Abstract

Within the cervical and lumbar spinal enlargements, central pattern generating (CPG) circuitry produces the rhythmic output necessary for limb coordination during locomotion. Long propriospinal neurons that inter-connect these CPGs are thought to secure hindlimb-forelimb coordination, ensuring that diagonal limb pairs move synchronously while the ipsilateral limb pairs move out-of-phase during stepping. Here, we show that silencing long ascending propriospinal neurons (LAPNs) that interconnect the lumbar and cervical CPGs disrupts left-right limb coupling of each limb pair in the adult rat during overground locomotion on a high-friction surface. These perturbations occurred independent of the locomotor rhythm, intralimb coordination, and speed-dependent (or any other) principal features of locomotion. Strikingly, the functional consequences of silencing LAPNs are highly context-dependent; the phenotype was not expressed during swimming, treadmill stepping, exploratory locomotion, or walking on an uncoated, slick surface. These data reveal surprising flexibility and context-dependence in the control of interlimb coordination during locomotion.

Data availability

Source data has been provided for: Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5, Figure 1 figure supplement 1 and Figure 4 figure supplement 2

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Amanda M Pocratsky

    Anatomical Sciences and Neurobiology, University of Louisville, Louisville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Courtney T Shepard

    Anatomical Sciences and Neurobiology, University of Louisville, Louisville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Johnny R Morehouse

    Neurological Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Darlene A Burke

    Neurological Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Amberley S Riegler

    Neurological Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Josiah T Hardin

    J B Speed School of Engineering, University of Louisville, Louisville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jason E Beare

    Neurological Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3988-1223
  8. Casey Hainline

    Neurological Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Gregory JR States

    Anatomical Sciences and Neurobiology, University of Louisville, Louisville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Brandon L Brown

    Neurological Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Scott R Whittemore

    Neurological Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. David SK Magnuson

    Neurological Surgery and Anatomical Sciences and Neurobiology, University of Louisville, Louisville, United States
    For correspondence
    dsmagn01@louisville.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3816-3676

Funding

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01 NS089324)

  • Scott R Whittemore
  • David SK Magnuson

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (P30 GM103507)

  • Scott R Whittemore
  • David SK Magnuson

Kentucky Spinal Cord and Head Injury Research Trust (13-14)

  • Scott R Whittemore
  • David SK Magnuson

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ronald L Calabrese, Emory University, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to the approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocol (#16669) of the University of Louisville. All surgery was performed under sodium pentobarbital or isoflurane anesthesia, and every effort was made to minimize suffering.

Version history

  1. Received: November 13, 2019
  2. Accepted: September 8, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 9, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: September 30, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Pocratsky et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,907
    views
  • 304
    downloads
  • 30
    citations

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

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Amanda M Pocratsky
  2. Courtney T Shepard
  3. Johnny R Morehouse
  4. Darlene A Burke
  5. Amberley S Riegler
  6. Josiah T Hardin
  7. Jason E Beare
  8. Casey Hainline
  9. Gregory JR States
  10. Brandon L Brown
  11. Scott R Whittemore
  12. David SK Magnuson
(2020)
Long ascending propriospinal neurons provide flexible, context-specific control of interlimb coordination
eLife 9:e53565.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.53565

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.53565

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Sanggeon Park, Yeowool Huh ... Jeiwon Cho
    Research Article

    The brain’s ability to appraise threats and execute appropriate defensive responses is essential for survival in a dynamic environment. Humans studies have implicated the anterior insular cortex (aIC) in subjective fear regulation and its abnormal activity in fear/anxiety disorders. However, the complex aIC connectivity patterns involved in regulating fear remain under investigated. To address this, we recorded single units in the aIC of freely moving male mice that had previously undergone auditory fear conditioning, assessed the effect of optogenetically activating specific aIC output structures in fear, and examined the organization of aIC neurons projecting to the specific structures with retrograde tracing. Single-unit recordings revealed that a balanced number of aIC pyramidal neurons’ activity either positively or negatively correlated with a conditioned tone-induced freezing (fear) response. Optogenetic manipulations of aIC pyramidal neuronal activity during conditioned tone presentation altered the expression of conditioned freezing. Neural tracing showed that non-overlapping populations of aIC neurons project to the amygdala or the medial thalamus, and the pathway bidirectionally modulated conditioned fear. Specifically, optogenetic stimulation of the aIC-amygdala pathway increased conditioned freezing, while optogenetic stimulation of the aIC-medial thalamus pathway decreased it. Our findings suggest that the balance of freezing-excited and freezing-inhibited neuronal activity in the aIC and the distinct efferent circuits interact collectively to modulate fear behavior.

    1. Neuroscience
    Jonathan S Tsay, Hyosub E Kim ... Richard B Ivry
    Review Article

    Motor learning is often viewed as a unitary process that operates outside of conscious awareness. This perspective has led to the development of sophisticated models designed to elucidate the mechanisms of implicit sensorimotor learning. In this review, we argue for a broader perspective, emphasizing the contribution of explicit strategies to sensorimotor learning tasks. Furthermore, we propose a theoretical framework for motor learning that consists of three fundamental processes: reasoning, the process of understanding action–outcome relationships; refinement, the process of optimizing sensorimotor and cognitive parameters to achieve motor goals; and retrieval, the process of inferring the context and recalling a control policy. We anticipate that this ‘3R’ framework for understanding how complex movements are learned will open exciting avenues for future research at the intersection between cognition and action.