In late 2015, medical professionals in the northeast region of Brazil reported a surge in the number of children born with microcephaly, with an increase of 265% in the number of cases during 2015–2016 (Microcephaly Epidemic Research Group, 2016; Kleber de Oliveira et al., 2016). Infants born with microcephaly during the Zika outbreak also had a constellation of clinical presentations that ultimately became known as Congenital Zika Syndrome (CZS): skull deformation, abnormally small cerebral cortices, and retinal scarring, among others (Broussard et al., 2018; Moore et al., 2017; Musso et al., 2019). Clinicians have identified additional health issues as these children have continued to grow and develop (Wheeler et al., 2018; Cardoso et al., 2019), including visual impairment (Ventura et al., 2017), increased risk for autism (Vianna et al., 2018), atypical motor development, increased risk for cerebral palsy (Marques et al., 2019), and poor sleep quality (Pinato et al., 2018). Further screening has identified cases where children not diagnosed with CZS at birth exhibit CZS by their first birthday; up to 50% of children born to mothers infected with Zika virus during pregnancy infection exhibit anatomical or behavioral abnormalities (Cardoso et al., 2019; Wheeler, 2018). Taken together, these findings suggest that while microcephaly is an extreme manifestation of CZS, children born with normal sized heads may also have other significant neural deficits. Understanding the anatomy of those deficits is critical for predicting the developmental trajectories of children with CZS and ultimately for developing effective treatments and interventions, and the focus of the present report.

Since the onset of the ZIKV pandemic that began in 2015, a number of studies have revealed important information about how ZIKV targets specific cell types and proteins within the central nervous system (for reviews Khaiboullina et al., 2019; Sutarjono, 2019). The neurotropism of the virus may result from ZIKV using AXL, a tyrosine kinase receptor important in modulating the innate immune system (Rothlin et al., 2007; Hafizi and Dahlbäck, 2006), to enter the brain (Meertens et al., 2017; Rossi et al., 2020; Nowakowski et al., 2016). Single-cell RNA sequencing analyses have demonstrated that AXL is highly expressed in radial glia, endothelial cells, microglia, and astrocytes in the developing human cortex (Nowakowski et al., 2016). After breaching the placental–fetal barrier, ZIKV infects radial glial cells. Radial glia cells undergo symmetric and asymmetric cell division to generate the neurons that populate the cerebral cortex (Anthony et al., 2004; Falk and Götz, 2017), and the disruption of this process may ultimately lead to decreased neuronal numbers resulting in microcephaly. Although ZIKV might not be cytotoxic for microglia and astrocytes initially, once infected, these cells can propagate and spread the virus through the brain, maintaining a high viral load in the brain over time (Muffat et al., 2018).

An increasing number of studies point to the involvement of glial cells in ZIKV infection of the CNS. Microglia are well known for their role as cellular effectors of innate immunity; together with astrocytes, they drive the neuroinflammatory process through phagocytosis and cytokine release. They also play a critical role in neural development by promoting neuronal survival via release of neurotrophic factors to support neuronal circuit formation, phagocytosing immature neurons that fail to form proper neuronal circuits, and removing redundant or dysfunctional synapses in the developing brain (Thion et al., 2018; Reemst et al., 2016). During the late stages of brain development and after birth, glial cells develop and spread through the nervous system, constituting at least half of the cellular population within the brain (Zuchero and Barres, 2015). Two possible pathways exist by which ZIKV may interact with glial cells –either direct infection or induction of an inflammatory response that activates microglia and/or astrocytes. Congenitally acquired ZIKV has been shown to infect glial precursor cells, impairing their distribution in the brain, leading to reduced and delayed myelination (Chimelli and Avvad-Portari, 2018), ultimately contributing to neuroinflammation and microcephaly.

Nonhuman primate (NHP) models of ZIKV infection have been established and are able to bridge the translational divide between rodent models and humans (Nguyen et al., 2017; Coffey et al., 2018). Rodent models have significant limitations including the fact that adult mouse models of ZIKV must be immunocompromised or genetically modified (e.g., Winkler and Peterson, 2018). Fetal and neonatal wild-type mice do show some susceptibility to ZIKV infection, but they must be directly exposed to the virus, either through intracerebroventricular, intraperitoneal, or intra-amniotic (IA) inoculation, and as such are not a good model for vertical transmission of ZIKV from infected mothers to fetuses (e.g., Paul et al., 2018). In addition, the most severe symptoms of CZS include dysfunction in the neocortex, especially the prefrontal cortex (PFC), and the extent to which certain cortical regions are homologous in rodents and primates is not clear (Laubach et al., 2018). NHPs gestational development is also similar to humans, including its extended duration (relative to rodents), the prevalence of singleton pregnancies (rather than litters), and the structure of the placenta (Carter, 2007). The anatomical development and organization of the brain also proceed along a similar path in humans and NHPs (Workman et al., 2013). Similar to humans, pregnant NHPs do not need to be immunocompromised to be infected with ZIKV, experience viremia, and demonstrate transplacental transmission of the virus to the fetus (Koide et al., 2016; Dudley et al., 2016; Morrison and Diamond, 2017; Coffey et al., 2017). Although none had evidence of microcephaly, previous studies of ZIKV-exposed fetal and infant macaques have identified a number of pathological features, including calcifications, abnormal gliosis, and white matter hypoplasia (Coffey et al., 2018; Mavigner et al., 2018; Adams Waldorf et al., 2018; Adams Waldorf et al., 2016). Studies that employed immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis also identified loss of neural precursors, reduced neurogenesis, gliosis, and increased apoptosis in different brain regions (Coffey et al., 2018; Mavigner et al., 2018; Adams Waldorf et al., 2018). Neuroanatomical evaluations in these studies have adopted approaches that are standard for pathologic analyses, insofar as they typically evaluate small areas of brain tissue and use formalin fixation and paraffin embedding, procedures that can mask epitopes, reduce antigenicity, and make it challenging to understand the impact of infection on the whole brain (Cinar et al., 2006; Jones and Hartman, 1978).

The present study builds upon a previously described macaque model of CZS in which, to assure fetal infection at a defined time of gestation, fetuses were inoculated with ZIKV via the IA routes, mothers were concurrently inoculated with ZIKV intravenously (IV), and fetuses were harvested at the end of gestation (Coffey et al., 2018). We elected to use IA inoculation to ensure that the fetuses were infected so that we could study fetal outcomes, rather than inoculating the mother only and leaving open the possibility that fetuses did not become infected (i.e., at the time we initiated our study it was not clear whether vertical transmission rates were 100% although there is some subsequent evidence that is the case [Nguyen et al., 2017]). While RT-qPCR-based virology, immunology, and histology findings on these animals have been described previously (Coffey et al., 2018), the current report describes a more in-depth neuropathological assessment of the macro- and microstructural effects of ZIKV infection on the developing fetal brain using quantitative microscopy, comparing the effects of ZIKV infection in a developed cortical region (at the caudal extent of the brain, including the occipital lobe, Area 17) and an immature cortical region (at the rostral extent of the brain, including the frontal lobe, Area 46). Critically, we maintained the spatial integrity of the tissue and examined whole tissue sections across the complete hemisphere available for study; as such the analyses presented here differ from previous reports because we quantified specific anatomical regions of the brain (e.g., Areas 17 and 46) including features related to their macrostructure (e.g., cortical thickness) and microstructure (e.g., morphological analyses; identification of immature neurons in the process of apoptosis, etc.). These methods allowed us to identify where the virus was found, what cell types were affected, and whether gross neuroanatomical abnormalities were present.

To identify and characterize neuroanatomical consequences of fetal ZIKV, we examined the brains of six near full-term monkeys, including three animals that had been inoculated with ZIKV at different gestational days (GD 50, 64, and 90; full term is approximately GD 165) and three procedure-matched controls (Coffey et al., 2018). The pregnant animal inoculated at GD 64 spontaneously gave birth to a small but viable baby on GD 151, at which point both mother and baby were euthanized. The remaining ZIKV-infected subjects and matched controls were monitored until GD 155 when fetectomies were performed followed by necropsy (Coffey et al., 2018). The left cerebral hemisphere was used for both analysis of viral load and histology (Coffey et al., 2018) while the right hemisphere was preserved for anatomical analyses. The right hemisphere was sectioned into four blocks to allow for more efficient immersion fixation and cryoprotection (see Figure 1A). Brains were sectioned on a freezing sliding microtome, and one series underwent Nissl staining following standard lab protocols (Kreutzberg, 1984; Lavenex et al., 2009). Nissl-stained sections from the most anterior block and most posterior block were evaluated to determine if there were gross anatomical abnormalities and if development had proceed as expected (from caudal to rostral; Workman et al., 2013). The frontal and occipital lobes were selected as initial targets for evaluation because neocortex develops along the caudal–rostral axis, and at the day of birth the occipital lobe exhibits a well-defined pattern of cortical lamination while the layers in the PFC are indistinct (Workman et al., 2013; Silbereis et al., 2016). Additionally, we visually inspected each Nissl-stained tissue section to see if there were additional macrostructural abnormalities.

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Neuroinflammatory abnormalities and ZIKV presence in brains from ZIKV-infected animals

IHC confocal microscopy revealed the presence of clusters of reactive glia within Area 46 of the PFC from ZIKV+ animals, but not in the controls (Figure 1A, B). Multiple labeling fluorescent microscopy allowed us to visualize that abnormal clusters of Iba1+ microglia which also express the lysosomal marker CD68 in the ZIKV-infected animals (Figure 1C–G). CD68 levels are known to be substantially upregulated in microglia during inflammatory processes and are thought to be involved in active phagocytosis (Jurga et al., 2020). We also observed that clusters of amoeboid-shaped microglia within Area 46, are directly engulfing neuronal debris in the ZIKV-infected monkeys (Figure 1H, I; 3D reconstruction: Figure 1J, K).

Next, we sought to detect the presence of ZIKV protein in the same regions we observed active inflammatory response. Interestingly, we observed the presence of ZIKV envelope protein within Area 46 of all the infected animals, with detection of viral protein inside clusters of microglia, but not astrocytes (GFAP, Figures 2A–G and 3D reconstruction: Figure 2H). Despite the fact that cells expressing ZIKV were detected in Area 46, we were not able to confirm the identity of the infected cells. As shown in Figure 2I, J, these ZIKV+ cells are thought to be in a direct process of phagocytosis, a common event occurring during viral encephalitis (Chhatbar and Prinz, 2021). While we could not detect the expression of other proteins in the ZIKV+ cells, they were surrounded and in direct contact with reactive microglia also expressing CD68, as shown in Figure 2K, L.

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

ZIKV-induced changes to the occipital and frontal lobe

Macrostructural changes

The most prominent manifestation of CZS is microcephaly (Moore et al., 2017), but none of the ZIKV-infected animals studied here exhibited a disproportionately (compared to their bodies) smaller biparietal diameter during gestation or head sizes at necropsy (Coffey et al., 2018). However, in less severe cases of CZS there have been documented changes to gross anatomical features of the brain including gyral simplification (defined as a reduction in the number of gyri associated with shallow sulci) and lissencephaly. Given those findings in humans, an analysis of the surface-area-to-volume ratio (or gyrencephality) of the occipital and frontal lobes from our infected and control animals allowed for an evaluation of these more subtle (compared to microcephaly) changes related to infection (Figure 3). These analyses revealed important differences in macrostructural features in Zika-infected versus control brains.

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

Gyrification of the occipital lobe was significantly reduced in ZIKV-infected animals as compared with control animals (t₄ = 3.33, p = 0.029; d = 2.72) (Figure 3B). Within the occipital lobes there were no significant differences between ZIKV and control animals in the total lobe volumes (t₄ = 0.46, p = 0.67; d = 0.37) or white and gray matter volumes (t₄ = 1.33, p = 0.25; d = 1.09 and t₄ = 0.264, p = 0.805; d = 0.22, respectively). However, differences between the proportions of white and gray matter varied by condition. The occipital lobes from ZIKV animals had a significantly higher proportion of white matter and lower proportion of gray matter than the control animals (t₄ = 2.93, p = 0.043; d = 2.39; because the occipital lobe included only gray and white matter, the proportions are inverses of each other and the statistics identical) (Figure 3C). To evaluate cortical thickness, we selected one clearly defined anatomical region completely contained within the occipital lobe – Brodmann’s Area 17. Cortical thickness in that area did not differ significantly between ZIKV and control subjects (t₄ = 1.42, p = 0.230; d = 1.16; Figure 3A), although all the data points for the ZIKV group were below the mean of the control group, suggesting the possibility of cortical thinning within the primary visual cortex.

There was no difference between ZIKV and control animals in the gyrification of the frontal lobes (t₄ = 0.56, p = 0.60; d = 0.46) (Figure 3B). The total volume of the frontal lobes did not differ between ZIKV and control animals (t₄ = 1.20, p = 0.30; d = 0.98), and neither did the white and gray matter volumes (t₄ = 0.35, p = 0.75; d = 0.28 and t₄ = 1.53, p = 0.20; d = 1.25, respectively), nor relative proportions of white and gray matter (t₄ = 1.80, p = 0.15; d = 1.47 and t₄ = 0.59, p = 0.59; d = 0.48, respectively; Figure 3D). As in the occipital lobe analyses, we selected one anatomical region completely contained within the frontal lobe – Brodmann’s Area 46 – and carried out a cortical thickness evaluation of that entire area. There were no significant differences between cortical thickness in Area 17 (Figure 4A) and in Area 46 (Figure 4B) of ZIKV and control animals (t₄ = 0.57, p = 0.60; d = 0.46; Figure 4B). Taken together, these findings suggest that ZIKV infection did not cause gross morphological changes to frontal cortex during development.

