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.

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).

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

  • 3,767
    views
  • 434
    downloads
  • 43
    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. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Developmental Biology
    Leif Benner, Savannah Muron ... Brian Oliver
    Research Article

    Differentiation of female germline stem cells into a mature oocyte includes the expression of RNAs and proteins that drive early embryonic development in Drosophila. We have little insight into what activates the expression of these maternal factors. One candidate is the zinc-finger protein OVO. OVO is required for female germline viability and has been shown to positively regulate its own expression, as well as a downstream target, ovarian tumor, by binding to the transcriptional start site (TSS). To find additional OVO targets in the female germline and further elucidate OVO’s role in oocyte development, we performed ChIP-seq to determine genome-wide OVO occupancy, as well as RNA-seq comparing hypomorphic and wild type rescue ovo alleles. OVO preferentially binds in close proximity to target TSSs genome-wide, is associated with open chromatin, transcriptionally active histone marks, and OVO-dependent expression. Motif enrichment analysis on OVO ChIP peaks identified a 5’-TAACNGT-3’ OVO DNA binding motif spatially enriched near TSSs. However, the OVO DNA binding motif does not exhibit precise motif spacing relative to the TSS characteristic of RNA polymerase II complex binding core promoter elements. Integrated genomics analysis showed that 525 genes that are bound and increase in expression downstream of OVO are known to be essential maternally expressed genes. These include genes involved in anterior/posterior/germ plasm specification (bcd, exu, swa, osk, nos, aub, pgc, gcl), egg activation (png, plu, gnu, wisp, C(3)g, mtrm), translational regulation (cup, orb, bru1, me31B), and vitelline membrane formation (fs(1)N, fs(1)M3, clos). This suggests that OVO is a master transcriptional regulator of oocyte development and is responsible for the expression of structural components of the egg as well as maternally provided RNAs that are required for early embryonic development.

    1. Developmental Biology
    Saira Amir, Olatunbosun Arowolo ... Alexander Suvorov
    Research Article

    Over the past several decades, a trend toward delayed childbirth has led to increases in parental age at the time of conception. Sperm epigenome undergoes age-dependent changes increasing risks of adverse conditions in offspring conceived by fathers of advanced age. The mechanism(s) linking paternal age with epigenetic changes in sperm remain unknown. The sperm epigenome is shaped in a compartment protected by the blood-testes barrier (BTB) known to deteriorate with age. Permeability of the BTB is regulated by the balance of two mTOR complexes in Sertoli cells where mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) promotes the opening of the BTB and mTOR complex 2 (mTORC2) promotes its integrity. We hypothesized that this balance is also responsible for age-dependent changes in the sperm epigenome. To test this hypothesis, we analyzed reproductive outcomes, including sperm DNA methylation in transgenic mice with Sertoli cell-specific suppression of mTORC1 (Rptor KO) or mTORC2 (Rictor KO). mTORC2 suppression accelerated aging of the sperm DNA methylome and resulted in a reproductive phenotype concordant with older age, including decreased testes weight and sperm counts, and increased percent of morphologically abnormal spermatozoa and mitochondrial DNA copy number. Suppression of mTORC1 resulted in the shift of DNA methylome in sperm opposite to the shift associated with physiological aging – sperm DNA methylome rejuvenation and mild changes in sperm parameters. These results demonstrate for the first time that the balance of mTOR complexes in Sertoli cells regulates the rate of sperm epigenetic aging. Thus, mTOR pathway in Sertoli cells may be used as a novel target of therapeutic interventions to rejuvenate the sperm epigenome in advanced-age fathers.