN photostimulation, …”. “By restricting the averaging window to the period where suppression of the RCaMP signal is significant (as marked with red rectangle in Figure 3Ai.), …”

– In the Discussion, the authors only briefly mention the functional implications of their findings with respect to existing theories of 5-HT function, they should elaborate on this matter.

Done – we rewrote the Discussion and also discussed most recent publications closely related to our findings.

We wrote: “In two recent studies, selective activation of 5-HT2A receptors produced a strikingly consistent suppressive effect on the gain of visually evoked population responses (Eickelbeck et al., 2019; Michaiel et al., 2019), despite cell-type- and layer-specific differences across single cells (Michaiel et al., 2019). […] Our study may help to develop new ways of diagnosis and therapy (Carhart-Harris et al., 2018) by rebalancing of these components.”

In the Introduction we added: “Intriguingly, using optogenetic stimulation of 5-HT neurons in the mouse DRN (Dugué et al., 2014; Kapoor et al., 2016; Matias et al., 2017), only one study in olfactory cortex has shown so far a 5-HT-induced (divisive) gain control of spontaneous firing, without any effect on the gain of stimulus-driven population responses (Lottem et al., 2016). This suggests that DRN activation could separately reduce the weight of ongoing cortical activity relative to evoked activity (Lottem et al., 2016), thereby possibly changing the balance of integration between internal priors (Berkes et al., 2011; Fiser et al., 2010) and external sensory input (Lottem et al., 2016).”

Reviewer #2:

1) My main concern regards the choice of widefield imaging to measure the effects of 5-HT stimulation in V1. Given the nonlinearities in the relationship between firing rates and RCaMP activity, couldn't subtraction (for example) be mistaken for normalization? Electrophysiological recordings are reported, but this is a small sample size, and it's unclear whether these are single-unit (as reported in the Materials and methods) or multi-unit (as reported in the main text) recordings. Related to this, it is not possible to determine the layer of the neurons recorded electrophysiologically, using the techniques reported.

We thank the reviewer for her/his helpful review. We agree with the reviewer’s concern that, given potential nonlinearities in the relationship between firing rates and RCaMP activity, one should be careful in interpreting RCaMP signals with respect to spiking activity, which is, however, frequently ignored in recent studies.

New electrophysiological data added – We have performed a substantial number of new experiments using extracellular recordings of multi-unit activity and recorded firing rates based on well-isolated spikes in a new cohort of animals. The obtained extensive data set (previously 20 MUAs, new sample size in total 212 MUAs) fully supports our previous claims (please see new Figure 3, Figure 3—figure supplement 1, figure 4, Figure 5—figure supplement 2 and 3, Figure 8 and Figure 8—figure supplement 2). For both Ca²⁺ data and MUA data the 5-HT-induced suppression can be accounted for by a two-step normalization process (subtraction of spontaneous activity and scaling the gain of evoked activity, Figure 8di. and dii.). Therefore, potential nonlinearities between the RCaMP signal and firing rates do not affect our previous claims.

Corrected – we now refer to recording depth instead of layers. Thank you for the hint.

2) There is a relatively sparse description of the methods. How were firing rates normalized?

We generally improved explanations of the quantifications and analytical methods. In order to obtain a data format that allows comparison between firing rates and Ca²⁺ widefield imaging signals we employed two types of normalization:

“Traces of spike counts were averaged over time (200 ms bins) and across trials for each recorded condition. […] The normalized traces were then averaged over all the units and animals.”

With respect to contrast tuning we wrote: “Evoked responses to different visual contrasts were normalized to the peak of the evoked response at 100% grating contrast.”

Why are some values > 1?

As described above, all traces were divided by the average of activity obtained in response to the first presented visual stimulus (thus, acting as the reference response to all following stimuli). The mentioned later rise of the RCaMP signal that elevates evoked RCaMP signals to higher values than for the first stimulus, causes amplitude values >1.

I couldn't tell until reading the Materials and methods that mice were anesthetized.

Clarified – We now clarify that anesthetized animals were used directly in the Abstract, as well as in Figure 1 legend, Introduction, Results, and in Materials and methods. We further have now included new experiments where we compare results obtained under anesthesia with results obtained in awake animals (Figures 8 and 9). In this context we phrase: “Hence, the impact of activating the DRN on cortical activity may differ under wakeful conditions compared to conditions where the animals are anesthetized.”