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

M1 cortical thickness, and volumes of the amygdala, hippocampus, and optic tract

We carried out a few additional gross level analyses of one additional cortical target and three subcortical targets. We evaluated the cortical thickness of one additional cortical area, Area 4, primary motor cortex, was included because it is roughly in the middle of the brain (on the rostral–caudal axis) and thus represents a cortex at a different point in development compared to Areas 17 and 46. Three thickness measurements were taken on each of three different slides and then the value were averaged. There was not a difference in cortical thickness between the Zika and control animals in Area 4 (t₄ = 0.80, p = 0.47; d = 0.65; Mean_ZIKV = 2427.76 μm, SD_ZIKV = 95.64 μm; Mean_Control = 2361.72 μm, SD_Control = 106.62 μm).

Given the senior author’s lab’s focus on the amygdala and hippocampus, we also analyzed volumes of those structures. There were no differences between the ZIKV and control groups in the volumes of the amygdala, hippocampus. Amygdala: t₄ = 0.095, p = 0.93; d = 0.078; Mean_Zika = 79.85 mm³, SD_Zika = 3.88 mm³; Mean_Control = 79.28 mm³, SD_Control = 9.45 mm³. Hippocampus: t₄ = 0.58, p = 0.59; d = 0.47; Mean_Zika = 135.82 mm³, SD_Zika = 10.65 mm³; Mean_Control = 143.97 mm³, SD_Control = 21.84 mm³.

Finally, given the impact of ZIKV on the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) and observations about its impact on the retina, we also carried out a volumetric analysis of the optic tract. There were no group differences between the ZIKV and control animals in the volume of their optic tracts: t₄ = 1.061, p = 0.35; d = 0.87; Mean_Zika = 31.24 mm³, SD_Zika = 6.54 mm³; Mean_Control = 25.09 mm³, SD_Control = 7.62 mm³.

Microstructural changes to glia

Following macrostructural evaluations, we carried out a series of IHC analyses to quantify cell-level features that might be impacted by ZIKV infection with a specific focus on glia (microglia and astrocytes) in Brodmann’s Areas 17 and 46. The three-dimensional space glia occupy, especially microglia, change constantly, because these cells are highly dynamic and retract and expand their processes in response to subtle changes in the surrounding environment. Several studies have shown that glial cells have a strong form-to-function mapping and investigating morphological alterations in these cells allows inferences about their activation state and their inflammatory status across different brain regions (Karperien et al., 2013; Morrison and Filosa, 2013; Young and Morrison, 2018). For example, using the combination of high-resolution confocal microscopy with three-dimensional reconstruction of individual glia volumes, we recently described how morphological changes in these cell types are connected with spine loss and neuron death in two different monkey models of Alzheimer’s disease (Seelke et al., 2020; Beckman et al., 2021). Here, we use a similar approach of analysis by randomly selecting 28 cells from each anatomical area, for each animal. Iba1 and GFAP were used as general microglia and astrocytes markers, respectively, and each cell was exported and analyzed individually for total and cell body volumes, and for number of terminal point (branching ramification).

Analysis of the microglia in Area 17 revealed no significant differences in the cell body size (t₄ = 0.36, p = 0.74; d = 0.29; Figure 5C). The whole cell volumes were marginally smaller in ZIKV-infected animals than in control animals and while the p value did not reach conventional levels of significance, the effect size was very large (t₄ = 2.71, p = 0.054; d = 2.11; Figure 5D) There were no group differences in the number of terminal points (t₄ = 0.83, p = 0.45; d = 0.68; Figure 5E). In contrast, while there were no significant differences between the cell body size of microglia in Area 46 of ZIKV-infected compared to control animals (t₄ = 2.07, p = 0.11; d = 1.69; Figure 5M), ZIKV-infected animals, compared to controls, had significantly smaller whole cell volumes (t₄ = 9.41, p < 0.001; d = 7.68; Figure 5N) and significantly fewer terminal points (t₄ = 4.18, p = 0.01; d = 3.41; Figure 5O). The smaller whole cell volumes and terminal points suggest that the microglia were in their activated state in frontal cortex.

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

There were no significant group differences in astrocyte morphology in either Area 17 or 46. In Area 17, astrocyte cell body size did not differ between ZIKV-infected and control animals (t₄ = 0.34, p = 0.75; d = 0.28; Figure 5H), whole cell volume (t₄ = 2.13, p = 0.09; d = 1.81; Figure 5I), or number of terminal points (t₄ = 0.44, p = 0.68; d = 0.34; Figure 5J). In Area 46, astrocyte cell body size did not differ between ZIKV-infected and control animals (t₄ = 0.10, p = 0.93; d = 0.81; Figure 5R), whole cell volume (t₄ = 1.03, p = 0.36; d = 0.84; Figure 5S), or number of terminal points (t₄ = 1.22, p = 0.29; d = 0.99; Figure 5T).

Microstructural changes related to neural development

A neuroinflammatory response, mainly driven by CD68/Iba+ microglia, in combination with the presence of ZIKV envelope protein, indicated that the frontal lobe for all ZIKV-infected subjects was a site of persistent ZIKV infection for a minimum of 60-day postinoculation. However, the consequences of the infection persist beyond the window of virus replication. Previous studies have demonstrated that ZIKV infection is associated with increased apoptosis of neural progenitor cells (Li et al., 2016; Souza et al., 2016). IHC fluorescent microscopy analyses for DAPI, cleaved caspase-3 (CC3), and SATB2, which are markers of nuclei, apoptosis onset, and immature neurons, respectively, were carried out in order to determine if the increased inflammatory response or active viral presence could induce neuronal loss across the regions analyzed 3D analysis of the average total number of cells (DAPI+), average number of immature neurons (SATB2+), and total number of apoptotic cells (CC3+), did not significantly differ between ZIKV and control animals in both regions analyzed (Figure 6F – Area 17, Figure 6R – Area 46). The number of cells in which CC3 and SATB2 was colocalized did not differ across the ZIKV-infected and control groups and the numbers were fairly low (t₄ = 0.65, p = 0.55; d = 0.53; Figure 5A–K), indicating low frequency of immature neuron death. In contrast, there was significantly more frequent death of immature neurons in Area 46 of the ZIKV-infected compared to control animals, as indicated by a greater number of cells that expressed both CC3 and SATB2 (t_2.20 = 5.37, p = 0.027; d = 4.39; Figure 6L–Z). Many CC3+ cells in the Area 46 of ZIKV animals are constituted by apoptotic immature neurons, higher resolution 3D analysis showed that activated microglia (HLA-Dr+) also present high expression of cell death marker CC3+ (Figure 6—figure supplement 1). The higher frequency of immature neuron death, the active immune response (activated microglia), and the presence of ZIKV protein in Area 46 suggest that frontal cortex remained a site of active ZIKV-induced neuronal remodeling at the time the brains were analyzed. Fragmented DNA was also observed in this area (Figure 6—figure supplement 2).

Figure 6 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Additional neuronal abnormalities

Visual inspection of the Nissl-stained sections of each brain revealed other ZIKV infection-related abnormalities within the visual pathway in addition to those observed in Area 17 (discussed above). These abnormalities included structural changes to the LGN. The LGN is a six-layered structure that is found in the ventral thalamus that receives retinal input from both eyes via the optic tract (Jones, 1985; e.g., Figure 7A). In the ZIKV-infected subjects, we observed multiple instances of laminar discontinuities within the LGN (Figure 7B–D). The LGNs of the control subjects were all normal.

Figure 7

Download asset Open asset

The first type of LGN pathology consisted of a blurring of the expected boundaries between cell layers. In healthy tissue, the layers of the LGN are separated by a thin layer of koniocellular tissue. However, each ZIKV-infected animal had discrete instances where the koniocellular layer was absent, resulting in indistinct boundaries between layers (Figure 7B–D). The location of the restricted absence of the koniocellular layer varied across cases. These abnormalities occurred between both magnocelluar and parvocellular layers and could be found in both the dorsomedial and ventrolateral aspects of the structure. To investigate the differences observed in the LGN of ZIKV-infected animals, fluorescent microscopy was performed in adjacent sections of the Nissl-stained LGN (Figure 8A–L). In comparison to the control animals (Figure 8B–F), in the ZIKV-infected animals, there was an increase in the frequency and intensity of the markers for microglia (Iba1) and astrocytes (GFAP) across different layers of the LGN (Figure 8H–L). Although these data suggest the possibility of active inflammatory response occurring, no active virus was observed in this region. The LGN sends direct projections to layer 4 of the primary visual cortex (V1, Area 17) in the occipital lobe. We identified two categories of anatomical abnormalities in the occipital lobe of ZIKV-infected animals (but not controls): laminar disruptions and cortical heterotopias. Laminar disruptions were identified within Area 17 and consisted of a break in the continuity of layer 4a (Figure 9A–R). These disruptions appeared to be specific to layer 4a and not associated with the normal transition from Area 17 to 18, because layers 4b and 4c were still present immediately proximate to the abnormal layer 4a. This disruption is likely functionally significant, as layer 4a receives direct projections from the LGN (Thomson and Bannister, 2003; Miller, 2003), and the absence of cells that make up layer 4a likely represent lost visual information. Cortical heterotopias were identified as ectopic islands of neurons extending into cortical layer 1 (Figure 9—figure supplement 1).

Figure 8

Download asset Open asset

Figure 9 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Our results demonstrate that ZIKV infection during fetal development results in central nervous system abnormalities that track with temporal patterns of brain development. Importantly, our previous report on these animals (Coffey et al., 2018) documented evidence of maternal and fetal virus replication consistent with evidence presented here that ZIKV directly infected the brains of the fetuses. In the current study, virus replication and local neuroinflammatory response were observed in the neocortex of all three ZIKV-infected fetal brains. The types and magnitudes of these abnormalities varied across the cortex, with altered macrostructural features in the occipital cortex and microstructural abnormalities found in the frontal regions of the cortex. These regional differences likely reflect the graded manner in which the neocortex develops, with ZIKV infection tracking temporally with neural development. Importantly, the neuroanatomical abnormalities that we observed in all three ZIKV-infected fetal brains, but not in control brains, occurred even in the absence of the extreme ZIKV infection phenotype documented in human infants, microcephaly. These findings may help explain why some infants born with normal sized heads during the ZIKV epidemic have developed significant sensory, motor, and sociocognitive challenges as they grow up (Wheeler et al., 2018; Cardoso et al., 2019; Ventura et al., 2017; Vianna et al., 2018; Marques et al., 2019; Pinato et al., 2018).

The neuroanatomical abnormalities that we identified here appeared to follow the pattern of otherwise normal neuronal development. In mammals the neocortex develops in a gradient. Neural progenitor cells undergo migration in a caudal-to-rostral pattern, resulting in occipital regions having mature laminar organization before mature laminar organization is present in frontal regions (Workman et al., 2013; Charvet and Finlay, 2014). Rhesus monkeys, like humans and NHPs, have frontal cortices that do not reach maturity until well after birth (Bourgeois et al., 1994; Petanjek et al., 2011; Mrzljak et al., 1991). We observed macrostructural differences (e.g., relative gray/white matter volumes) in the occipital lobe which develops first and microstructural and immune-related differences in frontal lobe which develops later. Our analyses revealed evidence that microglia were in their activated state in Area 46 of ZIKV-infected but not control animals, as indicated by smaller whole cell volumes and fewer terminal points. Microglia play a critical role in neural development via a number of mechanisms (including promoting neuronal survival and removing redundant or dysfunctional synapses) and morphological differences across the groups may be evidence of pathological neuronal development. Supporting the idea that ZIKV infection interferes with neural development was our finding that ZIKV-infected fetuses had a greater number of immature cortical neurons undergoing apoptosis compared to control animals. That we found these differences in Area 46, which was still undergoing development at the time of tissue harvest, and not Area 17, which was fully laminated at the time of tissue harvest, underscores the ability of ZIKV to interfere with normative neural development. One interpretation of these data is that at the point at which the tissue was harvested, damage had already been done to the part of the brain that was differentiated but the processes of damage were underway in the tissue that was actively developing. These results suggest that infants infected with ZIKV during fetal development and born with normal sized brains may have neurodevelopmental abnormalities that only become apparent later in development. This finding is of particular importance because most infants born during the 2015–2016 ZIKV epidemic in the ZIKV hotspots were born with normal sized heads and microcephaly, while an extreme phenotype, is thought to be relatively low frequency (Cardoso et al., 2019; Aragao et al., 2017; Faiçal et al., 2019).

One seemingly consistent anatomical abnormality found in both human patients and animal models of ZIKV is an increased frequency of abnormalities in the visual system (Aleman et al., 2017; Fernandez et al., 2017; Miner et al., 2016b; Simonin et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2018; Ventura et al., 2019; Ventura et al., 2016; Verçosa et al., 2017), especially the retina. Patients present with severe eye disease, including congenital cataracts, optic nerve abnormalities, chorioretinal atrophy, intraretinal hemorrhages, mottled retinal pigment epithelium, and blindness (Ventura et al., 2017; Aleman et al., 2017; Fernandez et al., 2017; Ventura et al., 2019; Ventura et al., 2016; Verçosa et al., 2017; Miner et al., 2016a; Ventura et al., 2018). Further, there is some evidence that ZIKV can be transmitted from the retina to the rest of the visual system via the optic nerve, although this has yet to be confirmed in humans or NHPs (van den Pol et al., 2017). Anatomical abnormalities that we observed in the LGN and Area 17/V1 are consistent with infection and developmental disruption of the eye and optic nerve, insofar as projections from the retina enervate the LGN in a retinotopic manner, and projections from the LGN in turn enervate the primary visual cortex (Brodmann’s Area 17) (Shatz, 2018; Rakic, 1977). The anatomical and functional retinotopic organization of both LGN and V1 is dependent upon activity during developmental critical periods (LeVay et al., 1980; Ghosh and Shatz, 1994). Insults during early development that disrupt this activity can result in damage to brain regions downstream of the initial insult (Ito et al., 2008; Eysel and Wolfhard, 1984; Yücel et al., 2003). The lesions and laminar dysregulations observed in the LGN and V1, respectively, have significant functional consequences.

