Making differences within a seemingly uniform entity of cells is a fundamental process observed at various situations in development. The molecular mechanisms that underlie those processes are of great interest for not only developmental biologists but also researchers in stem cell biology and regenerative medicine. While a huge variety of systems or mechanisms have been investigated, providing the basic concepts or principles underlying this issue, there must be yet unidentified mechanisms. The adult mammalian neocortex is entirely composed of six layers of neurons, yet the laminar structure is not uniform throughout the neocortex; the thickness and cellular composition of the layers differ among cortical areas (Brodmann, 2006). For instance, in the sensory cortex, layer 4, which is the main recipient layer of sensory information from the thalamus, is thick and dense, whereas it is thinner in the motor area. These features are considered to be crucial for proper functions of the cortical areas, as minute alterations in these constituents have been shown to be associated with cognitive, mental, or psychiatric disorders (Bruining et al., 2015; Reavis et al., 2017; Selten et al., 2018). The developmental mechanisms that regulate the formation of the regionally distinct laminar architecture therefore has long been a major issue in developmental neurobiology.

Previous studies have shown that both mechanisms intrinsic and extrinsic to the cortex play roles in the formation of cortical areas (reviewed in Cadwell et al., 2019). For instance the secretory factors, emanating from the signaling centers, set up the areal pattern of the neocortex, called cortical area map, through regulating the expression of transcription factors in the cortical primordium (Armentano et al., 2007; Bishop et al., 2000; Fukuchi-Shimogori and Grove, 2001; O’Leary and Sahara, 2008). While the extrinsic mechanisms are less understood, especially at the molecular level, laminar differences among cortical regions correlate well with thalamocortical axon (TCA) projection patterns: abundant TCAs project to sensory areas, which exhibit a thick layer 4, whereas only few axons project to the motor area, which has a thin layer 4. This correlation raises the possibility that TCAs may extrinsically regulate the area differences. In fact, roles of TCAs in cortical development have been investigated particularly with respect to neuronal activity-dependent mechanisms; histological and functional features called barrel in the primary somatosensory area (S1) in rodents and ocular dominance column in the primary visual area (V1) of cats and monkeys are instructed by the activity-dependent mechanisms (Penn and Shatz, 1999; Katz and Crowley, 2002; Gaspar and Renier, 2018; Martini et al., 2018). Recent studies demonstrated that TCAs also play instructive roles in the specification of area properties of somatosensory and visual cortices represented by expression of area markers (Chou et al., 2013; Pouchelon et al., 2014; Vue et al., 2013) as well as layer markers, and morphogenesis of cortical neurons (Li et al., 2013; Zhou et al., 2010). Although molecular mechanisms underlying those processes remain uncovered, it was reported that prenatal thalamic neuronal activities and propagation of calcium waves regulate cortical maps prior to sensory processing (Antón-Bolaños et al., 2019; Moreno-Juan et al., 2017). Several studies have also shown that TCA innervation influences neurogenesis in the embryonic cortex. For example, ephrin A5 expressed in TCAs regulates the generation of proper types of cortical progenitor cells and thus neuronal output for cortical layers (Gerstmann et al., 2015). Wnt3 secreted by TCAs controls neuronal differentiation in the cortex at the translational level (Kraushar et al., 2015). However, whether TCAs regulate cytoarchitectural aspects of the cortical layers such as the number of cortical neurons and layer thickness is not clear. Only one study suggested the involvement of TCAs in cortical laminar formation by showing that thalamic ablation by electrolytic lesion led to alterations in the cortical laminar configuration (Windrem and Finlay, 1991). Yet, it is technically difficult to target thalamic nuclei specifically and reproducibly by surgical manipulation, and the molecular mechanisms by which TCAs control cortical laminar organization have not been uncovered.

To identify TCA-derived extrinsic factors, we previously conducted a screening for thalamus-specific genes by comparing expression profiles of the thalamus and the cortex (Sato et al., 2012). As a result, two genes encoding neuritin 1 (NRN1) and VGF nerve growth factor inducible (VGF) were found to be expressed specifically in sensory thalamic nuclei including the ventrobasal nucleus (VB). While their mRNAs are not expressed in the cortex, their proteins are detected in cortical layer 4, suggesting that they are transported to the cortex through TCAs. We further found that NRN1 and VGF promoted survival and dendrite growth of cortical neurons in vitro (Sato et al., 2012). Although these extrinsic factors are likely to contribute to cortical development in vivo, this remains to be validated.