3) 16 s of stimulation is quite long, and could have caused autoreceptor-mediated suppression of 5-HT neurons, producing the late excitatory effects in Figure 2. This could be discussed; ideally, the stimulation parameters should be manipulated in a more physiological range.

Thank you for raising these important points, which we have now addressed in detail in the Discussion.

We think that autoreceptor-mediated suppression is an unlikely mechanism contributing to our results for the following reasons: “Autoreceptor-mediated suppression of 5-HT neurons within the DRN is an unlikely explanation for producing such late increase. […] Second, we show using MUA that spiking activity in V1 is consistently suppressed during photostimulation. Third, the evoked component of visual responses remains suppressed during DRN photostimulation and finally, the late increase of RCaMP signals was selectively blocked by 5-HT2A antagonist.”

With respect to the late excitatory effect we wrote: “We suggest that intracellular Ca²⁺-accumulation of cortical neurons produces the late rise in the RCaMP signal (Eickelbeck et al., 2019) due to 5-HT receptor-mediated activation of the Gq/11 pathway (Jang et al., 2012; Millan et al., 2008) with further activation of store-operated channels (Celada et al., 2013). Finally, the late increase of the RCaMP signal did not affect our conclusions but may be considered when using wide-field Ca²⁺ recordings of cortical activity in future studies.”

We think that the used stimulation parameters are in a physiological range, as much as an experimental manipulation can be per se, in order to derive reasonable effect sizes. However, please note that even though we may drive neurons in the DRN with 20 Hz photostimulation strongly, it was recently shown that units in the intact DRN never fire at or close to 20 Hz in vivo (Grandjean et al., 2019). In this study it is also shown that DRN neurons increase their firing throughout 20 s of 20 Hz photostimulation without adaptation. Altogether, this indicates that DRN neurons may fire with their maximal output but within their physiological limits.

We wrote: “The DRN was photostimulated for 16 s in the first set of our experiments. This is relatively long in comparison to the brisk activation of DRN neurons observed in certain behavioral contexts (Heym et al., 1982; Ranade and Mainen, 2009). However, this does not exclude additional longer-lasting tonic increase in DRN activity under natural conditions. For instance, direct retinal projections to the DRN (Pickard et al., 2015; Ren et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2016) suggest its regulation well beyond the stimulation time window chosen in our study. In addition, slow periodic changes in 5-HT release occur naturally during day-night cycle (Portas et al., 2000; Tyree and de Lecea, 2017) and depend on seasonal factors (Spindelegger et al., 2012). Importantly, using the ePet-Cre mouse model and comparable photostimulation parameters as in our experiments (i.e. similar blue light intensity and frequency) to activate the DRN via fiber optics, a consistent increase of DRN activity in fMRI and MUA recordings over 20 s of photostimulation was revealed (Grandjean et al., 2019). Prolonged (12s) photostimulation of the DRN in SERT-Cre mice increased perceptual thresholds for tactile stimuli (Dugué et al., 2014), altogether suggesting that sustained or repeated elevation of DRN activity correlates with meaningful and behaviorally relevant changes in neuronal responses (Correia et al., 2017; Lőrincz and Adamantidis, 2017; Miyazaki et al., 2011). “

4) What is the baseline in Figure 6? Is it different for each contrast?

In the revised manuscript the corresponding figure is Figure 8. The baseline that is subtracted from evoked responses to each contrast is derived from the condition that records ongoing activity during photostimulation (S_ph, Figure 8aii., light blue trace). Thus, this baseline is recorded once and is independent of contrast.

Could it change by contrast (e.g. in Figure 2, it looks like there is a pre-stimulus decrease in activity)?

Based on our results, the 5-HT-induced changes in spontaneous activity are proportional to pre-photostimulation firing rates and can be explained by a divisive gain control independent of visual input (Figure 4 and Figure 5—figure supplement 3). Following the linear summation hypothesis, ongoing activity and evoked responses are independent (Arieli, Sterkin, Grinvald, and Aertsen, 1996; Deneux and Grinvald, 2016; Ferezou and Deneux, 2017; Ferezou et al., 2007) and therefore, baseline (ongoing) activity should not be differently affected by different contrasts. Indeed, when using a two-step normalization process that treats these components as independent, we were able to recover the contrast tuning function of control conditions from those under the influence of 5-HT (Figure 8di/ii and Figure 9cii).

