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. Sensae, Germany
  4. 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

    Sensae, 2100 Copenhagen, Germany
    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

    Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Anna Hoerder-Suabedissen

    Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, 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

    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:" 0000-0002-6852-6004
  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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Sonia Garel, Ecole Normale Superieure, France

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.

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: May 13, 2020 (view preprint)
  2. Received: July 7, 2020
  3. Accepted: July 9, 2021
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: July 12, 2021 (version 1)
  5. Accepted Manuscript updated: July 15, 2021 (version 2)
  6. Version of Record published: July 21, 2021 (version 3)

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

  • 1,377
    views
  • 164
    downloads
  • 9
    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
    Amanda Chu, Nicholas T Gordon ... Michael A McDannald
    Research Article

    Pavlovian fear conditioning has been extensively used to study the behavioral and neural basis of defensive systems. In a typical procedure, a cue is paired with foot shock, and subsequent cue presentation elicits freezing, a behavior theoretically linked to predator detection. Studies have since shown a fear conditioned cue can elicit locomotion, a behavior that - in addition to jumping, and rearing - is theoretically linked to imminent or occurring predation. A criticism of studies observing fear conditioned cue-elicited locomotion is that responding is non-associative. We gave rats Pavlovian fear discrimination over a baseline of reward seeking. TTL-triggered cameras captured 5 behavior frames/s around cue presentation. Experiment 1 examined the emergence of danger-specific behaviors over fear acquisition. Experiment 2 examined the expression of danger-specific behaviors in fear extinction. In total, we scored 112,000 frames for nine discrete behavior categories. Temporal ethograms show that during acquisition, a fear conditioned cue suppresses reward seeking and elicits freezing, but also elicits locomotion, jumping, and rearing - all of which are maximal when foot shock is imminent. During extinction, a fear conditioned cue most prominently suppresses reward seeking, and elicits locomotion that is timed to shock delivery. The independent expression of these behaviors in both experiments reveal a fear conditioned cue to orchestrate a temporally organized suite of behaviors.

    1. Neuroscience
    Salima Messaoudi, Ada Allam ... Isabelle Caille
    Research Article

    The fragile X syndrome (FXS) represents the most prevalent form of inherited intellectual disability and is the first monogenic cause of autism spectrum disorder. FXS results from the absence of the RNA-binding protein FMRP (fragile X messenger ribonucleoprotein). Neuronal migration is an essential step of brain development allowing displacement of neurons from their germinal niches to their final integration site. The precise role of FMRP in neuronal migration remains largely unexplored. Using live imaging of postnatal rostral migratory stream (RMS) neurons in Fmr1-null mice, we observed that the absence of FMRP leads to delayed neuronal migration and altered trajectory, associated with defects of centrosomal movement. RNA-interference-induced knockdown of Fmr1 shows that these migratory defects are cell-autonomous. Notably, the primary Fmrp mRNA target implicated in these migratory defects is microtubule-associated protein 1B (MAP1B). Knocking down MAP1B expression effectively rescued most of the observed migratory defects. Finally, we elucidate the molecular mechanisms at play by demonstrating that the absence of FMRP induces defects in the cage of microtubules surrounding the nucleus of migrating neurons, which is rescued by MAP1B knockdown. Our findings reveal a novel neurodevelopmental role for FMRP in collaboration with MAP1B, jointly orchestrating neuronal migration by influencing the microtubular cytoskeleton.