In this study, we investigated the effect of loss of TCAs on neocortical development using transgenic mice, in which thalamic neurons were eliminated postnatally. We employed a diphtheria toxin (DT) receptor (DTR)-mediated cell ablation system combined with a thalamus-specific Cre transgenic mouse line (Arakawa et al., 2014; Buch et al., 2005). As a result, the laminar structure was altered specifically in layer 4, which exhibited marked reduction in the number of neurons in the primary somatosensory cortex. Moreover, TCA-derived factor VGF is necessary for the proper amount of layer 4 neurons in S1 and V1. Interestingly, the barrel organization was impaired in Vgf-knockout mice, despite the presence of TCAs and their activities, suggesting that the VGF-dependent quantity control is crucial for the proper barrel field development in cooperation with the activity-dependent process.

How the laminar configuration is formed in the developing cortex is one of the fundamental questions in developmental neurobiology, and the underlying molecular mechanisms have not yet been fully elucidated. Here, we investigated the influence of TCAs on cortical laminar formation by ablating TCAs from the thalamic VB in vivo. We found that the number of layer 4 neurons in S1 was decreased in the absence of TCAs during postnatal stages. This was rescued by overexpression of axon-derived secreted protein VGF in cortical layer 4. Furthermore, genetic disruption of Vgf resulted in a reduction of the layer 4 neuronal number. Collectively, these results indicated that TCAs are required for the formation of the area-specific laminar structure by regulating the number of layer 4 neurons through VGF. Our finding that TCA ablation reduced the number of layer 4 neurons by 33%, resulting in poorly distinguishable S1 from neighboring areas, indicates that TCAs play a substantial and major role in specialization of S1 characterized by a thick layer 4. Thus, highly site-specific axon projection, which depends on initial regional patterning of the target fields, in turn contributes to generation of further regional diversity and complexity within the target tissues in a remote fashion.

Our result that RORβ expression was reduced in the absence of TCAs is consistent with the previous studies on Gbx2-KO and Celsr3/Dlx mutant embryos, in which TCAs fail to be formed (Miyashita-Lin et al., 1999; Zhou et al., 2010). However, we did not observe rewiring of TCAs regarding S1 as reported previously (Pouchelon et al., 2014; Mezzera and López-Bendito, 2016), although rewiring from the PO to S1 may have occurred to some extent as the PO was labeled more in several TCA-ablated specimens (see Figure 1—figure supplement 3B). This apparent inconsistency is perhaps due to the timing of TCA elimination. Although we did not compare the exact time course of TCA elimination among these different methods with our own hands, the method we employed provokes an acute ablation of TCAs upon DT administration at postnatal stages (see Figure 2—figure supplement 2D), which is beneficial for the aim of the present study specifically. Likewise, while it was reported that TCAs affect cortical neurogenesis (Dehay et al., 2001; Gerstmann et al., 2015; Kraushar et al., 2015), we have not found an obvious neurogenic abnormality in the TCA-ablated cortices. This could also be attributed to the timing of TCA elimination; TCAs may play the neurogenic role during the earlier stages, possibly upon their arrival at cortex since E15, which coincides with the peak of upper layer neuron production (López-Bendito and Molnár, 2003). Regarding this, we did not detect an obvious neurogenic phenotype in Vgf-KO mice at both P0 (Figure 7—figure supplement 1D and F) and P8 (Figure 7G), suggesting that VGF does not play a critical role in cortical neurogenesis.

While the present findings explain why layer 4 is thick in the somatosensory cortex, it is currently unclear whether the same mechanism accounts for the very thin layer 4 in the motor cortex. It would be interesting to test experimentally whether abnormal projection of TCAs to the motor cortex or artificial supply of TCA-derived factors in the motor cortex would thicken layer 4 and increase the neuronal number. While TCA-ablated mice showed almost no defect on V1, likely due to less cell death in dLGN which innervates V1, Vgf-KO mice exhibited significant reduction in layer 4 neurons in V1. These observations suggest that the regulation of the neuronal number of layer 4 by TCAs via VGF is a common mechanism operating widely in sensory areas.

The exact cellular events that led to the reduction in layer 4 neurons in the TCA-ablated cortex remain to be determined. Although most likely, specific cell death underlies this phenomenon, we could not detect obvious signs of cell death in this process. Previous studies have analyzed cell death in the postnatal cortex in rodents (Ferrer et al., 1992; Gohlke et al., 2004; Spreafico et al., 1995; Thomaidou et al., 1997; Verney et al., 2000), however, cell death in specific layers or areas in relation to the area-specific laminar structure has not been reported. Instead, a relatively uniform distribution of dying cells across layers and areas was reported in these studies. We also examined Bax and Casp3 mutant mice; the laminar configuration across the areas appeared to be normal (HS, KS, unpublished observation). These observations suggest that relatively thinner layer 4 in other areas compared to S1 may not depend on specific cell death, yet it is still possible that it plays a role in the absence of TCAs in S1.

Another possibility for the reduction of layer 4 cells is neuronal migration. It has been reported that mismigration of layer 4-destined neurons to layers 2/3 upon knockdown of Protocadherin 20 resulted in respecification of these neurons to acquire layer 2/3 characteristics, suggesting a positional influence on cortical neuron fate (Oishi et al., 2016). However, we found no evidence that neurons destined to layer 4 migrated to other layers and changed their fate in the TCA-ablated S1 (see Figure 2E, Figure 2—figure supplement 2A). Beside radial migration, neurons in layer 4 might migrate tangentially across areas, resulting in the area-specific laminar features in normal development. Such a process might have been impaired by the loss of TCAs, leading to a failure of accumulation of neurons into layer 4 of S1. To test this possibility, we tracked layer 4 neurons in the frontal cortex using the photo-switchable fluorescent protein kikGR (Nishiyama et al., 2012) in living pups from P0 to P7 by a laser-scanning confocal macroscopy. We did not detect any obvious signs of tangentially migrating layer 4 neurons; the labeled cells were retained within the original area of photoconversion in the motor area (HS and KS, unpublished results). Nevertheless, we might have overlooked cell migration because of limited detection sensitivity. In the future, it may be worth pursuing this possibility using more sophisticated and supersensitive methods recently published, through which the authors successfully observed activity-dependent dynamic dendrite rearrangement during the course of barrel formation in S1 (Mizuno et al., 2014). This method may allow us to observe if layer 4 neurons in S1 disperse into or fail to accumulate from surrounding areas in TCA-ablated mice. Similar technology might also enable us to determine whether layer 4 cells undergo cell death in the absence of TCAs or their actions through VGF.

There are two classical models for the development of cortical areas. One is the protomap model, in which the areal properties are predisposed in the regional identity of the cortical progenitors (Rakic et al., 2009). The other is the protocortex model, in which the cortical primordium is generated essentially homogeneous and is patterned into areas later by cues from the thalamic axons (O’Leary, 1989). In theory, these models are not mutually exclusive (Sur and Rubenstein, 2005), but can be reconciled as serial homology and refinement model recently proposed (Cadwell et al., 2019): cortical area development can be divided into serial three steps: (1) protomap, (2) area-specific maturation, and (3) activity-dependent refinement; processes postulated in the protocortex model are involved in (2) and (3). Previous studies on the roles of TCAs in cortical area development have led to the notion that TCAs indeed regulate areal size and characteristic gene expression in the cortex (Chou et al., 2013; Pouchelon et al., 2014; Vue et al., 2013; Moreno-Juan et al., 2017). Moreover, it has been reported that neural activity from TCAs controls neuronal morphology and barrel formation in a later stage (Li et al., 2013; Narboux-Nême et al., 2012). In this context, our present notion can be regarded as a process in (2) area-specific maturation: VGF released from TCA terminals controls the number of cortical neurons which is indispensable for the interaction between thalamic and layer 4 neurons. Since TCA terminals are sorted in a barrel-like manner in Vgf-KO S1 (Figure 6B), it is likely that the rearrangement or displacement of layer 4 neurons in response to TCAs, the second step of barrel formation (López-Bendito and Molnár, 2003), requires VGF.

Afferent-derived proteins play important roles in neural development. For example, ephrin A5 and Wnt3 from TCAs regulate differentiation of cortical neurons as mentioned above (Gerstmann et al., 2015; Kraushar et al., 2015). In other nervous systems, afferent-derived proteins regulate neurogenesis and synapse formation in their target region (Huang and Kunes, 1998; Sanes and Lichtman, 2001). In this study, we demonstrated that TCA-derived secretory protein VGF is necessary to maintain a sufficiently high neuronal number in cortical layer 4. VGF is widely expressed in the sensory thalamic nuclei, including the VB, dLGN, and MG (Sato et al., 2012), suggesting that this cue is commonly used for higher-order differentiation of sensory cortices. In fact, the number of layer 4 neurons in V1, which is a target of dLGN, was reduced in Vgf-KO mice (Figure 7B and C). Although disruption of NRN1, another TCA-derived secretory protein, did not affect the number of layer 4 neurons, it may play roles in other aspects of layer formation, for example, dendritic growth of spiny stellate neurons, as previously shown in vitro (Sato et al., 2012).

Our finding that a TCA-derived factor contributes to areal differentiation of the cerebral cortex may provide an insight into the generation of diversity in the areal pattern across mammalian species. In general, there is a strong correlation between dependence on particular sensory modality adopted for living environments and the proportional development of the corresponding areas (Krubitzer, 2007). In fact, experimental manipulation of the size of thalamic nuclei resulted in appropriate alteration of the areal pattern (Chou et al., 2013; Vue et al., 2013). Moreover, thalamic calcium wave plays critical roles in coordinating areal size prior to sensory processing (Moreno-Juan et al., 2017). Thus, mammals seem to have acquired coordinated evolution of thalamic sensory modality components and cortical areal characteristics to support their ecological diversity, resulting in the present prosperity worldwide. In this regard, it would be intriguing to explore the roles of the thalamus-derived factors, such as VGF or NRN1, along with the calcium wave mentioned above, in cortical area diversity among mammalian species. It is worth noting that both NRN1 and VGF are induced by neuronal activities in various brain regions including the cortex, thalamus, and hippocampus in later developmental stages and in adults (Corriveau et al., 1999; Harwell et al., 2005; Snyder et al., 1997). Although it is not known how these factors are induced in the thalamus during area formation, it could be a potential link between evolution of a peripheral sensory system and its corresponding cortical area.

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files; Source data files have been provided for Figures 1-7 and Figure 1-figure supplement 1, Figure 2-figure supplement 1, 2, Figure 5-figure supplment 2, Figure 7-figure supplement 1, 2.

1. 1. Antón-Bolaños N
   2. Sempere-Ferràndez A
   3. Guillamón-Vivancos T
   4. Martini FJ
   5. Pérez-Saiz L
   6. Gezelius H
   7. Filipchuk A
   8. Valdeolmillos M
   9. López-Bendito G

   (2019) Prenatal activity from thalamic neurons governs the emergence of functional cortical maps in mice

   Science (New York, N.Y.) 364:987–990.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7617

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Arakawa H
   2. Suzuki A
   3. Zhao S
   4. Tsytsarev V
   5. Lo FS
   6. Hayashi Y
   7. Itohara S
   8. Iwasato T
   9. Erzurumlu RS

   (2014) Thalamic NMDA Receptor Function Is Necessary for Patterning of the Thalamocortical Somatosensory Map and for Sensorimotor Behaviors

   The Journal of Neuroscience 34:12001–12014.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1663-14.2014

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Armentano M
   2. Chou S-J
   3. Tomassy GS
   4. Leingärtner A
   5. O’Leary DDM
   6. Studer M

   (2007) COUP-TFI regulates the balance of cortical patterning between frontal/motor and sensory areas

   Nature Neuroscience 10:1277–1286.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1958

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bishop KM
   2. Goudreau G
   3. O’Leary DD

   (2000) Regulation of area identity in the mammalian neocortex by Emx2 and Pax6

   Science (New York, N.Y.) 288:344–349.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.288.5464.344

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. Book

   1. Brodmann K

   (2006)

   Brodmann’s Localisation in the Cerebral Cortex

   Boston, MA: Springer.

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Bruining H
   2. Matsui A
   3. Oguro-Ando A
   4. Kahn RS
   5. Van’t Spijker HM
   6. Akkermans G
   7. Stiedl O
   8. van Engeland H
   9. Koopmans B
   10. van Lith HA
   11. Oppelaar H
   12. Tieland L
   13. Nonkes LJ
   14. Yagi T
   15. Kaneko R
   16. Burbach JPH
   17. Yamamoto N
   18. Kas MJ

   (2015) Genetic mapping in mice reveals the involvement of Pcdh9 in long-term social and object recognition and sensorimotor development

   Biological Psychiatry 78:485–495.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.01.017

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Buch T
   2. Heppner FL
   3. Tertilt C
   4. Heinen TJAJ
   5. Kremer M
   6. Wunderlich FT
   7. Jung S
   8. Waisman A

   (2005) A Cre-inducible diphtheria toxin receptor mediates cell lineage ablation after toxin administration

   Nature Methods 2:419–426.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth762

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Cadwell CR
   2. Bhaduri A
   3. Mostajo-Radji MA
   4. Keefe MG
   5. Nowakowski TJ

   (2019) Development and Arealization of the cerebral cortex

   Neuron 103:980–1004.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.07.009

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Chou S-J
   2. Babot Z
   3. Leingärtner A
   4. Studer M
   5. Nakagawa Y
   6. O’Leary DDM

   (2013) Geniculocortical Input Drives Genetic Distinctions Between Primary and Higher-Order Visual Areas

   Science (New York, N.Y.) 340:1239–1242.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1232806

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Corriveau RA
    2. Shatz CJ
    3. Nedivi E

    (1999)

    Dynamic regulation of cpg15 during activity-dependent synaptic development in the mammalian visual system

    The Journal of Neuroscience 19:7999–8008.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Dehay C
    2. Savatier P
    3. Cortay V
    4. Kennedy H

    (2001) Cell-cycle kinetics of neocortical precursors are influenced by embryonic thalamic axons

    The Journal of Neuroscience 21:201–214.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-01-00201.2001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Ferrer I
    2. Soriano E
    3. del Rio JA
    4. Alcántara S
    5. Auladell C

    (1992) Cell Death and Removal in the Cerebral Cortex During Development

    Progress in Neurobiology 39:1–43.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0082(92)90029-e

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Fukuchi-Shimogori T
    2. Grove EA

    (2001) Neocortex Pattering by the Secreted Signaling Molecule FGF8

    Science (New York, N.Y.) 294:1071–1074.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1064252

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Gaspar P
    2. Renier N

    (2018) Constraints on somatosensory map development: mutants lead the way

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 53:43–49.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2018.04.028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Gerstmann K
    2. Pensold D
    3. Symmank J
    4. Khundadze M
    5. Hübner CA
    6. Bolz J
    7. Zimmer G

    (2015) Thalamic afferents influence cortical progenitors via ephrin A5-EphA4 interactions

    Development (Cambridge, England) 142:140–150.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.104927

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Gohlke JM
    2. Griffith WC
    3. Faustman EM

    (2004) The role of cell death during neocortical neurogenesis and synaptogenesis: Implications from a computational model for the rat and mouse

    Brain Research. Developmental Brain Research 151:43–54.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devbrainres.2004.03.020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Hahm S
    2. Mizuno TM
    3. Wu TJ
    4. Wisor JP
    5. Priest CA
    6. Kozak CA
    7. Boozer CN
    8. Peng B
    9. McEvoy RC
    10. Good P
    11. Kelley KA
    12. Takahashi JS
    13. Pintar JE
    14. Roberts JL
    15. Mobbs CV
    16. Salton SR

    (1999) Targeted deletion of the Vgf gene indicates that the encoded secretory peptide precursor plays a novel role in the regulation of energy balance

    Neuron 23:537–548.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80806-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Harms DW
    2. Quadros RM
    3. Seruggia D
    4. Ohtsuka M
    5. