Circuit and synaptic organization of forebrain-to-midbrain pathways that promote and suppress vocalization

  1. Valerie Michael
  2. Jack Goffinet
  3. John Pearson
  4. Fan Wang
  5. Katherine Tschida  Is a corresponding author
  6. Richard Mooney  Is a corresponding author
  1. Duke University Medical Center, United States
  2. Duke University Medical Centre, United States
  3. Cornell University, United States

Abstract

Animals vocalize only in certain behavioral contexts, but the circuits and synapses through which forebrain neurons trigger or suppress vocalization remain unknown. Here we used transsynaptic tracing to identify two populations of inhibitory neurons that lie upstream of neurons in the periaqueductal gray that gate the production of ultrasonic vocalizations in mice (i.e., PAG-USV neurons). Activating PAG-projecting neurons in the preoptic hypothalamus (POAPAG neurons) elicited USV production in the absence of social cues. In contrast, activating PAG-projecting neurons in the central-medial boundary zone of the amygdala (AmgC/M-PAG neurons) transiently suppressed USV production without disrupting non-vocal social behavior. Optogenetics-assisted circuit mapping in brain slices revealed that POAPAG neurons directly inhibit PAG interneurons, which in turn inhibit PAG-USV neurons, whereas AmgC/M-PAG neurons directly inhibit PAG-USV neurons. These experiments identify two major forebrain inputs to the PAG that trigger and suppress vocalization, respectively, while also establishing the synaptic mechanisms through which these neurons exert opposing behavioral effects.

Data availability

Data have been deposited to the Duke Research Data Repository, under the DOI: 10.7924/r4cz38d99. We have deposited 4 types of data in the repository: (1) confocal microscope images of in situ hybridization, (2) audio and video files from the mice used in this study, (3) slice electrophysiology data, and (4) custom Matlab codes used for data analysis. All other data analyzed in this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Valerie Michael

    Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jack Goffinet

    Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6729-0848
  3. John Pearson

    Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Neurobiology, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Psychology and Neuroscience, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9876-7837
  4. Fan Wang

    Department of Neurobiology, Department of Cell Biology, Duke University Medical Centre, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Katherine Tschida

    Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    For correspondence
    kat227@cornell.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8171-1722
  6. Richard Mooney

    Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, United States
    For correspondence
    mooney@neuro.duke.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3308-1367

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01 DC013826)

  • Richard Mooney

National Institutes of Health (R01 MH117778)

  • Fan Wang
  • Richard Mooney

National Institutes of Health (F31DC017879)

  • Valerie Michael

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Catherine Emily Carr, University of Maryland, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experiments were conducted according to protocols approved by the Duke University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee protocol (# A227-17-09).

Version history

  1. Received: September 29, 2020
  2. Accepted: December 28, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 29, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: January 8, 2021 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record updated: January 14, 2021 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2020, Michael 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

  • 3,990
    views
  • 541
    downloads
  • 61
    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. Valerie Michael
  2. Jack Goffinet
  3. John Pearson
  4. Fan Wang
  5. Katherine Tschida
  6. Richard Mooney
(2020)
Circuit and synaptic organization of forebrain-to-midbrain pathways that promote and suppress vocalization
eLife 9:e63493.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63493

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63493

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Katarzyna Marta Zoltowska, Utpal Das ... Lucía Chávez-Gutiérrez
    Research Article

    Amyloid β (Aβ) peptides accumulating in the brain are proposed to trigger Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, molecular cascades underlying their toxicity are poorly defined. Here, we explored a novel hypothesis for Aβ42 toxicity that arises from its proven affinity for γ-secretases. We hypothesized that the reported increases in Aβ42, particularly in the endolysosomal compartment, promote the establishment of a product feedback inhibitory mechanism on γ-secretases, and thereby impair downstream signaling events. We conducted kinetic analyses of γ-secretase activity in cell-free systems in the presence of Aβ, as well as cell-based and ex vivo assays in neuronal cell lines, neurons, and brain synaptosomes to assess the impact of Aβ on γ-secretases. We show that human Aβ42 peptides, but neither murine Aβ42 nor human Aβ17–42 (p3), inhibit γ-secretases and trigger accumulation of unprocessed substrates in neurons, including C-terminal fragments (CTFs) of APP, p75, and pan-cadherin. Moreover, Aβ42 treatment dysregulated cellular homeostasis, as shown by the induction of p75-dependent neuronal death in two distinct cellular systems. Our findings raise the possibility that pathological elevations in Aβ42 contribute to cellular toxicity via the γ-secretase inhibition, and provide a novel conceptual framework to address Aβ toxicity in the context of γ-secretase-dependent homeostatic signaling.

    1. Neuroscience
    Islam Faress, Valentina Khalil ... Sadegh Nabavi
    Research Article

    The dominant models of learning and memory, such as Hebbian plasticity, propose that experiences are transformed into memories through input-specific synaptic plasticity at the time of learning. However, synaptic plasticity is neither strictly input-specific nor restricted to the time of its induction. The impact of such forms of non-Hebbian plasticity on memory has been difficult to test, and hence poorly understood. Here, we demonstrate that synaptic manipulations can deviate from the Hebbian model of learning, yet produce a lasting memory. First, we established a weak associative conditioning protocol in mice, where optogenetic stimulation of sensory thalamic input to the amygdala was paired with a footshock, but no detectable memory was formed. However, when the same input was potentiated minutes before or after, or even 24 hr later, the associative experience was converted into a lasting memory. Importantly, potentiating an independent input to the amygdala minutes but not 24 hr after the pairing produced a lasting memory. Thus, our findings suggest that the process of transformation of a transient experience into a memory is neither restricted to the time of the experience nor to the synapses triggered by it; instead, it can be influenced by past and future events.