1. Neuroscience

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
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63493
Share this article
Cite this article
  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
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

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.

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).

Reviewing Editor

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

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

  • 3,404
    Page views
  • 494
    Downloads
  • 28
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience

    Nested circuits mediate the decision to vocalize

    Shuyun Xiao, Valerie Michael, Richard Mooney
    Research Advance Updated

    Vocalizations facilitate mating and social affiliation but may also inadvertently alert predators and rivals. Consequently, the decision to vocalize depends on brain circuits that can weigh and compare these potential benefits and risks. Male mice produce ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs) during courtship to facilitate mating, and previously isolated female mice produce USVs during social encounters with novel females. Earlier we showed that a specialized set of neurons in the midbrain periaqueductal gray (PAG-USV neurons) are an obligatory gate for USV production in both male and female mice, and that both PAG-USV neurons and USVs can be switched on by their inputs from the preoptic area (POA) of the hypothalamus and switched off by their inputs from neurons on the border between the central and medial amygdala (AmgC/M-PAG neurons) (Michael et al., 2020). Here, we show that the USV-suppressing AmgC/M-PAG neurons are strongly activated by predator cues or during social contexts that suppress USV production in male and female mice. Further, we explored how vocal promoting and vocal suppressing drives are weighed in the brain to influence vocal production in male mice, where the drive and courtship function for USVs are better understood. We found that AmgC/M-PAG neurons receive monosynaptic inhibitory input from POA neurons that also project to the PAG, that these inhibitory inputs are active in USV-promoting social contexts, and that optogenetic activation of POA cell bodies that make divergent axonal projections to the amygdala and PAG is sufficient to elicit USV production in socially isolated male mice. Accordingly, AmgC/M-PAG neurons, along with POAPAG and PAG-USV neurons, form a nested hierarchical circuit in which environmental and social information converges to influence the decision to vocalize.

    1. Neuroscience

    Rodent ultrasonic vocal interaction resolved with millimeter precision using hybrid beamforming

    Max L Sterling, Ruben Teunisse, Bernhard Englitz
    Tools and Resources Updated

    Ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs) fulfill an important role in communication and navigation in many species. Because of their social and affective significance, rodent USVs are increasingly used as a behavioral measure in neurodevelopmental and neurolinguistic research. Reliably attributing USVs to their emitter during close interactions has emerged as a difficult, key challenge. If addressed, all subsequent analyses gain substantial confidence. We present a hybrid ultrasonic tracking system, Hybrid Vocalization Localizer (HyVL), that synergistically integrates a high-resolution acoustic camera with high-quality ultrasonic microphones. HyVL is the first to achieve millimeter precision (~3.4–4.8 mm, 91% assigned) in localizing USVs, ~3× better than other systems, approaching the physical limits (mouse snout ~10 mm). We analyze mouse courtship interactions and demonstrate that males and females vocalize in starkly different relative spatial positions, and that the fraction of female vocalizations has likely been overestimated previously due to imprecise localization. Further, we find that when two male mice interact with one female, one of the males takes a dominant role in the interaction both in terms of the vocalization rate and the location relative to the female. HyVL substantially improves the precision with which social communication between rodents can be studied. It is also affordable, open-source, easy to set up, can be integrated with existing setups, and reduces the required number of experiments and animals.

    1. Neuroscience

    Different rules for binocular combination of luminance flicker in cortical and subcortical pathways

    Federico G Segala, Aurelio Bruno ... Daniel H Baker
    Research Article

    How does the human brain combine information across the eyes? It has been known for many years that cortical normalization mechanisms implement ‘ocularity invariance’: equalizing neural responses to spatial patterns presented either monocularly or binocularly. Here, we used a novel combination of electrophysiology, psychophysics, pupillometry, and computational modeling to ask whether this invariance also holds for flickering luminance stimuli with no spatial contrast. We find dramatic violations of ocularity invariance for these stimuli, both in the cortex and also in the subcortical pathways that govern pupil diameter. Specifically, we find substantial binocular facilitation in both pathways with the effect being strongest in the cortex. Near-linear binocular additivity (instead of ocularity invariance) was also found using a perceptual luminance matching task. Ocularity invariance is, therefore, not a ubiquitous feature of visual processing, and the brain appears to repurpose a generic normalization algorithm for different visual functions by adjusting the amount of interocular suppression.