While routine H&E histopathology of the eyes did not reveal any significant lesions in these animals (Coffey et al., 2018), subsequent work from our group has identified retinal pathology in one infant that was infected with ZIKV IA as a fetus and monitored for 2 years after birth (Yiu et al., 2020). The retinal tissue was used for pathological analysis and was unavailable for use in this study. However, the retinotopic organization and activity-dependent development of LGN layers suggests that the dysregulation we see within the LGN is likely related to lesions of the retina caused by the Zika virus. Future studies would benefit from examination of the entire visual pathway, from retina to LGN to V1, and visual association regions targeted by V1.

While our sample size was small (N = 3 in each group), only one hemisphere of the brain was available for our analyses, and the timing of ZIKV infection varied across animals (with one ZIKV and one procedure-matched control at each of three infection dates, GD 50, 64, or 90), all three infected subjects showed the same pattern of pathology: active inflammation in the still-developing regions of the frontal cortex paired with anatomical abnormalities in the already-developed regions of the caudal cortex. Additionally, each infected fetus had evidence of active virus replication as late as 105-day postinoculation, which could explain the ongoing neurologic damage. Although the sample size here is not atypically small for neuroanatomical analyses of NHP tissues or initial infectious diseases studies of this sort, it is small and thus important to note that we carried out both experimental and statistical procedures to address potential sample size concerns. First, each infected animal was paired with a procedure-matched control that underwent identical procedures without viral inoculation. Second, all conducted statistical analyses are reported (i.e., there was no p-hacking). Third, raw data but not statistics are displayed in figures encouraging the reader to draw conclusions from the patterns of data within and across groups rather than relying solely on p values. While replication in a larger sample is a laudable future goal, the present study also sets the stage for targeted hypothesis testing about the timing of infection and gestational development which seems to matter less in the case of ZIKV than potentially anticipated.

Previous studies from our group (Coffey et al., 2018) and others (Adams Waldorf et al., 2018; Martinot et al., 2018; Mohr et al., 2018; Steinbach et al., 2020) have identified discrete histopathological abnormalities in the brain tissue of macaque fetuses infected with ZIKV, including calcifications with gliosis and a loss of neural precursor cells. In addition to previous neuropathological evaluations, previous evaluation of the other hemisphere of each of these brains identified ZIKV RNA in Area 46 in all infected animals, and in occipital pole (Area 17) of animals infected at GD 64 and 90 (Coffey et al., 2018). The histological analyses presented here differ in that we measured specific cytoarchitectonic regions of the brain as well as morphological analyses of glial cells in the frontal and occipital cortex. Together, these analyses paint a picture of inflammatory processes related to viral infiltration sweeping through the cortex and a wave of cell death. Given our analyses, it is not possible to tell whether inflammatory processes are caused by or are causing cell death, but they certainly appear to co-occur given their proximity. Importantly, in addition to underscoring the importance of adopting quantitative neuroanatomical analyses to understand viral infections of the developing brain, these findings underscore the importance of using a monkey model because we would not expect to see such patterns in nonprimate models, given that rodents do not have a homolog of Area 46 and a significant period of their brain development occurs after birth.

While we focus heavily on the importance of homologs between humans and rhesus monkeys both in the course of ZIKV infection and the development of PFC (including Area 46), the rhesus monkey model opens the possibility of linking neural development to tractable, translatable behavioral development, and also developing translatable interventions to improve neural and behavioral function. Rhesus monkeys are a robust model for human infant development across a variety of behavioral domains – including cognition, affect, and social behavior (Phillips et al., 2014; Clancy et al., 2013; Fox, 1984; Cassidy and Shaver, 1999). Moving forward, this will allow us to understand how the neural abnormalities associated with fetal ZIKV infection, such as those documented here, impact infant behavioral development. Because rhesus monkeys develop three to four times faster than humans (Workman et al., 2013), a separate, currently ongoing cohort of infants who were infected with ZIKV as fetuses will soon out-age human infants who were infected in utero, thus providing a prospective look at the challenges those infants may face. In this context, our long-term developmental studies which have documented significant neural and behavioral plasticity following early brain damage (e.g., Grayson et al., 2017; Bliss-Moreau et al., 2017) provide hope that fairly simple behavioral interventions may be possible to improve the outcomes for impacted children. This is particularly important given that the ZIKV epidemic disproportionally impacted people of color living in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities (Moreno-Madriñán et al., 2017; Kapiriri and Ross, 2020; Gómez et al., 2018) and that ZIKV is expected to return seasonally in the future (Tesla et al., 2018).

All procedures were approved by the University of California, Davis Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (Protocol # 19211) which is accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). Animal care was performed in compliance with the 2011 Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals provided by the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research.

Data is available on OSF.

1. 1. Bliss-Moreau E

   (2022) Open Science Framework

   ID 9gdqw. Neuroanatomical abnormalities in a nonhuman primate model of congenital Zika virus infection.

   https://osf.io/9gdqw/

1. 1. Adams Waldorf KM
   2. Stencel-Baerenwald JE
   3. Kapur RP
   4. Studholme C
   5. Boldenow E
   6. Vornhagen J
   7. Baldessari A
   8. Dighe MK
   9. Thiel J
   10. Merillat S
   11. Armistead B
   12. Tisoncik-Go J
   13. Green RR
   14. Davis MA
   15. Dewey EC
   16. Fairgrieve MR
   17. Gatenby JC
   18. Richards T
   19. Garden GA
   20. Diamond MS
   21. Juul SE
   22. Grant RF
   23. Kuller L
   24. Shaw DWW
   25. Ogle J
   26. Gough GM
   27. Lee W
   28. English C
   29. Hevner RF
   30. Dobyns WB
   31. Gale M Jr
   32. Rajagopal L

   (2016) Fetal brain lesions after subcutaneous inoculation of Zika virus in a pregnant nonhuman primate

   Nature Medicine 22:1256–1259.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4193

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Adams Waldorf KM
   2. Nelson BR
   3. Stencel-Baerenwald JE
   4. Studholme C
   5. Kapur RP
   6. Armistead B
   7. Walker CL
   8. Merillat S
   9. Vornhagen J
   10. Tisoncik-Go J
   11. Baldessari A
   12. Coleman M
   13. Dighe MK
   14. Shaw DWW
   15. Roby JA
   16. Santana-Ufret V
   17. Boldenow E
   18. Li J
   19. Gao X
   20. Davis MA
   21. Swanstrom JA
   22. Jensen K
   23. Widman DG
   24. Baric RS
   25. Medwid JT
   26. Hanley KA
   27. Ogle J
   28. Gough GM
   29. Lee W
   30. English C
   31. Durning WM
   32. Thiel J
   33. Gatenby C
   34. Dewey EC
   35. Fairgrieve MR
   36. Hodge RD
   37. Grant RF
   38. Kuller L
   39. Dobyns WB
   40. Hevner RF
   41. Gale M Jr
   42. Rajagopal L

   (2018) Congenital Zika virus infection as a silent pathology with loss of neurogenic output in the fetal brain

   Nature Medicine 24:368–374.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4485

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Aleman TS
   2. Ventura CV
   3. Cavalcanti MM
   4. Serrano LW
   5. Traband A
   6. Nti AA
   7. Gois AL
   8. Bravo-Filho V
   9. Martins TT
   10. Nichols CW
   11. Maia M
   12. Belfort R

   (2017) Quantitative Assessment of Microstructural Changes of the Retina in Infants With Congenital Zika Syndrome

   JAMA Ophthalmology 135:1069–1076.

   https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.3292

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Anthony TE
   2. Klein C
   3. Fishell G
   4. Heintz N

   (2004) Radial Glia Serve as Neuronal Progenitors in All Regions of the Central Nervous System has shown that they can be divided into multiple antigen-ically distinct subpopulations that differ in their cell cycle kinetics, with each subpopulation changing in a

   Neuron 41:881–890.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(04)00140-0

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Aragao M
   2. Holanda AC
   3. Brainer-Lima AM
   4. Petribu NCL
   5. Castillo M
   6. van der Linden V
   7. Serpa SC
   8. Tenório AG
   9. Travassos PTC
   10. Cordeiro MT
   11. Sarteschi C
   12. Valenca MM
   13. Costello A

   (2017) Nonmicrocephalic Infants with Congenital Zika Syndrome Suspected Only after Neuroimaging Evaluation Compared with Those with Microcephaly at Birth and Postnatally: How Large Is the Zika Virus “Iceberg”?

   AJNR. American Journal of Neuroradiology 38:1427–1434.

   https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5216

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Beckman D
   2. Chakrabarty P
   3. Ott S
   4. Dao A
   5. Zhou E
   6. Janssen WG
   7. Donis-Cox K
   8. Muller S
   9. Kordower JH
   10. Morrison JH

   (2021) A novel tau-based rhesus monkey model of Alzheimer’s pathogenesis

   Alzheimer’s & Dementia 17:933–945.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12318

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Bliss-Moreau E
   2. Moadab G
   3. Santistevan A
   4. Amaral DG

   (2017) The effects of neonatal amygdala or hippocampus lesions on adult social behavior

   Behavioural Brain Research 322:123–137.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2016.11.052

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bourgeois JP
   2. Goldman-Rakic PS
   3. Rakic P

   (1994) Synaptogenesis in the prefrontal cortex of rhesus monkeys

   Cerebral Cortex 4:78–96.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/4.1.78

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Broussard CS
   2. Shapiro-Mendoza CK
   3. Peacock G
   4. Rasmussen SA
   5. Mai CT
   6. Petersen EE
   7. Galang RR
   8. Newsome K
   9. Reynolds MR
   10. Gilboa SM
   11. Boyle CA
   12. Moore CA

   (2018) Public Health Approach to Addressing the Needs of Children Affected by Congenital Zika Syndrome

   Pediatrics 141:S146–S153.

   https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-2038C

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Cardoso TF
    2. Santos RSD
    3. Corrêa RM
    4. Campos JV
    5. Silva R
    6. Tobias CC
    7. Prata-Barbosa A
    8. Cunha A
    9. Ferreira HC

    (2019) Congenital Zika infection: neurology can occur without microcephaly

    Archives of Disease in Childhood 104:199–200.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2018-314782

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Carter AM

    (2007) Animal models of human placentation--a review

    Placenta 28 Suppl A:S41–S47.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.placenta.2006.11.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. Book

    1. Cassidy J
    2. Shaver PR

    (1999)

    Suomi, in Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications

    Guilford Press.

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Charvet CJ
    2. Finlay BL

    (2014) Evo-devo and the primate isocortex: the central organizing role of intrinsic gradients of neurogenesis

    Brain, Behavior and Evolution 84:81–92.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000365181

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Chhatbar C
    2. Prinz M

    (2021) The roles of microglia in viral encephalitis: from sensome to therapeutic targeting

    Cellular & Molecular Immunology 18:250–258.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41423-020-00620-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Chimelli L
    2. Avvad-Portari E

    (2018) Congenital Zika virus infection: a neuropathological review

    Child’s Nervous System 34:95–99.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-017-3651-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Cinar O
    2. Semiz O
    3. Can A

    (2006) A microscopic survey on the efficiency of well-known routine chemical fixatives on cryosections

    Acta Histochemica 108:487–496.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acthis.2006.05.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. Book

    1. Clancy KBH
    2. Hinde K
    3. Rutherford JN

    (2013) Machado, in Building Babies: Primate Development in Proximate and Ultimate Perspective

    New York, NY: Springer.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4060-4

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Coffey LL
    2. Pesavento PA
    3. Keesler RI
    4. Singapuri A
    5. Watanabe J
    6. Watanabe R
    7. Yee J
    8. Bliss-Moreau E
    9. Cruzen C
    10. Christe KL
    11. Reader JR
    12. von Morgenland W
    13. Gibbons AM
    14. Allen AM
    15. Linnen J
    16. Gao K
    17. Delwart E
    18. Simmons G
    19. Stone M
    20. Lanteri M
    21. Bakkour S
    22. Busch M
    23. Morrison J
    24. Van Rompay KKA

    (2017) Zika Virus Tissue and Blood Compartmentalization in Acute Infection of Rhesus Macaques

    PLOS ONE 12:e0171148.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171148

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Coffey LL
    2. Keesler RI
    3. Pesavento PA
    4. Woolard K
    5. Singapuri A
    6. Watanabe J
    7. Cruzen C
    8. Christe KL
    9. Usachenko J
    10. Yee J
    11. Heng VA
    12. Bliss-Moreau E
    13. Reader JR
    14. von Morgenland W
    15. Gibbons AM
    16. Jackson K
    17. Ardeshir A
    18. Heimsath H
    19. Permar S
    20. Senthamaraikannan P
    21. Presicce P
    22. Kallapur SG
    23. Linnen JM
    24. Gao K
    25. Orr R
    26. MacGill T
    27. McClure M
    28. McFarland R
    29. Morrison JH
    30. Van Rompay KKA

    (2018) Intraamniotic Zika virus inoculation of pregnant rhesus macaques produces fetal neurologic disease

    Nature Communications 9:2414.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04777-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Colby JB
    2. Van Horn JD
    3. Sowell ER

    (2011) Quantitative in vivo evidence for broad regional gradients in the timing of white matter maturation during adolescence

    NeuroImage 54:25–31.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Dudley DM
    2. Aliota MT
    3. Mohr EL
    4. Weiler AM
    5. Lehrer-Brey G
    6. Weisgrau KL
    7. Mohns MS
    8. Breitbach ME
    9. Rasheed MN
    10. Newman CM
    11. Gellerup DD
    12. Moncla LH
    13. Post J
    14. Schultz-Darken N
    15. Schotzko ML
    16. Hayes JM
    17. Eudailey JA
    18. Moody MA
    19. Permar SR
    20. O’Connor SL
    21. Rakasz EG
    22. Simmons HA
    23. Capuano S
    24. Golos TG
    25. Osorio JE
    26. Friedrich TC
    27. O’Connor DH

    (2016) A rhesus macaque model of Asian-lineage Zika virus infection

    Nature Communications 7:12204.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12204

