Dual midbrain and forebrain origins of thalamic inhibitory interneurons

  1. Polona Jager
  2. Gerald Moore
  3. Padraic Calpin
  4. Xhuljana Durmishi
  5. Irene Salgarella
  6. Lucy Menage
  7. Yoshiaki Kita
  8. Yan Wang
  9. Dong Won Kim
  10. Seth Blackshaw
  11. Simon R Schultz
  12. Stephen Brickley
  13. Tomomi Shimogori
  14. Alessio Delogu  Is a corresponding author
  1. King's College London, United Kingdom
  2. Imperial College London, United Kingdom
  3. University College London, United Kingdom
  4. RIKEN, Japan
  5. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States
  6. Johns Hopkins University, United States
  7. Centor for Brain Science, Japan

Abstract

The ubiquitous presence of inhibitory interneurons in the thalamus of primates contrasts with the sparsity of interneurons reported in mice. Here, we identify a larger than expected complexity and distribution of interneurons across the mouse thalamus, where all thalamic interneurons can be traced back to two developmental programs: one specified in the midbrain and the other in the forebrain. Interneurons migrate to functionally distinct thalamocrtical nuclei depending on their origin: the abundant, midbrain-generated class populates the first and higher order sensory thalamus while the rarer, forebrain-generated class is restricted to some higher order associative regions. We also observe that markers for the midbrain-born class are abundantly expressed throughout the thalamus of the New World monkey marmoset. These data therefore reveal that, despite the broad variability in interneuron density across mammalian species, the blueprint of the ontogenetic organisation of thalamic interneurons of larger-brained mammals exists and can be studied in mice.

Data availability

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

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Polona Jager

    Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Gerald Moore

    Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Padraic Calpin

    Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Xhuljana Durmishi

    Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Irene Salgarella

    Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Lucy Menage

    Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Yoshiaki Kita

    Center for Brain Science (CBS), RIKEN, Saitama, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Yan Wang

    Center for Brain Science (CBS), RIKEN, Saitama, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Dong Won Kim

    Neuroscience, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Seth Blackshaw

    The Solomon H. Snyder Department of Neuroscience, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Simon R Schultz

    Centre for Neurotechnology and Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6794-5813
  12. Stephen Brickley

    Centre for Neurotechnology and Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Tomomi Shimogori

    Laboratory for Molecular Mechanism of Brain Development, Centor for Brain Science, Wako, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Alessio Delogu

    Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    alessio.delogu@kcl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4414-4714

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/L020068/1)

  • Alessio Delogu

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/R007020/1)

  • Alessio Delogu

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/R007659/1)

  • Stephen Brickley

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/J021199/1)

  • Simon R Schultz

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/L016737/1)

  • Gerald Moore

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Sonia Garel, Ecole Normale Superieure, France

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Mice: Housing and experimental procedures were approved by the King's College London Ethical Committee and conformed to the regulations of the UK Home Office personal and project licences under the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) 1986 Act.Marmoset: All experiments were conducted in accordance with the guidelines approved by the RIKEN Institutional Animal Care (W2020-2-022).

Version history

  1. Received: May 24, 2020
  2. Accepted: January 31, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 1, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 25, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Jager 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

  • 3,490
    views
  • 405
    downloads
  • 38
    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. Polona Jager
  2. Gerald Moore
  3. Padraic Calpin
  4. Xhuljana Durmishi
  5. Irene Salgarella
  6. Lucy Menage
  7. Yoshiaki Kita
  8. Yan Wang
  9. Dong Won Kim
  10. Seth Blackshaw
  11. Simon R Schultz
  12. Stephen Brickley
  13. Tomomi Shimogori
  14. Alessio Delogu
(2021)
Dual midbrain and forebrain origins of thalamic inhibitory interneurons
eLife 10:e59272.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59272

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59272

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Nicolas Loyer, Elizabeth KJ Hogg ... Jens Januschke
    Research Article

    The generation of distinct cell fates during development depends on asymmetric cell division of progenitor cells. In the central and peripheral nervous system of Drosophila, progenitor cells respectively called neuroblasts or sensory organ precursors use PAR polarity during mitosis to control cell fate determination in their daughter cells. How polarity and the cell cycle are coupled, and how the cell cycle machinery regulates PAR protein function and cell fate determination is poorly understood. Here, we generate an analog sensitive allele of CDK1 and reveal that its partial inhibition weakens but does not abolish apical polarity in embryonic and larval neuroblasts and leads to defects in polarisation of fate determinants. We describe a novel in vivo phosphorylation of Bazooka, the Drosophila homolog of PAR-3, on Serine180, a consensus CDK phosphorylation site. In some tissular contexts, phosphorylation of Serine180 occurs in asymmetrically dividing cells but not in their symmetrically dividing neighbours. In neuroblasts, Serine180 phosphomutants disrupt the timing of basal polarisation. Serine180 phosphomutants also affect the specification and binary cell fate determination of sensory organ precursors as well as Baz localisation during their asymmetric cell divisions. Finally, we show that CDK1 phosphorylates Serine-S180 and an equivalent Serine on human PAR-3 in vitro.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Jonathan AC Menzies, André Maia Chagas ... Claudio R Alonso
    Research Article

    Movement is a key feature of animal systems, yet its embryonic origins are not fully understood. Here, we investigate the genetic basis underlying the embryonic onset of movement in Drosophila focusing on the role played by small non-coding RNAs (microRNAs, miRNAs). To this end, we first develop a quantitative behavioural pipeline capable of tracking embryonic movement in large populations of fly embryos, and using this system, discover that the Drosophila miRNA miR-2b-1 plays a role in the emergence of movement. Through the combination of spectral analysis of embryonic motor patterns, cell sorting and RNA in situs, genetic reconstitution tests, and neural optical imaging we define that miR-2b-1 influences the emergence of embryonic movement by exerting actions in the developing nervous system. Furthermore, through the combination of bioinformatics coupled to genetic manipulation of miRNA expression and phenocopy tests we identify a previously uncharacterised (but evolutionarily conserved) chloride channel encoding gene – which we term Movement Modulator (Motor) – as a genetic target that mechanistically links miR-2b-1 to the onset of movement. Cell-specific genetic reconstitution of miR-2b-1 expression in a null miRNA mutant background, followed by behavioural assays and target gene analyses, suggest that miR-2b-1 affects the emergence of movement through effects in sensory elements of the embryonic circuitry, rather than in the motor domain. Our work thus reports the first miRNA system capable of regulating embryonic movement, suggesting that other miRNAs are likely to play a role in this key developmental process in Drosophila as well as in other species.