Non-canonical role for Lpar1-EGFP subplate neurons in early postnatal mouse somatosensory cortex

  1. Filippo Ghezzi
  2. Andre Marques-Smith
  3. Paul G Anastasiades
  4. Daniel Lyngholm
  5. Cristiana Vagnoni
  6. Alexandra Rowett
  7. Gokul Parameswaran
  8. Anna Hoerder-Suabedissen
  9. Yasushi Nakagawa
  10. Zoltan Molnar
  11. Simon J B Butt  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  2. University of Bristol, United Kingdom
  3. University of Minnesota Medical School, United States

Abstract

Subplate neurons (SPNs) are thought to play a role in nascent sensory processing in neocortex. To better understand how heterogeneity within this population relates to emergent function, we investigated the synaptic connectivity of Lpar1-EGFP SPNs through the first postnatal week in whisker somatosensory cortex (S1BF). These SPNs comprise of two morphological subtypes: fusiform SPNs with local axons, and pyramidal SPNs with axons that extend through the marginal zone. The former receive translaminar synaptic input up until the emergence of the whisker barrels; a timepoint coincident with significant cell death. In contrast, pyramidal SPNs receive local input from the subplate at early ages but then – during the later time window, acquire input from overlying cortex. Combined electrical and optogenetic activation of thalamic afferents identified that Lpar1-EGFP SPNs receive sparse thalamic innervation. These data reveal components of the postnatal network that interpret sparse thalamic input to direct the emergent columnar structure of S1BF.

Data availability

All data generated and analysed during this study are available via the University of Oxford open access data repository (https://ora.ox.ac.uk)

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Filippo Ghezzi

    Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Andre Marques-Smith

    Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6879-2858
  3. Paul G Anastasiades

    Neuroscience, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Daniel Lyngholm

    MRC Centre for Developmental Neurobiology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3708-0249
  5. Cristiana Vagnoni

    Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Alexandra Rowett

    Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Gokul Parameswaran

    MRC Centre for Developmental Neurobiology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Anna Hoerder-Suabedissen

    MRC Centre for Developmental Neurobiology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Yasushi Nakagawa

    Department of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4876-5718
  10. Zoltan Molnar

    MRC Centre for Developmental Neurobiology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6852-6004
  11. Simon J B Butt

    Physiology, Anatomy & Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    simon.butt@dpag.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2399-0102

Funding

Wellcome Trust (215199/Z/19/Z)

  • Filippo Ghezzi

Wellcome Trust (086362/Z/08/Z)

  • Andre Marques-Smith

Medical Research Council (MR/K004387/1)

  • Simon J B Butt

Human Frontiers Science Program Organisation (CDA0023/2008-C)

  • Simon J B Butt

Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (19079)

  • Simon J B Butt

Wellcome Trust (089286/Z/09/Z)

  • Simon J B Butt

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Animal care and experimental procedures were approved by the University of Oxford local ethical review committee and conducted in accordance with UK Home Office personal and project (70/6767; 30/3052; P861F9BB75) licenses under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) 1986 Act.

Copyright

© 2021, Ghezzi 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

  • 1,612
    views
  • 181
    downloads
  • 11
    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. Filippo Ghezzi
  2. Andre Marques-Smith
  3. Paul G Anastasiades
  4. Daniel Lyngholm
  5. Cristiana Vagnoni
  6. Alexandra Rowett
  7. Gokul Parameswaran
  8. Anna Hoerder-Suabedissen
  9. Yasushi Nakagawa
  10. Zoltan Molnar
  11. Simon J B Butt
(2021)
Non-canonical role for Lpar1-EGFP subplate neurons in early postnatal mouse somatosensory cortex
eLife 10:e60810.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60810

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60810

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Markus R Tünte, Stefanie Hoehl ... Ezgi Kayhan
    Research Advance

    Several recent theoretical accounts have posited that interoception, the perception of internal bodily signals, plays a vital role in early human development. Yet, empirical evidence of cardiac interoceptive sensitivity in infants to date has been mixed. Furthermore, existing evidence does not go beyond the perception of cardiac signals and focuses only on the age of 5–7 mo, limiting the generalizability of the results. Here, we used a modified version of the cardiac interoceptive sensitivity paradigm introduced by Maister et al., 2017 in 3-, 9-, and 18-mo-old infants using cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches. Going beyond, we introduce a novel experimental paradigm, namely the iBREATH, to investigate respiratory interoceptive sensitivity in infants. Overall, for cardiac interoceptive sensitivity (total n=135) we find rather stable evidence across ages with infants on average preferring stimuli presented synchronously to their heartbeat. For respiratory interoceptive sensitivity (total n=120) our results show a similar pattern in the first year of life, but not at 18 mo. We did not observe a strong relationship between cardiac and respiratory interoceptive sensitivity at 3 and 9 mo but found some evidence for a relationship at 18 mo. We validated our results using specification curve- and mega-analytic approaches. By examining early cardiac and respiratory interoceptive processing, we provide evidence that infants are sensitive to their interoceptive signals.

    1. Ecology
    2. Neuroscience
    Kathleen T Quach, Gillian A Hughes, Sreekanth H Chalasani
    Research Article

    Prey must balance predator avoidance with feeding, a central dilemma in prey refuge theory. Additionally, prey must assess predatory imminence—how close threats are in space and time. Predatory imminence theory classifies defensive behaviors into three defense modes: pre-encounter, post-encounter, and circa-strike, corresponding to increasing levels of threat—–suspecting, detecting, and contacting a predator. Although predatory risk often varies in spatial distribution and imminence, how these factors intersect to influence defensive behaviors is poorly understood. Integrating these factors into a naturalistic environment enables comprehensive analysis of multiple defense modes in consistent conditions. Here, we combine prey refuge and predatory imminence theories to develop a model system of nematode defensive behaviors, with Caenorhabditis elegans as prey and Pristionchus pacificus as predator. In a foraging environment comprised of a food-rich, high-risk patch and a food-poor, low-risk refuge, C. elegans innately exhibits circa-strike behaviors. With experience, it learns post- and pre-encounter behaviors that proactively anticipate threats. These defense modes intensify with predator lethality, with only life-threatening predators capable of eliciting all three modes. SEB-3 receptors and NLP-49 peptides, key stress regulators, vary in their impact and interdependence across defense modes. Overall, our model system reveals fine-grained insights into how stress-related signaling regulates defensive behaviors.