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Eysel UT
    2. Wolfhard U

    (1984) The effects of partial retinal lesions on activity and size of cells in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 229:301–309.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902290214

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Faiçal AV
    2. de Oliveira JC
    3. Oliveira JVV
    4. de Almeida BL
    5. Agra IA
    6. Alcantara LCJ
    7. Acosta AX
    8. de Siqueira IC

    (2019) Neurodevelopmental delay in normocephalic children with in utero exposure to Zika virus

    BMJ Paediatrics Open 3:e000486.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2019-000486

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Falk S
    2. Götz M

    (2017) Glial control of neurogenesis

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 47:188–195.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2017.10.025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Fernandez MP
    2. Parra Saad E
    3. Ospina Martinez M
    4. Corchuelo S
    5. Mercado Reyes M
    6. Herrera MJ
    7. Parra Saavedra M
    8. Rico A
    9. Fernandez AM
    10. Lee RK
    11. Ventura CV
    12. Berrocal AM
    13. Dubovy SR

    (2017) Ocular Histopathologic Features of Congenital Zika Syndrome

    JAMA Ophthalmology 135:1163–1169.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.3595

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. Book

    1. Fox N

    (1984)

    Affective Development: A Psychobiological Perspective

    Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Ghosh A
    2. Shatz CJ

    (1994) Segregation of geniculocortical afferents during the critical period: a role for subplate neurons

    The Journal of Neuroscience 14:3862–3880.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.14-06-03862.1994

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Gómez EJ
    2. Perez FA
    3. Ventura D

    (2018) What explains the lacklustre response to Zika in Brazil? Exploring institutional, economic and health system context

    BMJ Global Health 3:e000862.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000862

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Grayson DS
    2. Bliss-Moreau E
    3. Bennett J
    4. Lavenex P
    5. Amaral DG

    (2017) Neural Reorganization Due to Neonatal Amygdala Lesions in the Rhesus Monkey: Changes in Morphology and Network Structure

    Cerebral Cortex 27:3240–3253.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx080

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Hafizi S
    2. Dahlbäck B

    (2006) Signalling and functional diversity within the Axl subfamily of receptor tyrosine kinases

    Cytokine & Growth Factor Reviews 17:295–304.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cytogfr.2006.04.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Ito Y
    2. Shimazawa M
    3. Inokuchi Y
    4. Fukumitsu H
    5. Furukawa S
    6. Araie M
    7. Hara H

    (2008) Degenerative alterations in the visual pathway after NMDA-induced retinal damage in mice

    Brain Research 1212:89–101.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2008.03.021

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Jones EG
    2. Hartman BK

    (1978) Recent advances in neuroanatomical methodology

    Annual Review of Neuroscience 1:215–296.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ne.01.030178.001243

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. Book

    1. Jones EG

    (1985) The Thalamus

    Boston, MA: Plenum Press.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1749-8

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Jurga AM
    2. Paleczna M
    3. Kuter KZ

    (2020) Overview of General and Discriminating Markers of Differential Microglia Phenotypes

    Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience 14:198.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2020.00198

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Kapiriri L
    2. Ross A

    (2020) The Politics of Disease Epidemics: a Comparative Analysis of the SARS, Zika, and Ebola Outbreaks

    Global Social Welfare 7:33–45.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40609-018-0123-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Karperien A
    2. Ahammer H
    3. Jelinek HF

    (2013) Quantitating the subtleties of microglial morphology with fractal analysis

    Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience 7:3.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2013.00003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Khaiboullina SF
    2. Ribeiro FM
    3. Uppal T
    4. Martynova EV
    5. Rizvanov AA
    6. Verma SC

    (2019) Zika Virus Transmission Through Blood Tissue Barriers

    Frontiers in Microbiology 10:1465.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01465

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Kleber de Oliveira W
    2. Cortez-Escalante J
    3. De Oliveira W
    4. do Carmo GMI
    5. Henriques CMP
    6. Coelho GE
    7. Araújo de França GV

    (2016) Increase in Reported Prevalence of Microcephaly in Infants Born to Women Living in Areas with Confirmed Zika Virus Transmission During the First Trimester of Pregnancy - Brazil, 2015

    MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 65:242–247.

    https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6509e2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Koide F
    2. Goebel S
    3. Snyder B
    4. Walters KB
    5. Gast A
    6. Hagelin K
    7. Kalkeri R
    8. Rayner J

    (2016) Development of a Zika Virus Infection Model in Cynomolgus Macaques

    Frontiers in Microbiology 7:2028.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.02028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Kreutzberg GW

    (1984) 100 years of nissl staining

    Trends in Neurosciences 7:236–237.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(84)80213-1

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Laubach M
    2. Amarante LM
    3. Swanson K
    4. White SR

    (2018) What, If Anything, Is Rodent Prefrontal Cortex?

    ENeuro 5:ENEURO.0315-18.2018.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0315-18.2018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Lavenex P
    2. Lavenex PB
    3. Bennett JL
    4. Amaral DG

    (2009) Postmortem changes in the neuroanatomical characteristics of the primate brain: hippocampal formation

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 512:27–51.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.21906

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. LeVay S
    2. Wiesel TN
    3. Hubel DH

    (1980) The development of ocular dominance columns in normal and visually deprived monkeys

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 191:1–51.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.901910102

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Li C
    2. Xu D
    3. Ye Q
    4. Hong S
    5. Jiang Y
    6. Liu X
    7. Zhang N
    8. Shi L
    9. Qin CF
    10. Xu Z

    (2016) Zika Virus Disrupts Neural Progenitor Development and Leads to Microcephaly in Mice

    Cell Stem Cell 19:672.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2016.10.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Marques FJP
    2. Teixeira MCS
    3. Barra RR
    4. de Lima FM
    5. Dias BLS
    6. Pupe C
    7. Nascimento OJM
    8. Leyser M

    (2019) Children Born With Congenital Zika Syndrome Display Atypical Gross Motor Development and a Higher Risk for Cerebral Palsy

    Journal of Child Neurology 34:81–85.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/0883073818811234

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Martinot AJ
    2. Abbink P
    3. Afacan O
    4. Prohl AK
    5. Bronson R
    6. Hecht JL
    7. Borducchi EN
    8. Larocca RA
    9. Peterson RL
    10. Rinaldi W
    11. Ferguson M
    12. Didier PJ
    13. Weiss D
    14. Lewis MG
    15. De La Barrera RA
    16. Yang E
    17. Warfield SK
    18. Barouch DH

    (2018) Fetal Neuropathology in Zika Virus-Infected Pregnant Female Rhesus Monkeys

    Cell 173:1111–1122.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Mavigner M
    2. Raper J
    3. Kovacs-Balint Z
    4. Gumber S
    5. O’Neal JT
    6. Bhaumik SK
    7. Zhang X
    8. Habib J
    9. Mattingly C
    10. McDonald CE
    11. Avanzato V
    12. Burke MW
    13. Magnani DM
    14. Bailey VK
    15. Watkins DI
    16. Vanderford TH
    17. Fair D
    18. Earl E
    19. Feczko E
    20. Styner M
    21. Jean SM
    22. Cohen JK
    23. Silvestri G
    24. Johnson RP
    25. O’Connor DH
    26. Wrammert J
    27. Suthar MS
    28. Sanchez MM
    29. Alvarado MC
    30. Chahroudi A

    (2018) Postnatal Zika virus infection is associated with persistent abnormalities in brain structure, function, and behavior in infant macaques

    Science Translational Medicine 10:eaao6975.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aao6975

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Meertens L
    2. Labeau A
    3. Dejarnac O
    4. Cipriani S
    5. Sinigaglia L
    6. Bonnet-Madin L
    7. Le Charpentier T
    8. Hafirassou ML
    9. Zamborlini A
    10. Cao-Lormeau V-M
    11. Coulpier M
    12. Missé D
    13. Jouvenet N
    14. Tabibiazar R
    15. Gressens P
    16. Schwartz O
    17. Amara A

    (2017) Axl Mediates ZIKA Virus Entry in Human Glial Cells and Modulates Innate Immune Responses

    Cell Reports 18:324–333.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.12.045

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Microcephaly Epidemic Research Group

    (2016) Microcephaly Epidemic Research Group, Microcephaly in Infants, Pernambuco State

    Emerg Infect Dis 22:1090–1093.

    https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2206.160062

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Miller KD

    (2003) Understanding layer 4 of the cortical circuit: a model based on cat V1

    Cerebral Cortex 13:73–82.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/13.1.73

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Miner JJ
    2. Cao B
    3. Govero J
    4. Smith AM
    5. Fernandez E
    6. Cabrera OH
    7. Garber C
    8. Noll M
    9. Klein RS
    10. Noguchi KK
    11. Mysorekar IU
    12. Diamond MS

    (2016a) Zika Virus Infection during Pregnancy in Mice Causes Placental Damage and Fetal Demise

    Cell 165:1081–1091.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.05.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Miner JJ
    2. Sene A
    3. Richner JM
    4. Smith AM
    5. Santeford A
    6. Ban N
    7. Weger-Lucarelli J
    8. Manzella F
    9. Rückert C
    10. Govero J
    11. Noguchi KK
    12. Ebel GD
    13. Diamond MS
    14. Apte RS

    (2016b) Zika Virus Infection in Mice Causes Panuveitis with Shedding of Virus in Tears

    Cell Reports 16:3208–3218.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.08.079

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Mohr EL
    2. Block LN
    3. Newman CM
    4. Stewart LM
    5. Koenig M
    6. Semler M
    7. Breitbach ME
    8. Teixeira LBC
    9. Zeng X
    10. Weiler AM
    11. Barry GL
    12. Thoong TH
    13. Wiepz GJ
    14. Dudley DM
    15. Simmons HA
    16. Mejia A
    17. Morgan TK
    18. Salamat MS
    19. Kohn S
    20. Antony KM
    21. Aliota MT
    22. Mohns MS
    23. Hayes JM
    24. Schultz-Darken N
    25. Schotzko ML
    26. Peterson E
    27. Capuano S
    28. Osorio JE
    29. O’Connor SL
    30. Friedrich TC
    31. O’Connor DH
    32. Golos TG

    (2018) Ocular and uteroplacental pathology in a macaque pregnancy with congenital Zika virus infection

    PLOS ONE 13:e0190617.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190617

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Moore CA
    2. Staples JE
    3. Dobyns WB
    4. Pessoa A
    5. Ventura CV
    6. Fonseca EB
    7. Ribeiro EM
    8. Ventura LO
    9. Neto NN
    10. Arena JF
    11. Rasmussen SA

    (2017) Characterizing the Pattern of Anomalies in Congenital Zika Syndrome for Pediatric Clinicians

    JAMA Pediatrics 171:288–295.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.3982

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Moreno-Madriñán MJ
    2. Turell M
    3. Reisen W

    (2017) Factors of Concern Regarding Zika and Other Aedes aegypti-Transmitted Viruses in the United States

    Journal of Medical Entomology 54:251–257.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjw212

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Morrison HW
    2. Filosa JA

    (2013) A quantitative spatiotemporal analysis of microglia morphology during ischemic stroke and reperfusion

    Journal of Neuroinflammation 10:4.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-2094-10-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Morrison TE
    2. Diamond MS

    (2017) Animal Models of Zika Virus Infection, Pathogenesis, and Immunity

    Journal of Virology 91:e00009-17.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00009-17

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Mrzljak L
    2. Uylings HBM
    3. Eden GGV
    4. Judáš M

    (1991) Neuronal development in human prefrontal cortex in prenatal and postnatal stages

    Progress in Brain Research 85:185–222.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-6123(08)62681-3

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Muffat J
    2. Li Y
    3. Omer A
    4. Durbin A
    5. Bosch I
    6. Bakiasi G
    7. Richards E
    8. Meyer A
    9. Gehrke L
    10. Jaenisch R

    (2018) Human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived glial cells and neural progenitors display divergent responses to Zika and dengue infections

    PNAS 115:7117–7122.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719266115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Musso D
    2. Ko AI
    3. Baud D

    (2019) Zika Virus Infection - After the Pandemic

    The New England Journal of Medicine 381:1444–1457.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1808246

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Nguyen SM
    2. Antony KM
    3. Dudley DM
    4. Kohn S
    5. Simmons HA
    6. Wolfe B
    7. Salamat MS
    8. Teixeira LBC
    9. Wiepz GJ
    10. Thoong TH
    11. Aliota MT
    12. Weiler AM
    13. Barry GL
    14. Weisgrau KL
    15. Vosler LJ
    16. Mohns MS
    17. Breitbach ME
    18. Stewart LM
    19. Rasheed MN
    20. Newman CM
    21. Graham ME
    22. Wieben OE
    23. Turski PA
    24. Johnson KM
    25. Post J
    26. Hayes JM
    27. Schultz-Darken N
    28. Schotzko ML
    29. Eudailey JA
    30. Permar SR
    31. Rakasz EG
    32. Mohr EL
    33. Capuano S
    34. Tarantal AF
    35. Osorio JE
    36. O’Connor SL
    37. Friedrich TC
    38. O’Connor DH
    39. Golos TG

    (2017) Highly efficient maternal-fetal Zika virus transmission in pregnant rhesus macaques

    PLOS Pathogens 13:e1006378.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006378

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Nowakowski TJ
    2. Pollen AA
    3. Di Lullo E
    4. Sandoval-Espinosa C
    5. Bershteyn M
    6. Kriegstein AR

    (2016) Expression Analysis Highlights AXL as a Candidate Zika Virus Entry Receptor in Neural Stem Cells

    Cell Stem Cell 18:591–596.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2016.03.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Paul AM
    2. Acharya D
    3. Neupane B
    4. Thompson EA
    5. Gonzalez-Fernandez G
    6. Copeland KM
    7. Garrett M
    8. Liu H
    9. Lopez ME
    10. de Cruz M
    11. Flynt A
    12. Liao J
    13. Guo Y-L
    14. Gonzalez-Fernandez F
    15. Vig PJS
    16. Bai F

    (2018) Congenital Zika Virus Infection in Immunocompetent Mice Causes Postnatal Growth Impediment and Neurobehavioral Deficits

    Frontiers in Microbiology 9:2028.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Pessoa A
    2. van der Linden V
    3. Yeargin-Allsopp M
    4. Carvalho M
    5. Ribeiro EM
    6. Van Naarden Braun K
    7. Durkin MS
    8. Pastula DM
    9. Moore JT
    10. Moore CA

    (2018) Motor Abnormalities and Epilepsy in Infants and Children With Evidence of Congenital Zika Virus Infection

    Pediatrics 141:S167–S179.

    https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-2038F

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Petanjek Z
    2. Judaš M
    3. Šimic G
    4. Rasin MR
    5. Uylings HBM
    6. Rakic P
    7. Kostovic I

    (2011) Extraordinary neoteny of synaptic spines in the human prefrontal cortex

    PNAS 108:13281–13286.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1105108108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Phillips KA
    2. Bales KL
    3. Capitanio JP
    4. Conley A
    5. Czoty PW
    6. ’t Hart BA
    7. Hopkins WD
    8. Hu S-L
    9. Miller LA
    10. Nader MA
    11. Nathanielsz PW
    12. Rogers J
    13. Shively CA
    14. Voytko ML

    (2014) Why primate models matter

    American Journal of Primatology 76:801–827.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22281

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Pinato L
    2. Ribeiro EM
    3. Leite RFP
    4. Lopes TF
    5. Pessoa ALS
    6. Guissoni Campos LM
    7. Piffer GE
    8. Souza A
    9. Giacheti CM

    (2018) Sleep findings in Brazilian children with congenital Zika syndrome

    Sleep 41:zsy009.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsy009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Rakic P

    (1977) Prenatal development of the visual system in rhesus monkey

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 278:245–260.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1977.0040

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Rakic P

    (2002) Pre- and post-developmental neurogenesis in primates

    Clinical Neuroscience Research 2:29–39.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1566-2772(02)00005-1

    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Reemst K
    2. Noctor SC
    3. Lucassen PJ
    4. Hol EM

    (2016) The Indispensable Roles of Microglia and Astrocytes during Brain Development

    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 10:566.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00566

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Rohlfing T
    2. Kroenke CD
    3. Sullivan EV
    4. Dubach MF
    5. Bowden DM
    6. Grant KA
    7. Pfefferbaum A

    (2012) The INIA19 Template and NeuroMaps Atlas for Primate Brain Image Parcellation and Spatial Normalization

    Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 6:00027.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2012.00027

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Rosene DL
    2. Roy NJ
    3. Davis BJ

    (1986) A cryoprotection method that facilitates cutting frozen sections of whole monkey brains for histological and histochemical processing without freezing artifact

    The Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry 34:1301–1315.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/34.10.3745909

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Rossi F
    2. Josey B
    3. Sayitoglu EC
    4. Potens R
    5. Sultu T
    6. Duru AD
    7. Beljanski V

    (2020) Characterization of zika virus infection of human fetal cardiac mesenchymal stromal cells

    PLOS ONE 15:e0239238.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239238

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Rothlin CV
    2. Ghosh S
    3. Zuniga EI
    4. Oldstone MBA
    5. Lemke G

    (2007) TAM receptors are pleiotropic inhibitors of the innate immune response

    Cell 131:1124–1136.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2007.10.034

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. Book

    1. Saleem KS
    2. Logothetis N

    (2012)

    A Combined MRI and Histology Atlas of the Rhesus Monkey Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates

    Elsevier.

    • Google Scholar
76. Preprint

    1. Seelke AMH
    2. Beckman D
    3. Bennett J
    4. Van Rompay KKA
    5. Keesler RI
    6. Pesavento PA
    7. Coffey LL
    8. Morrison JH
    9. Bliss-Moreau E

    (2020) Neuroanatomical Abnormalities in a Nonhuman Primate Model of Congenital Zika Virus Infection

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.10.374611

    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Shatz CJ

    (2018) Impulse activity and the patterning of connections during CNS development

    Pattern Form. Phys. Biol. Sci 5:299–332.

    https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429493362

    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Silbereis JC
    2. Pochareddy S
    3. Zhu Y
    4. Li M
    5. Sestan N

    (2016) The Cellular and Molecular Landscapes of the Developing Human Central Nervous System

    Neuron 89:248–268.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.12.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Simonin Y
    2. Erkilic N
    3. Damodar K
    4. Clé M
    5. Desmetz C
    6. Bolloré K
    7. Taleb M
    8. Torriano S
    9. Barthelemy J
    10. Dubois G
    11. Lajoix AD
    12. Foulongne V
    13. Tuaillon E
    14. Kalatzis V
    15. Salinas S

    (2019) Zika virus induces strong inflammatory responses and impairs homeostasis and function of the human retinal pigment epithelium

    EBioMedicine 39:315–331.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.12.010

    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Singh MS
    2. Marquezan MC
    3. Omiadze R
    4. Reddy AK
    5. Belfort R
    6. May WN

    (2018) Inner retinal vasculopathy in Zika virus disease

    American Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports 10:6–7.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajoc.2018.01.023

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Souza BSF
    2. Sampaio GLA
    3. Pereira CS
    4. Campos GS
    5. Sardi SI
    6. Freitas LAR
    7. Figueira CP
    8. Paredes BD
    9. Nonaka CKV
    10. Azevedo CM
    11. Rocha VPC
    12. Bandeira AC
    13. Mendez-Otero R
    14. Dos Santos RR
    15. Soares MBP

    (2016) Zika virus infection induces mitosis abnormalities and apoptotic cell death of human neural progenitor cells

    Scientific Reports 6:39775.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39775

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Steinbach RJ
    2. Haese NN
    3. Smith JL
    4. Colgin LMA
    5. MacAllister RP
    6. Greene JM
    7. Parkins CJ
    8. Kempton JB
    9. Porsov E
    10. Wang X
    11. Renner LM
    12. McGill TJ
    13. Dozier BL
    14. Kreklywich CN
    15. Andoh TF
    16. Grafe MR
    17. Pecoraro HL
    18. Hodge T
    19. Friedman RM
    20. Houser LA
    21. Morgan TK
    22. Stenzel P
    23. Lindner JR
    24. Schelonka RL
    25. Sacha JB
    26. Roberts VHJ
    27. Neuringer M
    28. Brigande JV
    29. Kroenke CD
    30. Frias AE
    31. Lewis AD
    32. Kelleher MA
    33. Hirsch AJ
    34. Streblow DN

    (2020) A neonatal nonhuman primate model of gestational Zika virus infection with evidence of microencephaly, seizures and cardiomyopathy

    PLOS ONE 15:e0227676.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227676

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Sutarjono B

    (2019) Can We Better Understand How Zika Leads to Microcephaly? A Systematic Review of the Effects of the Zika Virus on Human Brain Organoids

    The Journal of Infectious Diseases 219:734–745.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiy572

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Tesla B
    2. Demakovsky LR
    3. Mordecai EA
    4. Ryan SJ
    5. Bonds MH
    6. Ngonghala CN
    7. Brindley MA
    8. Murdock CC

    (2018) Temperature drives Zika virus transmission: evidence from empirical and mathematical models

    Proceedings. Biological Sciences 285:20180795.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0795

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Thion MS
    2. Ginhoux F
    3. Garel S

    (2018) Microglia and early brain development: An intimate journey

    Science 362:185–189.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat0474

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Thomson AM
    2. Bannister AP

    (2003) Interlaminar connections in the neocortex

    Cerebral Cortex 13:5–14.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/13.1.5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. van den Pol AN
    2. Mao G
    3. Yang Y
    4. Ornaghi S
    5. Davis JN

    (2017) Zika Virus Targeting in the Developing Brain

    The Journal of Neuroscience 37:2161–2175.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3124-16.2017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. van der Linden V
    2. Pessoa A
    3. Dobyns W
    4. Barkovich AJ
    5. Júnior H
    6. Filho ELR
    7. Ribeiro EM
    8. Leal M
    9. Coimbra P
    10. Aragão M
    11. Verçosa I
    12. Ventura C
    13. Ramos RC
    14. Cruz D
    15. Cordeiro MT
    16. Mota VMR
    17. Dott M
    18. Hillard C
    19. Moore CA

    (2016) Description of 13 Infants Born During October 2015-January 2016 With Congenital Zika Virus Infection Without Microcephaly at Birth - Brazil

    MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 65:1343–1348.

    https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6547e2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Ventura CV
    2. Ventura LO
    3. Bravo-Filho V
    4. Martins TT
    5. Berrocal AM
    6. Gois AL
    7. de Oliveira Dias JR
    8. Araújo L
    9. Escarião P
    10. van der Linden V
    11. Belfort R
    12. Maia M

    (2016) Optical Coherence Tomography of Retinal Lesions in Infants With Congenital Zika Syndrome

    JAMA Ophthalmology 134:1420–1427.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.4283

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Ventura LO
    2. Ventura CV
    3. Lawrence L
    4. van der Linden V
    5. van der Linden A
    6. Gois AL
    7. Cavalcanti MM
    8. Barros EA
    9. Dias NC
    10. Berrocal AM
    11. Miller MT

    (2017) Visual impairment in children with congenital Zika syndrome

    Journal of AAPOS 21:295–299.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2017.04.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Ventura LO
    2. Ventura CV
    3. Dias N
    4. Vilar IG
    5. Gois AL
    6. Arantes TE
    7. Fernandes LC
    8. Chiang MF
    9. Miller MT
    10. Lawrence L

    (2018) Visual impairment evaluation in 119 children with congenital Zika syndrome

    Journal of AAPOS 22:218–222.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2018.01.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Ventura CV
    2. Ventura Filho MC
    3. Ventura LO

    (2019) Ocular Manifestations and Visual Outcome in Children With Congenital Zika Syndrome

    Topics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging 28:23–27.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/RMR.0000000000000192

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Verçosa I
    2. Carneiro P
    3. Verçosa R
    4. Girão R
    5. Ribeiro EM
    6. Pessoa A
    7. Almeida NG
    8. Verçosa P
    9. Tartarella MB

    (2017) The visual system in infants with microcephaly related to presumed congenital Zika syndrome

    Journal of AAPOS 21:300–304.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2017.05.024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Vianna P
    2. Gomes J
    3. Boquett JA
    4. Fraga LR
    5. Schuch JB
    6. Vianna FSL
    7. Schuler-Faccini L

    (2018) Zika Virus as a Possible Risk Factor for Autism Spectrum Disorder: Neuroimmunological Aspects

    Neuroimmunomodulation 25:320–327.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000495660

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Wheeler AC

    (2018) Development of Infants With Congenital Zika Syndrome: What Do We Know and What Can We Expect?

    Pediatrics 141:S154–S160.

    https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-2038D

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Wheeler AC
    2. Ventura CV
    3. Ridenour T
    4. Toth D
    5. Nobrega LL
    6. Silva de Souza Dantas LC
    7. Rocha C
    8. Bailey DB Jr
    9. Ventura LO

    (2018) Skills attained by infants with congenital Zika syndrome: Pilot data from Brazil

    PLOS ONE 13:e0201495.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201495

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Winkler CW
    2. Peterson KE

    (2018) Using immunocompromised mice to identify mechanisms of Zika virus transmission and pathogenesis

    Immunology 153:443–454.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/imm.12883

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Workman AD
    2. Charvet CJ
    3. Clancy B
    4. Darlington RB
    5. Finlay BL

    (2013) Modeling transformations of neurodevelopmental sequences across mammalian species

    The Journal of Neuroscience 33:7368–7383.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5746-12.2013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Yiu G
    2. Thomasy SM
    3. Casanova MI
    4. Rusakevich A
    5. Keesler RI
    6. Watanabe J
    7. Usachenko J
    8. Singapuri A
    9. Ball EE
    10. Bliss-Moreau E
    11. Guo W
    12. Webster H
    13. Singh T
    14. Permar S
    15. Ardeshir A
    16. Coffey LL
    17. Van Rompay KK

    (2020) Evolution of ocular defects in infant macaques following in utero Zika virus infection

    JCI Insight 5:143947.

    https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.143947

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Young K
     2. Morrison H

     (2018) Quantifying Microglia Morphology from Photomicrographs of Immunohistochemistry Prepared Tissue Using ImageJ

     Journal of Visualized Experiments 1:57648.

     https://doi.org/10.3791/57648

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Yücel YH
     2. Zhang Q
     3. Weinreb RN
     4. Kaufman PL
     5. Gupta N

     (2003) Effects of retinal ganglion cell loss on magno-, parvo-, koniocellular pathways in the lateral geniculate nucleus and visual cortex in glaucoma

     Progress in Retinal and Eye Research 22:465–481.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/s1350-9462(03)00026-0

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Zuchero JB
     2. Barres BA

     (2015) Glia in mammalian development and disease

     Development 142:3805–3809.

     https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.129304

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "Neuroanatomical abnormalities in a nonhuman primate model of congenital Zika virus infection" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers, including Rebecca Shansky as Reviewing Editor and Reviewer #1, and the evaluation has been overseen by Michael Taffe as the Senior Editor.

The reviewers have discussed their reviews with one another, and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this to help you prepare a revised submission.

The reviewers all agree that the work is novel, timely, and important. Reviewers 2 and 3 had a number of issues that need to be resolved before they consider the manuscript suitable for publication. Some involve additional immunohistochemical analyses or re-analysis of existing images (Reviewer 3). Please review these comments carefully in deciding whether to submit a revised version of this manuscript.

Summary:

This paper will be of interest to those that study the neuropathological effects of viral replication on brain development in pediatric populations and for those aiming to understand ZIKV pathogenesis. A major strength is the detailed histopathological analyses on the developing brain of non-human primates that include rigorous age-matched and procedure matched-controls.