Nonetheless, we are aware of recent studies that consider also reciprocal effects of external stimuli on the structure of ongoing activity (Deneux and Grinvald, 2016; Ferezou and Deneux, 2017; He, 2013; Sadaghiani, Hesselmann, Friston, and Kleinschmidt, 2010). However, we felt that discussing this issue would go too far beyond our current findings.

Regarding the part of the reviewer's question in brackets: The pre-stimulus decrease seen in this example reflects the variability in ongoing activity. Please see the newly included other examples for comparison (Figure 2a). This pre-stimulus variability is negligible in comparison to the suppression induced by 5-HT input (Figure 2b, S_ph condition and Figure 3).

5) The references used to support statements in the Introduction and Discussion are peculiar. For example, some of the references in the third paragraph of the Introduction did not study sensory processing or use optogenetics.

Corrected – statements in Introduction and Discussion are now supplemented with adequate references, separating those that used optogenetics and those that did not.

Why must the suppression observed here be mediated disynaptically (Discussion, second paragraph)? Wouldn't work from Gulledge and colleagues (Avesar and Gulldedge, 2012; Stephens, Avesar and Gulledge, 2014; Front Neural Circ 12, 2, 2018) suggest it could be done only using differential expression of different 5-HT receptors in pyramidal neurons?

Possible misunderstanding – we did not suggest that all of the observed suppression was mediated disynaptically. We propose that a major part of the suppression, contributing to controlling response gain, involves activation of 5-HT2A receptors. We suggest that part of this suppression (note that this suppression was blocked by the 5-HT2A antagonist) is mediated via interneurons that are activated via 5-HT2A. Importantly, we mentioned another possible monosynaptic mechanism possibly contributing to suppression of response gain, that is, a 5-HT2A-mediated shunting in pyramidal neurons.

We skipped the terms mono- and di-synaptic, however, to improve clarity.

References added – further, we refer to two of the references suggested by the reviewer in the Discussion: “Thus, reduction in response duration under the influence of 5-HT may indicate involvement of shunting inhibition in pyramidal neurons to effectively control response gain. Suprathreshold excitatory drive by 5-HT2A activation may further be amplified by shaping the duration of 5-HT1A-mediated inhibition (Avesar and Gulledge, 2012; Stephens et al., 2014).”

Reviewer #3:

[…] The topic of the manuscript is of broad interest, the experiments performed and data analysis sound, results intriguing and most conclusions drawn backed up by the data. Overall I think the manuscript is worthy of publication in a very good journal with a broad audience. I have several critiques, questions and observations and hope the authors take them in a constructive way. These do not lessen my overall support of the story.

1) The recordings of the present study were performed under anesthesia. This leads to two issues, first, the visual responses might be different (see Durand et al. 2016 JNeurosci for a comparison of awake vs. anesth visual responses) and second, photostimulation of 5-HT neurons in the anesthetized state might overestimate the effect of DRN photostimulation (in addition to the already unnaturally synchronous stimulation of neurons). Ideally a loss of function experiment in the awake state would nicely complement the results of this study, however I am aware that this might raise several technical concerns.

New experiments added under awake conditions – We thank the reviewer for her/his comments. Motivated by these comments, we performed a new row of experiments, in which we imaged animals in the awake state. We are most happy that these new data further substantiated and elaborated our major previous claims (please see new Figure 9).

We added: “Finally, we explored the extent to which the above conclusion depends on the cortical state. […] Therefore, we recorded cortical activity of awake mice (n=5) that were head-fixed and habituated to walk and stay on a treadmill (using the same experimental paradigm as shown in Figure 8).”

We concluded a comparison between awake and anaesthetized conditions as follows: “We found that normalization of responses in the anesthetized state is achieved with additive contribution of ongoing activity, indicating integration of spontaneous and evoked activity with increased weight of internal priors. In awake mice, normalization is independent of suppression in ongoing activity. This suggests that 5-HT provides a discrete divisive gain control of spontaneous ongoing and evoked visual activity, while preserving information content and regulating the balance between these components depending on the cortical state.”

We agree with the reviewer that a loss of function experiment in the awake state would nicely complement the results, but in view of the many results obtained in our study and the extensive additional data that would be required, we feel that this would go beyond what is feasible in a single study. In addition to the technical difficulties pointed out by the reviewer, it will also be challenging to realize inhibition of DRN neurons within physiological ranges. Certainly, we will follow up on this difficult issue in our future studies.

