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

  • 1,836
    Page views
  • 294
    Downloads
  • 22
    Citations

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

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
    Kiwamu Kudo, Kamalini G Ranasinghe ... Srikantan S Nagarajan
    Research Article

    Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-β and misfolded tau proteins causing synaptic dysfunction, and progressive neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. Altered neural oscillations have been consistently demonstrated in AD. However, the trajectories of abnormal neural oscillations in AD progression and their relationship to neurodegeneration and cognitive decline are unknown. Here, we deployed robust event-based sequencing models (EBMs) to investigate the trajectories of long-range and local neural synchrony across AD stages, estimated from resting-state magnetoencephalography. The increases in neural synchrony in the delta-theta band and the decreases in the alpha and beta bands showed progressive changes throughout the stages of the EBM. Decreases in alpha and beta band synchrony preceded both neurodegeneration and cognitive decline, indicating that frequency-specific neuronal synchrony abnormalities are early manifestations of AD pathophysiology. The long-range synchrony effects were greater than the local synchrony, indicating a greater sensitivity of connectivity metrics involving multiple regions of the brain. These results demonstrate the evolution of functional neuronal deficits along the sequence of AD progression.

    1. Medicine
    2. Neuroscience
    Luisa Fassi, Shachar Hochman ... Roi Cohen Kadosh
    Research Article

    In recent years, there has been debate about the effectiveness of treatments from different fields, such as neurostimulation, neurofeedback, brain training, and pharmacotherapy. This debate has been fuelled by contradictory and nuanced experimental findings. Notably, the effectiveness of a given treatment is commonly evaluated by comparing the effect of the active treatment versus the placebo on human health and/or behaviour. However, this approach neglects the individual’s subjective experience of the type of treatment she or he received in establishing treatment efficacy. Here, we show that individual differences in subjective treatment - the thought of receiving the active or placebo condition during an experiment - can explain variability in outcomes better than the actual treatment. We analysed four independent datasets (N = 387 participants), including clinical patients and healthy adults from different age groups who were exposed to different neurostimulation treatments (transcranial magnetic stimulation: Studies 1 and 2; transcranial direct current stimulation: Studies 3 and 4). Our findings show that the inclusion of subjective treatment can provide a better model fit either alone or in interaction with objective treatment (defined as the condition to which participants are assigned in the experiment). These results demonstrate the significant contribution of subjective experience in explaining the variability of clinical, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes. We advocate for existing and future studies in clinical and non-clinical research to start accounting for participants’ subjective beliefs and their interplay with objective treatment when assessing the efficacy of treatments. This approach will be crucial in providing a more accurate estimation of the treatment effect and its source, allowing the development of effective and reproducible interventions.