Reviewer #1:

Children born during the Zika outbreak are known to have marked changes in neurological function and in some cases exhibit microcephaly, but the anatomical bases for these deficits is unknown. The goal of this study was to identify neuropathologies in near-term monkeys whose mothers were infected with Zika (ZIKV) during gestation. Using a combination of histological and immunofluorescent techniques, the authors demonstrate that compared to control monkeys, the ZIKV-infected fetuses exhibit a number of anatomically discrete abnormalities that are accompanied by evidence of localized neuro-immune responses and cell death. These abnormalities are shown through a comprehensive series of fluorescent micrographs that make the differences between the infected and control monkeys clear to the reader. The quantification methodologies are explained in detail, and the authors take care to note statistical considerations for the small sample size. Importantly, the observations map onto areas whose functions are affected in reports of children infected with ZIKV in utero, and therefore this work could have a major impact on public health.

No recommendations, this is a very nicely-prepared paper that needs no improvements.

Reviewer #2:

This is an excellent pathological description of neuropathological changes associated with congenital ZIKV infection in the non-human primate model. Major findings include regional variation in apoptosis, neuronal and glial morphology, and structural changes in nuclei of the visual system only seen in ZIKV challenged infants. The inclusion of three procedure control animals is exceptional and although the sample numbers are small the inclusion of these controls have uncovered clear pathological features of ZIKV infection that have not been reported convincingly prior to this manuscript. A major limitation to earlier ZIKV NHP pregnancy studies was the absence of procedure controlled uninfected animals.

This manuscript provides a detailed assessment of three different anatomic regions of the brain. The use of quantitative image analysis is a strength although the analysis could have been strengthened by evaluating increased sections from each region per animal. The small number of animals does hinder interpretation of the biological (and statistical) significance -especially since the different inoculation timepoints are grouped together which contributes to quantitative spread of the data in the image analysis.

The authors' data is supportive of a model of direct effects of viral replication on neurons in regions of the brain undergoing maturation (namely glial activation and possibly dysfunction and neuronal cell death). The rhesus macaque model is ideal to demonstrate this since regions of the macaque brain (frontal cortex) are still undergoing maturation at birth allowing for an internal control for each animal (developing versus mature brain).

There are a few stretches in interpretation of the data related to the effects of ZIKV induced immune activation and inflammation as the cause of neuronal death. Glial cells are immune cells in the brain, but there needs to be more evidence supporting the model presented that ZIKV induced inflammation and glial cell activation leads to neuronal apoptosis.

The fixation method used and sectioning method requires the use of a specialized histopathology core but the analytical methods should be able to be performed with standard image analysis tools. This paper will be useful for those doing NHP brain studies by providing a method for consistent trimming and evaluation of the brain.

The manuscript could benefit from some stylistic changes that would make the data more digestible for the non-neuropathologist.

Results:

Figure 1 and (Ln 166)-please include procedure controls for the IHC. ZIKV RNAscope for viral RNA should be included.

(Ln 213) Figure 4: 20 cells per animal, per region? This is a very small number and the findings of microstructural glial changes are very interesting-is it possible to increase the n to flesh out this data? The exact number of cells needs to be listed in the figure legend (with clarification). I think this data would benefit from showing all the cells in the graph in addition to the averages.

(Ln 234) – use of "active immune" response is inappropriate here unless there is a quantification of Iba-1 signal across groups. I do not think morphological changes can be reported as reflective of an active immune response unless this has been previously described and reported as a direct correlate to infiltrates in the brain. If so, please reference and describe better.

(Ln 237) – please indicate clearly which inoculation group had active virus in brain (all?).

Figure 7 – please include some normal for comparison here-otherwise can't interpret result without looking at supplemental figure. Would suggest including a column with just the merged from control that is in the Suppl and place next to ZIKV merged as a simple solution.

Figure 8 – see Figure 7 comments, include a high mag of normal next to high mag of Area V2 abnormal.

Figure S2 – this is exciting data and the images beautiful-can it be moved to main figures? The Iba-1 signal here is the most compelling of an "immune response" (see previous comment). Also, need to delineate the blood vessel location somehow otherwise difficult to interpret (for pathologists and non-pathologists). Maybe include H and E here? Also modify title to explain Area 46 is immature cortex. Also, please show controls at same magnification as ZIKV.

Reviewer #3:

Seelke, Beckman et al., describe and quantify neuroanatomical and histological abnormalities in the perinatal rhesus macaque brain following fetal infection with Zika virus (ZIKV) at three distinct gestational ages. The authors further show regional differences in pathological features in the cerebral cortex that are consistent with the caudal-to-rostral developmental timing of this structure and the known tropism of ZIKV for neural stem and progenitor cells. Specifically, macroanatomical defects are found in the occipital lobe/visual cortex, where the peak infection would have had more dramatic effect on cortical progenitor cell proliferation and survival, whereas phenotypes described in the frontal cortex are consistent with the presence of residual active infection, as nicely demonstrated by immunostaining for the virus envelope itself. The observation of combined cytoarchitectural abnormalities in both the visual thalamus (lateral geniculate nucleus, LGN) and primary visual cortex (area 17) is intriguing, suggestive of how disruptions in the retina or other more-sensitive structures/cell types might propagate up a circuit. In addition, the observations of ZIKV+ and apoptotic cells in the frontal cortex as many as 15 weeks after acute infection constitute remarkable and valuable data. Lastly, the authors provide evidence of the response of glial cell types in the brain to ZIKV, by quantitative morphological analyses of microglia and astrocytes.

Overall the authors' observations in these valuable tissues, although limited in statistical power by the small n, provide new data on the effects of ZIKV infection on brain development. However, the study is descriptive and aspects of the study, particularly with respect to affected cell types and glial cell responses, would benefit from additional cell type-specific stainings, improved imaging and presentation, and additional analysis in some places. The biggest weakness is the small sample size. Although this is a challenge with NHP studies in general, it nevertheless a weakness as reproducibility and animal to animal variability is a significant concern.

1) Additional immunofluorescent analysis of the frontal cortex in conjunction with the ZIKV staining shown in Figure 1 and caspase staining shown in Figure 4, to identify the cell types that show persistent infection many weeks after inoculation and clarify which cell types are most likely to be undergoing apoptosis at this late stage of cortical development, would further support the central argument that areal differences in pathology across the cortex are related to the caudorostral temporal developmental gradient. If the thesis is simply that ZIKV persists longer in frontal cortex because neurogenesis does as well, this could be definitively supported by such co-immunostaining.

2) Morphological changes observed in microglia of the frontal cortex are consistent with these immune cells' response to the active infection and cell death shown by the presence of ZIKV+ and caspase+ cells in this brain area. However, such morphology is quite nonspecific and the present data show correlation only, rather than suggesting any mediating, causal role for glial cell types in either the persistence or the pathological effects of Zika infection in this brain region. Without more detailed analysis of microglia state changes in the presence of Zika, it is impossible to infer whether these cells are performing their expected beneficial functions in responding to infection and tissue damage, or are additionally contributing to pathogenesis through aberrant activation or inflammatory responses.

3) The central assertion that areal differences in cortical phenotypes following Zika infection earlier in gestation are related to the temporal caudal-to-rostral gradient of cortical development is intriguing, but the manuscript would benefit from more detailed discussion and a clear model of this hypothesis, how it would arise from changes in the neural progenitor cell type composition and behaviors over cortical development, and how such interactions might be expected to result in differential structural and functional deficits in individuals infected at earlier vs later stages of fetal development.

In general this small (n=3 per group, if we ignore the different gestational ages of infection) pilot study provides additional evidence that fetal ZIKV infection disrupts brain development in ways that are influenced by the normal gradient of regional and cortical areal neurogenesis -- e.g. caudal-to-rostral in the cortex. Combined cytoarchitectural disruptions of the LGN, V1, and occipital gyrification are intriguing, suggesting that disruptions in the retina or other more-sensitive structures/cell types might propagate up a circuit, although no mechanistic interpretation is provided and further discussion of how such propagation might occur would be nice. In addition, the observation of ZIKV+ and apoptotic cells in the frontal cortex so long after the acute infection is a remarkable and valuable piece of data. The study would be greatly strengthened by additional immunohistochemical analyses of the frontal cortex to determine the cellular identity of ZIKV+ and apoptotic cells, and/or the spatial distribution of ZIKV+ cells relative to apoptotic neurons or other cell types. The authors' assertion that their methods reveal "where the virus was found, [and] what cell types were affected" is not fully supported by the data provided, given that ZIKV+ cells are not co-stained for any markers and their location/distribution is not described beyond the fact that they are present in both grey and white matter.

The glial angle of the work is lacking in strong phenotypes or clear mechanistic insight. Microglia morphological changes in the frontal cortex are a clear but non-specific observation, and not terribly surprising in proximity to active virus and/or apoptosis (although how proximal, again, is not clear without additional images or co-stainings). Although a relationship of the microglial phenotype to the increased cell death is implied, no mechanistic hypothesis is explicitly stated, and it is just as likely that microglia would become activated in response to cell death rather than cause it. Macroscopic phenotypes as observed in occipital cortex and LGN are even further removed from any potential glial mechanisms and in fact are quite similar to phenotypes described to arise from various non-viral/genetic/non-inflammatory disruptions of NPC survival, proliferation, and differentiation.

In general, the authors suggest or imply mechanisms which could stand to be more explicitly stated as conjectures or hypotheses supported by the current data and/or subject to future study. In addition to the specific role of microglia, the impact of the temporal caudal-rostral developmental gradient on the final neuropathology following infection at distinct gestational ages is not clearly explained or discussed. One gets the sense that reduced gyrification in occipital but not frontal cortex, or absence of changes to cortical thickness, could be related to the earlier development of occipital cortex, but exactly how this would occur -- e.g. through differential effects on subtypes of neural stem/progenitor cells and their relationships to tangential vs radial expansion of cortical plate. An explicit model of how regional phenotypic differences in cortex could arise given infection at different fetal stages would be a nice addition to the manuscript. (It's not clear why gyrification should not also be reduced in frontal lobe if infection was present at the earlier gestational ages when ventricular progenitors are highly proliferative -- possibly because the frontal lobe has not completed folding at birth in macaques?)

Even with further and clearer discussion of interpretations and model, I do not believe the paper merits publication in eLife without additional experiments, primarily co-immunostaining of ZIKV and CC3 with each other and with NPC and neuronal cell type markers.

Specific comments and suggestions to strengthen study (using existing tissue/samples).

Figure 1. Main finding: ZIKV is found in frontal but not occipital ctx nor in subcortical areas at near-term, after inoculation weeks earlier.

– What are the infected cell types? Sox2/NeuN/ZIKV co-stain would go far in supporting the argument that different phenotypes observed between frontal and occipital lobes relates to the late development of frontal lobe and persistence of NPC in this area, allowing ZIKV to continue to proliferate.

– A lower magnification view, or some quantifications, illustrating the frequency/density/laminar distribution of ZIKV+ cells in the frontal lobe would be very helpful in inferring the potential downstream impacts of persistent infection in this brain region.

– The term "activated" in the Figure 1 legend and associated Results section to describe astrocytes and microglia should be defined here, or simply removed given later discussion at Figure 4. In fact, text and figure legend here refer to "activated astrocytes" and "reactive astrocytes," but the analysis shown in Figure 4 revealed no significant differences in frontal lobe astrocytes between ZIKV+ and control, a discrepancy that should be addressed.

Figure 2. Main finding: ZIKV reduced gyrification in occipital but not frontal lobe, and caused no significant changes in total, GM, or WM volumes.

–To my knowledge a more commonly reported (though not necessarily better) local gyrification measurement is the ratio of outer cortical surface area to the "convex hull" area.

- the curve that encloses the exposed cortex, excluding sulci. See for example https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20176115/

Since this is a more commonly reported GI and quite straightforward/quick to implement with the existing images it would be nice to report this measurement in addition to what's already included.

– Given the abstract and introduction's emphasis on the rostrocaudal developmental timing of the cortex, the authors should further discuss why they think such timing might result in reduced gyrification in occipital lobe, but not frontal.

Figure 3. Main finding: no changes in cortical thickness. Again, there could perhaps be some discussion of the motivation for taking this measurement, or placing this finding in the context of the larger argument about developmental timing.

Figure 4. Main finding: frontal lobe microglia in ZIKV+ brains show smaller whole cell volume and fewer terminal branch points, suggestive of an activated state.

– Following on the comment to Figure 1 above, the main text and figure 4 legend need to be aligned - e.g. the figure legend states "astrocytes tended to have smaller cell body volumes (R)" but the main text reports this comparison as having a p-value of 0.37 and states astrocytes "did not differ between ZIKV-infected and control animals."

– If there is no statistically significant difference in astrocyte morphology, density, or distribution in ZIKV+ cortex, the terms "activated" or "reactive" astrocytes should be removed.

Figure 5. Main finding: increased number of caspase-positive neurons in cortical plate of area 46 of ZIKV+ brains.

– The following sentence/section should be rewritten to clarify the hypothesis being tested: "IHC fluorescent microscopy analyses for cleaved caspase-3 and SATB2, which are markers of apoptosis onset and immature cortical neurons, respectively, were carried out in order to determine whether NPCs underwent higher rates of apoptosis in immature neurons induced by the presence of ZIKV in the brain in both Area 17 and Area 46." Satb2 is a neuronal marker whereas previously apoptosis was observed in NPCs (progenitors, e.g. Sox2⁺ cells). ZIKV was present in area 46 but not 17 at the time of analysis.

– Are any of the caspase-positive SATB2+ neurons also ZIKV+? Are there any SATB2-negative caspase+ cells? Are there more total CC3+ cells in ZIKV+ vs control? Please be more specific in the units of measurement shown on the y-axis -- number of cells per what area/volume? It would also be helpful to report these data as total density of caspase+ cells regardless of SATB2 immunoreactivity, as well as the proportions of SATB2+ cells that are caspase+, and vice versa. Is there a preferential increase in apoptosis of neurons, or a general increase in apoptosis affecting multiple cell types?

– Sox2⁺ glial progenitor cells derived from earlier VZ/SVZ NPC are abundant across the cortical plate at late gestation. Given the previous reports of NPC infection by ZIKV, did the authors also observe caspase+ Sox2⁺ cells? (Again, what is the identity of the ZIKV+ cells shown in Figure 1?)

– If the apoptotic neurons are not themselves ZIKV+, what is the proposed mechanism/cause of their apoptosis?

Figure 6. Main finding: blurred laminar boundaries/absence of koniocellular layers in ZIKV+ LGN.

– Please include an un-pseudocolored version of the control section to allow the reader to better see what the normal layering pattern should look like across the whole LGN.

Figure 7. Main finding: reduced neuronal density, increased "glia activation" in dysmorphic areas of LGN.

– The phenotype asserted in the main text, "the density of the neuronal population (stained with NeuN) in these areas was also substantially reduced," is not immediately obvious from the images. It would help to indicate more precisely on the Nissl image the area shown at higher mag in IFL panels. This should be roughly achievable by comparing the Nissl and DAPI on the adjacent sections. Better yet would be to show a box on panels G-K to indicate the areas shown in B-F and L-P.

– Most convincing would be some quantification of NeuN+ cell density or cumulative signal in the dysmorphic ROI's, compared either to neighboring unaffected regions of LGN or to matched ROI's from the control LGNs.

– The assertion of "glia activation" is far from obvious given only the images in Figure 7. Quantitative morphological analysis of microglia similar to what was performed for cortex (Figure 4) would be a big help. Just improving the clarity of the images in panels C, D, M, and N would also be helpful; it is difficult to make out for example the increase in GFAP content in the NeuN-poor region of panel N.

Reviewer #1:

Children born during the Zika outbreak are known to have marked changes in neurological function and in some cases exhibit microcephaly, but the anatomical bases for these deficits is unknown. The goal of this study was to identify neuropathologies in near-term monkeys whose mothers were infected with Zika (ZIKV) during gestation. Using a combination of histological and immunofluorescent techniques, the authors demonstrate that compared to control monkeys, the ZIKV-infected fetuses exhibit a number of anatomically discrete abnormalities that are accompanied by evidence of localized neuro-immune responses and cell death. These abnormalities are shown through a comprehensive series of fluorescent micrographs that make the differences between the infected and control monkeys clear to the reader. The quantification methodologies are explained in detail, and the authors take care to note statistical considerations for the small sample size. Importantly, the observations map onto areas whose functions are affected in reports of children infected with ZIKV in utero, and therefore this work could have a major impact on public health.

No recommendations, this is a very nicely-prepared paper that needs no improvements.

Thank you so much for the positive feedback about our manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

[…]

The manuscript could benefit from some stylistic changes that would make the data more digestible for the non-neuropathologist.

Results:

Figure 1 and (Ln 166)-please include procedure controls for the IHC.

We thank the reviewer for the commentaries and suggestions to improve our manuscript. To better demonstrate that ZIKV induced glia abnormalities in Area 46 in comparison with control monkeys, we completely modified Figure 1. The first panel of Figure 1 shows now representative micrographs of the same region in Area 46 from a control and a ZIKV-infected animal. A second and a third panel were also added in figure 1, highlighting that Iba1+ microglia involved in the neuroinflammatory abnormalities observed in the ZIKV-infected monkeys, also expresses CD68, a lysosomal protein highly expressed in activated microglia. A new section titled: ‘Neuroinflammatory abnormalities and ZIKV presence in brains from ZIKV-infected animals”, was also added in the “Results” section, starting on Line 161.

It reads:

“Immunohistochemical (IHC) confocal microscopy revealed the presence of clusters of reactive glia within Area 46 of the PFC from ZIKV+ animals, but not in the controls (Figure 1A-B). Multiple labelling fluorescent microscopy allowed us to visualize that abnormal clusters of Iba1+ microglia which also express the lysosomal marker CD68 in the ZIKV-infected animals (Figure 1C-G). CD68 levels are known to be substantially upregulated in microglia during inflammatory processes and are thought to be involved in active phagocytosis (46). We also observed that clusters of amoeboid-shaped microglia within Area 46, are directly engulfing neuronal debris in the ZIKV-infected monkeys (Figure 1H-I, 3D reconstruction: J, K).

Next, we sought to detect the presence of ZIKV protein in the same regions we observed active inflammatory response. Interestingly, we observed the presence of ZIKV envelope protein within Area 46 of all the infected animals, with detection of viral protein inside clusters of microglia, but not astrocytes (GFAP, Figure 2A-G, 3D reconstruction: 2H). Despite the fact that cells expressing ZIKV were detected in Area 46, we were not able to confirm the identity of the infected cells. As shown in Figure 2I-J, these ZIKV+ cells are thought to be in a direct process of phagocytosis, a common event occurring during viral encephalitis (47). While we could not detect the expression of other proteins in the ZIKV+ cells, they were surrounded and in direct contact with reactive microglia also expressing CD68, as shown in Figure 2K-L.”

ZIKV RNAscope for viral RNA should be included.

Unfortunately, due to the protocol used for tissue fixation and preparation, we were unable to detect viable RNA for performing ZIKV RNAscope investigation. While there are groups who have used RNAscope in fixed tissue, many groups have been unsuccessful in processing fixed tissue in this way. Given this, we are electing to use evidence from immunohistochemistry demonstrating presence of Zika antibodies.

(Ln 213) Figure 4: 20 cells per animal, per region? This is a very small number and the findings of microstructural glial changes are very interesting-is it possible to increase the n to flesh out this data? The exact number of cells needs to be listed in the figure legend (with clarification). I think this data would benefit from showing all the cells in the graph in addition to the averages.

All the images for glia morphological analysis were acquired and processed using 3D high-resolution volumetric analysis. The number of 20 cells per animal per region was described recently by our group to be enough to detect subtle changes in glia morphology induced by inflammatory events (Beckman et al., PNAS 2019, http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1902301116, Beckman et al., Alzheimer’s and Dementia, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12318). Due to the fact that the mentioned studies were performed using middle-aged rhesus monkey brain, instead of the perinatal brains analyzed in the current study, we increased the number of glial cells analyzed to 28 cells per animal, per region. The exact number of cells analyzed and details about image processing were added in the legend of the figure. While we appreciate that the reviewer would prefer to see all of the cells this would create a huge figure (28 x 2 (astrocytes, microglia) X 2 brain areas (area 17 and 46) X 6 animals) and we think that the main story communicated by the example cells and statistical figure would not be clear from that figure. The graphs from all other figures only present a summary of the data collected from each animal, instead of all cells or micrographs analyzed. That way, we believe keeping the graph with this same visual identity in figure 4 will facilitate for the reader, comparisons between groups and figures. In addition, we included, as suggested by reviewer 3, a new image, more representative, for reactive microglia within area 46 of the ZIKV infected animals.

(Ln 234) – use of "active immune" response is inappropriate here unless there is a quantification of Iba-1 signal across groups. I do not think morphological changes can be reported as reflective of an active immune response unless this has been previously described and reported as a direct correlate to infiltrates in the brain. If so, please reference and describe better.

We agree with the reviewer that the term “active immune response” might induce the establishment of a connection between our observation and direct findings of infiltrates in the brain, which we cannot conclude based on the current data. We modified the beginning of sentence for “A neuroinflammatory response, mainly driven by CD68/Iba+ microglia” (Line 252). As mentioned in the previous reply, we and others have shown that alterations in microglia morphology can indicate a direct response of these cells to inflammatory events in the brain. We believe that by combining now the general marker Iba-1 with the marker for activation CD68, we were able to show more clearly the direct involvement of activated microglia in phagocytizing ZIKV protein in the frontal lobe.

That section that begins on Line 252 now reads:

“Microstructural changes related to neural development. A neuroinflammatory response, mainly driven by CD68/Iba+ microglia, in combination with the presence of ZIKV envelope protein, indicated that the frontal lobe for all ZIKV-infected subjects was a site of persistent ZIKV infection for a minimum of 60 days post-inoculation. […] The higher frequency of immature neuron death, the active immune response (activated microglia), and the presence of ZIKV protein in Area 46 suggest that frontal cortex remained a site of active ZIKV-induced neuronal remodeling at the time the brains were analyzed.”

(Ln 237) – please indicate clearly which inoculation group had active virus in brain (all?).

All three Zika infected animals analyzed in the study had evidence of active virus in their brains. We have now indicated that on Line 172 and 313 of the manuscript.

Figure 7 – please include some normal for comparison here-otherwise can't interpret result without looking at supplemental figure. Would suggest including a column with just the merged from control that is in the Suppl and place next to ZIKV merged as a simple solution.

We agree with the reviewer that showing side-by-side normal vs. zika infected images is important for understanding and interpreting the results. In the mentioned figure (previously Figure 7, now Figure 8), we have side-by-side representative images of Nissl and confocal images of LGN from both CTR and ZIKV groups.

Figure 8 – see Figure 7 comments, include a high mag of normal next to high mag of Area V2 abnormal.

High magnification representative images of normal V1/V2 transition vs. layer discontinuity and V2 abnormality, are now included side-by-side in the new figure (current Figure 9).

Figure S2 – this is exciting data and the images beautiful-can it be moved to main figures? The Iba-1 signal here is the most compelling of an "immune response" (see previous comment). Also, need to delineate the blood vessel location somehow otherwise difficult to interpret (for pathologists and non-pathologists). Maybe include H and E here? Also modify title to explain Area 46 is immature cortex. Also, please show controls at same magnification as ZIKV.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion of moving Figure S2 (ZIKV neuroinflammatory response in area 46) to the main manuscript. As mentioned in the reply to comment 1A, we completely modified main figures 1 and 2 in the manuscript to highlight the details of how ZIKV infection is inducing a neuroinflammatory response driven by activated microglia (Iba+/CD68+), that is not present in the control animals. The title explaining Area 46 is immature cortex was also added in the legend of Figure 1.

Reviewer #3:

[…]

In general this small (n=3 per group, if we ignore the different gestational ages of infection) pilot study provides additional evidence that fetal ZIKV infection disrupts brain development in ways that are influenced by the normal gradient of regional and cortical areal neurogenesis -- e.g. caudal-to-rostral in the cortex. Combined cytoarchitectural disruptions of the LGN, V1, and occipital gyrification are intriguing, suggesting that disruptions in the retina or other more-sensitive structures/cell types might propagate up a circuit, although no mechanistic interpretation is provided and further discussion of how such propagation might occur would be nice. In addition, the observation of ZIKV+ and apoptotic cells in the frontal cortex so long after the acute infection is a remarkable and valuable piece of data. The study would be greatly strengthened by additional immunohistochemical analyses of the frontal cortex to determine the cellular identity of ZIKV+ and apoptotic cells, and/or the spatial distribution of ZIKV+ cells relative to apoptotic neurons or other cell types. The authors' assertion that their methods reveal "where the virus was found, [and] what cell types were affected" is not fully supported by the data provided, given that ZIKV+ cells are not co-stained for any markers and their location/distribution is not described beyond the fact that they are present in both grey and white matter.

We appreciate the comment from the reviewer and understand how useful it would be to know what cell types are particularly subject to apoptosis during fetal Zika virus infection. We did carry out some of these analyses, attempting to co-localize markers of apoptosis with other markers – for example our CC3 and SATB2 co-localization analyses give us information about the death of immature neurons. Unfortunately, in many cases, once apoptosis begins and certainly once it is underway, identification of the cells using IHC (via surface markers) does not paint a comprehensive picture of the system because the cells literally fall apart and so we were limited in terms of what approaches were successful. We agree that this is a potentially fruitful avenue for future research where tissue is processed at a different time point of infection (i.e., our time point is ~100 days post infection).

The glial angle of the work is lacking in strong phenotypes or clear mechanistic insight. Microglia morphological changes in the frontal cortex are a clear but non-specific observation, and not terribly surprising in proximity to active virus and/or apoptosis (although how proximal, again, is not clear without additional images or co-stainings). Although a relationship of the microglial phenotype to the increased cell death is implied, no mechanistic hypothesis is explicitly stated, and it is just as likely that microglia would become activated in response to cell death rather than cause it. Macroscopic phenotypes as observed in occipital cortex and LGN are even further removed from any potential glial mechanisms and in fact are quite similar to phenotypes described to arise from various non-viral/genetic/non-inflammatory disruptions of NPC survival, proliferation, and differentiation.

It is the case that our data do not allow us to determine whether inflammatory processes are causing or are caused by cell death, and we have now indicated this in the Discussion (Lines 398-400). It reads:

“The histological analyses presented here differ in that we measured specific cytoarchitectonic regions of the brain as well as morphological analyses of glial cells in the frontal and occipital cortex. Together, these analyses paint a picture of inflammatory processes related to viral infiltration sweeping through the cortex and a wave of cell death. Given our analyses, it is not possible to tell whether inflammatory processes are caused by or are causing cell death, but they certainly appear to co-occur given their proximity.”

We have also added a discussion of the relationship between morphology and activation in the Results section, beginning at Line 216. It reads:

“Microstructural Changes to Glia. Following macrostructural evaluations, we carried out a series of immunohistochemical analyses to quantify cell-level features that might be impacted by ZIKV infection with a specific focus on glia (microglia and astrocytes) in Brodmann’s Area 17 and Area 46. […] Iba1 and GFAP were used as general microglia and astrocytes markers, respectively, and each cell was exported and analyzed individually for total and cell body volumes, and for number of terminal point (branching ramification).”

In general, the authors suggest or imply mechanisms which could stand to be more explicitly stated as conjectures or hypotheses supported by the current data and/or subject to future study. In addition to the specific role of microglia, the impact of the temporal caudal-rostral developmental gradient on the final neuropathology following infection at distinct gestational ages is not clearly explained or discussed. One gets the sense that reduced gyrification in occipital but not frontal cortex, or absence of changes to cortical thickness, could be related to the earlier development of occipital cortex, but exactly how this would occur -- e.g. through differential effects on subtypes of neural stem/progenitor cells and their relationships to tangential vs radial expansion of cortical plate. An explicit model of how regional phenotypic differences in cortex could arise given infection at different fetal stages would be a nice addition to the manuscript. (It's not clear why gyrification should not also be reduced in frontal lobe if infection was present at the earlier gestational ages when ventricular progenitors are highly proliferative -- possibly because the frontal lobe has not completed folding at birth in macaques?)

Even with further and clearer discussion of interpretations and model, I do not believe the paper merits publication in eLife without additional experiments, primarily co-immunostaining of ZIKV and CC3 with each other and with NPC and neuronal cell type markers.

We appreciate the comments from the reviewer, and in order to address these questions we ran a new set of IHC experiments with multi-labeling fluorescence combinations. A completely modified Figure 1 and a whole new Figure 2 were added. The new micrographs included in Figure 1 highlight: 1 – The general glia alterations observed in the prefrontal cortex of ZIKV infected animals but not in control animals (Figure 1A-B); 2 – Inflammatory clusters observed in the ZIKV tissue were formed by reactive astrocytes and microglia, with the latest also co-expressing CD68, a lysosomal protein expressed in phagocytic cells (Figure 1C-G); 3 – 3D analysis of the reactive microglia from the ZIKV animals show these cells are actively engulfing apoptotic material formed by fragmented Dapi and NeuN (Figure 1H-K).

To address the identity of the ZIKV+ cells, we ran several multi-label antibodies combinations targeting glia, neurons, and apoptotic cells. Figure 2 panels now show that reactive microglia and astrocytes are surrounding ZIKV+ cells, and that ZIKV protein is observed inside Iba+/CD68+ microglia. Importantly, panel I-J shows in detail the 3D reconstruction of how microglia is interacting with ZIKV+ cells. After several rounds of IHC with different multi-labeling combinations, we cannot clearly point to an identity for the main ZIKV+ cells within these regions. We believe these cells are in an advanced cell death/phagocytosis stage, when protein synthesis is impaired inside the cell, and as consequence, labeling them becomes a real challenge, especially with limitations in the tissue fixation after necropsy. In addition, we do not observe a clear pattern of location/distribution of these infected cells within Area 46, besides the fact that they are observed in both, white and gray matter. Clear imaging of these cells can only be done using high-resolution microscopy, as often these cells are not expressing other markers, including DAPI. Imaging the entire Area 46 of the monkeys used in this study using the 63 or 100x objective to quantify the distribution and location of these cells would generate hundreds of images and an extensive amount of time to analyze it, that is beyond the scope of this project. But we expect that the new data added in the figures provides more evidence of the persistent of the virus within specific areas of the brain, and how this can reflect in neuroinflammatory abnormalities and neuronal loss, even after longer periods of viral incubation.

Specific comments and suggestions to strengthen study (using existing tissue/samples).

Figure 1. Main finding: ZIKV is found in frontal but not occipital ctx nor in subcortical areas at near-term, after inoculation weeks earlier.

– What are the infected cell types? Sox2/NeuN/ZIKV co-stain would go far in supporting the argument that different phenotypes observed between frontal and occipital lobes relates to the late development of frontal lobe and persistence of NPC in this area, allowing ZIKV to continue to proliferate.

– A lower magnification view, or some quantifications, illustrating the frequency/density/laminar distribution of ZIKV+ cells in the frontal lobe would be very helpful in inferring the potential downstream impacts of persistent infection in this brain region.

– The term "activated" in the Figure 1 legend and associated Results section to describe astrocytes and microglia should be defined here, or simply removed given later discussion at Figure 4. In fact, text and figure legend here refer to "activated astrocytes" and "reactive astrocytes," but the analysis shown in Figure 4 revealed no significant differences in frontal lobe astrocytes between ZIKV+ and control, a discrepancy that should be addressed.

Related to the cell type of the ZIKV infected cells, as we mentioned in the previous reply, we ran several IHC experiments with different antibodies combination, including Sox2/NeuN/ZIKV, as suggested by the reviewer. Fragments of both neuronal markers were found inside phagocytic microglia in direct contact with ZIKV+ cells, but not inside the infected cells the ZIKV+ cell (Figures 1 and 2).

We agree with the reviewer that understanding the frequency/density/laminar distribution of ZIKV+ cells in the frontal lobe would provide deeper understanding of the viral impact in the normal cortical development. Our intention is to do a detailed stereological quantification of the Zika viral distribution in the frontal lobe of the rhesus monkeys, but that is beyond the scope of this paper, this paper is intended to be an initial description of the pathology observed in a recent developed monkey model. We believe that for this type of analysis to be done correctly, substantial amount of time and work will be required, especially due to the size and complexity of this cerebral region in the monkey brain.

In relation to the use of the term “activated” in Figure 1 legend, we agree that there is no indication of astrocyte activation, and the term should not be used in relation to the astrocyte’s morphology. All mentions to the term “activated” in relation to astrocytes were removed from the text.

Figure 2. Main finding: ZIKV reduced gyrification in occipital but not frontal lobe, and caused no significant changes in total, GM, or WM volumes.

–To my knowledge a more commonly reported (though not necessarily better) local gyrification measurement is the ratio of outer cortical surface area to the "convex hull" area.

- the curve that encloses the exposed cortex, excluding sulci. See for example https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20176115/

Since this is a more commonly reported GI and quite straightforward/quick to implement with the existing images it would be nice to report this measurement in addition to what's already included.

– Given the abstract and introduction's emphasis on the rostrocaudal developmental timing of the cortex, the authors should further discuss why they think such timing might result in reduced gyrification in occipital lobe, but not frontal.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We analyzed the local gyrification index in the frontal and occipital lobes using the method described by Rogers at al 2010 (the paper mentioned by the reviewer). We analyzed between 14 and 19 sections for each animal in each group but found no difference in the cerebral gyrification index between the groups for both regions of the cortex. As such, we’ve maintained our original presentation of the gyrification data.

Figure 3. Main finding: no changes in cortical thickness. Again, there could perhaps be some discussion of the motivation for taking this measurement, or placing this finding in the context of the larger argument about developmental timing.

Changes of cortical thickness during development might reflect spines/dendrites loss and ultimately neuronal death. In microencephaly induced by ZIKV infection, the loss of cortical white and gray matter can be so substantial that cortical thickness measurement can be used to indicative the degree of the pathology. The investigation of cortical thickness in the monkeys using Nissl was performed in combination with the fluorescent microscopy experiments investigating increased cell death of immature neurons in the frontal lobe of ZIKV animals. We believe is important to show that despite the fact that there is no microencephaly cases between the infected monkeys, nor a change in the cortical thickness, there are significant micro-structural changes such as increased death of immature neurons and robust neuroinflammatory response, that ultimately can contribute to long-term, chronic impairment related to early-development ZIKV infection.

Figure 4. Main finding: frontal lobe microglia in ZIKV+ brains show smaller whole cell volume and fewer terminal branch points, suggestive of an activated state.

– Following on the comment to Figure 1 above, the main text and figure 4 legend need to be aligned - e.g. the figure legend states "astrocytes tended to have smaller cell body volumes (R)" but the main text reports this comparison as having a p-value of 0.37 and states astrocytes "did not differ between ZIKV-infected and control animals."

– If there is no statistically significant difference in astrocyte morphology, density, or distribution in ZIKV+ cortex, the terms "activated" or "reactive" astrocytes should be removed.

We agree with the reviewer, and as mentioned before, all mentions to “activation” in relation to astrocytes, were removed from the main text and figure legends.

Figure 5. Main finding: increased number of caspase-positive neurons in cortical plate of area 46 of ZIKV+ brains.

– The following sentence/section should be rewritten to clarify the hypothesis being tested: "IHC fluorescent microscopy analyses for cleaved caspase-3 and SATB2, which are markers of apoptosis onset and immature cortical neurons, respectively, were carried out in order to determine whether NPCs underwent higher rates of apoptosis in immature neurons induced by the presence of ZIKV in the brain in both Area 17 and Area 46." Satb2 is a neuronal marker whereas previously apoptosis was observed in NPCs (progenitors, e.g. Sox2⁺ cells). ZIKV was present in area 46 but not 17 at the time of analysis.

– Are any of the caspase-positive SATB2+ neurons also ZIKV+? Are there any SATB2-negative caspase+ cells? Are there more total CC3+ cells in ZIKV+ vs control? Please be more specific in the units of measurement shown on the y-axis -- number of cells per what area/volume? It would also be helpful to report these data as total density of caspase+ cells regardless of SATB2 immunoreactivity, as well as the proportions of SATB2+ cells that are caspase+, and vice versa. Is there a preferential increase in apoptosis of neurons, or a general increase in apoptosis affecting multiple cell types?

– Sox2⁺ glial progenitor cells derived from earlier VZ/SVZ NPC are abundant across the cortical plate at late gestation. Given the previous reports of NPC infection by ZIKV, did the authors also observe caspase+ Sox2⁺ cells? (Again, what is the identity of the ZIKV+ cells shown in Figure 1?)

– If the apoptotic neurons are not themselves ZIKV+, what is the proposed mechanism/cause of their apoptosis?

We agree with the reviewer, and the sentence mentioned was rewritten to address that IHC fluorescent microscopy for cleaved caspase 3 was conducted in order to investigate if the increase in reactive microglia population and active presence of ZIKV can induce an increase in the number of immature neurons (SATB2) undergoing apoptosis (Ln 271-276). We carried out additional IHC combinations in order address the reviewer questions, and an updated version of the figure mentioned (currently Figure 6) and new Supplementary Figure 3 were added to the manuscript. The updated Figure 6 includes now the total cell counting for each of the markers analyzed, DAPI (total number of cells), SATB2 (total number of immature neurons) and CC3 (total number of apoptotic cells). A separate graph analyzing SATB2/CC3 colocalization was also added in the figure, for each region analyzed. Despite the fact that there is no significant difference in the total number of CC3 cells across the two analyzed regions between control and ZIKV animals, an increase in SATB2/CC3 was observed in the ZIKV animals in Area 46, but not 17. A deeper investigation of these regions with higher-resolution image acquisition showed that activated microglia (HLA-Dr+ cells) also express CC3 in the region, especially the cells in direct contact with neurons, possibly during a phagocytosis process. Images for this analysis are show in the new supplementary figure 3. Finally, once again we carry out different experiments to address if ZIKV+ is present in these SATB2/CC3 or HLA-Dr/CC3 cells, but once again, the virus could not be detected in these cells. Whether this is caused by loss of viral epitopes during the brain fixation process, or due to the stage of the viral infection/engulfment by microglia per se, could not be address at the time for this manuscript.

Figure 6. Main finding: blurred laminar boundaries/absence of koniocellular layers in ZIKV+ LGN.

– Please include an un-pseudocolored version of the control section to allow the reader to better see what the normal layering pattern should look like across the whole LGN.

Figure 7. Main finding: reduced neuronal density, increased "glia activation" in dysmorphic areas of LGN.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. To better allow the reader to compare between normal and altered layers of the LGN, we removed the coloring patterns from the micrographs. We concluded that the coloring pattern applied before was not necessarily and removed from the figure.

– The phenotype asserted in the main text, "the density of the neuronal population (stained with NeuN) in these areas was also substantially reduced," is not immediately obvious from the images. It would help to indicate more precisely on the Nissl image the area shown at higher mag in IFL panels. This should be roughly achievable by comparing the Nissl and DAPI on the adjacent sections. Better yet would be to show a box on panels G-K to indicate the areas shown in B-F and L-P.

– Most convincing would be some quantification of NeuN+ cell density or cumulative signal in the dysmorphic ROI's, compared either to neighboring unaffected regions of LGN or to matched ROI's from the control LGNs.

– The assertion of "glia activation" is far from obvious given only the images in Figure 7. Quantitative morphological analysis of microglia similar to what was performed for cortex (Figure 4) would be a big help. Just improving the clarity of the images in panels C, D, M, and N would also be helpful; it is difficult to make out for example the increase in GFAP content in the NeuN-poor region of panel N.

We agree with the reviewer, and the mentioned Figure (currently Figure 8) was redone to better show how the Nissl images correlate with the confocal images between controls and ZIKV animals. A “zoom” area was also added for both groups to highlight the differences observed between the groups. We agree with the reviewer that quantification of NeuN and Iba1 count would be informative, but require a substantial amount of time, and are beyond the scope of this manuscript now. Finally, we also agree that the assertion “glia activation” is not obvious, so besides improving the clarity of the images in the figure, we also removed the term “glia activation” from the figure legend and related text in the Result sections.

Author details

1. Danielle Beckman

   California National Primate Research Center, UC Davis, Davis, United States

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Adele MH Seelke

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

2. Adele MH Seelke

   1. California National Primate Research Center, UC Davis, Davis, United States
   2. Department of Psychology, UC Davis, Davis, United States

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Danielle Beckman

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2867-0335

3. Jeffrey Bennett

   1. California National Primate Research Center, UC Davis, Davis, United States
   2. Department of Psychology, UC Davis, Davis, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3255-5663

4. Paige Dougherty

   1. California National Primate Research Center, UC Davis, Davis, United States
   2. Department of Psychology, UC Davis, Davis, United States

   Contribution

   Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Koen KA Van Rompay

   1. California National Primate Research Center, UC Davis, Davis, United States
   2. Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, School of Veterinary Medicine, UC Davis, Davis, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7375-1337

6. Rebekah Keesler

   California National Primate Research Center, UC Davis, Davis, United States

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Patricia A Pesavento

   Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, School of Veterinary Medicine, UC Davis, Davis, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Lark LA Coffey

   Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, School of Veterinary Medicine, UC Davis, Davis, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. John H Morrison

   1. California National Primate Research Center, UC Davis, Davis, United States
   2. Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, UC Davis, Davis, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Eliza Bliss-Moreau

    1. California National Primate Research Center, UC Davis, Davis, United States
    2. Department of Psychology, UC Davis, Davis, United States

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

    For correspondence

    eblissmoreau@ucdavis.edu

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0740-5612

• 623

  Page views

• 99

  Downloads

• 2

  Citations

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