2) The authors have chosen to use ePet-cre mice, but ePet is not the most specific marker for 5-HT neurons (see two papers from Gabor Nyiri in Brain Struct Funct). This could be discussed in the manuscript, but the effects identified in the pharmacological experiments argue for specific serotonergic effects.

We thank the reviewer for this important remark. In the revised Discussion section we have addressed this concern. We wrote: “It should also be noted that besides 5-HT neurons, subpopulations of glutamatergic cells in the raphe nuclei express ePet (McDevitt et al., 2014; Sos et al., 2017). […] However, as seen in our experiments pharmacological blocking of 5-HT receptors in V1 largely diminished the induced suppressive effects, contribution from other modulatory systems appears negligible for the present study.”

[Editors’ note: what follows is the authors’ response to the second round of review.]

Essential revisions:

1) Subsection “Distinct and independent contribution of 5-HT2A and 5-HT1A receptors to suppression of evoked and spontaneous activity”, first paragraph: The authors claim that the late increase in RCaMP signal that is usually observed following DRN photostimulation is suppressed by the application of MDL, yet do not support this claim with a statistical test.

We removed the qualitative statement and report instead the p-value of a statistical test that compares baseline suppression of controls during DRN photostimulation (S_ph) with S_ph suppression obtained during application of MDL. Specifically, we analyzed the questioned rising part of the RCaMP signal after the initial dip. We found that the rising part of spontaneous activity during MDL application was significantly lower in comparison to controls (p=0.04, two-sample t test). This supports our suggestion of a reduction of intracellular Ca²⁺ accumulation when blocking 5-HT2A receptors and confirms that the late increase in RCaMP signal is partially suppressed by application of MDL.

Furthermore, while the response does remain negative throughout drug application, it is increasing after an initial dip, and this increase cannot be explained by 5-HT1A receptor dynamics since these seem to be constant during photostimulation.

We did not intend to claim that the late increase in the RCaMP signal is completely suppressed or is solely based on 5-HT2A receptor activation. The rising RCaMP signal after the initial dip during 5 HT2A blocking clearly suggests a residual contribution of other 5-HT receptors involved in intracellular Ca²⁺ accumulation that remain active during MDL application. We thank the reviewers for raising this important point that we now have addressed to avoid misunderstanding. As noted above, we removed the previous statement that the RCaMP signal remained negative throughout drug application and added further information about a likely contribution of other 5-HT receptors involved in the rise of the RCaMP signal, both in Results and in the Discussion.

2) I do not understand the analysis that led to the conclusion that normalization is different between anesthetized and awake conditions. Specifically, if V_ph / V is constant (as suggested by the analysis) then (V_ph – S_ph)/ V shouldn't be constant, and vice versa. This could be the case, however, if S_ph is equal to zero. By looking at the traces shown in Figure 8Aii, it seems that at the time of peak evoked response, S_ph is indeed close to 0. Thus, the difference between the two conditions may simply be the result of slower suppression of spontaneous activity or faster evoked responses in the awake states.

We thank the reviewer for this important point, which we address here in more detail. In the manuscript we added a new section about the contribution of spontaneous activity to normalization together with a new supplementary figure (Figure 9—figure supplement 2). To answer this question one needs to consider the suppressive gain of the evoked visual response as an adjusting factor, which we show is different in anesthetized and awake conditions. As suggested, assuming that V_ph/V is constant, the control visual response (V) can be approximated by the 5-HT-induced gain (i.e. the inverse of c) and the visual response during photostimulation (V_ph):

V_ph/V=c→V=1/c×V_ph (1)

Our main hypothesis here is that V_ph is a linear combination of the evoked component (E_ph) and its baseline component (b_ph). Further, we show (Figure 5b.) that b_ph is approximately equal to the suppression in spontaneous activity (S_ph) and that the effect of photostimulation is always suppressive (i.e. g>1).

V_ph=E_ph+b_ph

b_ph≅S_ph (2)

1/c=g→c<1;g>1

Thus, under these considerations Equation 1 can be rewritten as:

V=g(E_ph+S_ph) (3)

V=g×E_ph+g×S_ph (4).

Equation 4, shows that the gain (g) affects both the evoked and the spontaneous component and that normalization depends on their relative weights (see new Figure 9—figure supplement 2.).

Figure 9—figure supplement 2ai and aii. demonstrate how normalization influences the relative contribution of the baseline component (g×S_ph). In the anesthetized state, the weight of the baseline component is significantly larger than in the awake condition (-0.36±0.11, n=18, -0.11±0.02, n=5; p<0.001, two-sample t test). This affects normalization particularly at low contrasts, where the weights of the baseline and evoked components are comparable (Figure 9—figure supplement 2bi). This further suggests that the baseline component in the anesthetized state is a likely candidate for an additive contribution to normalization. In contrast, in the awake state, the weight of the components in Equation 4 is significantly (p<0.01, one-sample t test) biased towards the evoked component (Figure 9—figure supplement 2bii.)

One might argue, however, that the reduced contribution of the baseline component in the awake state is merely due to its smaller value (i.e. S_{ph aw}≤S_{ph an}) at the time of the peak of the evoked response (t_pk). Indeed, as the reviewer noticed correctly, we find that V_ph in the awake state reaches peak intensities significantly earlier than in the anesthetized state (mean over all contrasts: 311±32 ms (n=5 awake mice), 441±41 ms (n=18 anesthetized mice), p<0.001 two-sample t test). Consequently, the amount of suppression in S_ph at t_pk in the awake state, although significant (-0.09±0.03, n=5, p<0.01, one-sample t test), is lower as compared to the anesthetized state (-0.17±0.03, n=18, p<0.001, two-sample t test). To estimate the sensitivity of normalization to changes in the value of the baseline component in the awake state, we considered the same value of S_ph at t_pk as found for the anesthetized state (-0.17, i.e. S_{ph aw}≅S_{ph an}), while all other parameters in Equation 4 were kept the same (note that values of the evoked component do not change during photostimulation, Figure 4biii.). We find that even though the relative weight of the baseline component increases (-0.22±0.03, n=5, p<0.01, one-sample t test), its weight is still significantly smaller than in the anesthetized state (p<0.001 two-sample t test) and also significantly smaller than the weight of the evoked component over all contrasts (Figure 9—figure supplement 2biii.).

S_{ph aw}≤S_{ph an} and g_aw<g_as (5)

Our data suggest a reduction in the overall gain as the major difference between the awake and the anesthetized state (g_aw<g_an), as indicated by significantly decreased suppression of the peak response in the awake (0.75±0.11) compared to the anesthetized state (0.50±0.17, p<0.01 two-sample t test). As implicated by the calculations above and considering Equation 5 a lower gain in the awake state significantly decreases the relative weight of the baseline component [(g×S_ph)_aw <(g×S_ph)_an]. Additionally, as shown in our data, given that for all contrasts (g×E_ph) is significantly higher than (g×S_ph) in the awake state, Equation 4 can be written as

V≅g×E_ph (6).

Consequently, normalization is largely controlled by the gain of the evoked component. This supports our conclusion that in the awake state, through a reduction in the 5-HT-induced gain, the weight of contribution to normalization is biased towards the evoked component and largely achieved without the requirement of a significant additive contribution of the baseline component, as is the case in the anesthetized state (cf. Figures 8di-ii and Figure 9ci and cii).

Author details

1. Zohre Azimi

   1. Optical Imaging Group, Institut für Neuroinformatik, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
   2. International Graduate School of Neuroscience (IGSN), Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5072-3264

2. Ruxandra Barzan

   1. Optical Imaging Group, Institut für Neuroinformatik, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
   2. International Graduate School of Neuroscience (IGSN), Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

   Contribution

   Validation, Investigation, Writing - review and editing, Data acquisition (electrophysiology)

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8021-9330

3. Katharina Spoida

   Department of General Zoology and Neurobiology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Visualization, Methodology, Data acquisition (DRN electrophysiology)

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Tatjana Surdin

   Department of General Zoology and Neurobiology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

   Contribution

   Resources, Construction of AAV virus; In vitro validation of viral constructs

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Patric Wollenweber

   Department of General Zoology and Neurobiology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

   Contribution

   Resources, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Melanie D Mark

   Department of General Zoology and Neurobiology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

   Contribution

   Resources, Supervision, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Stefan Herlitze

   Department of General Zoology and Neurobiology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1785-0450

8. Dirk Jancke

   1. Optical Imaging Group, Institut für Neuroinformatik, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
   2. International Graduate School of Neuroscience (IGSN), Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   dirk.jancke@rub.de

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8440-6259

• 3,176

  Page views

• 439

  Downloads

• 17

  Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.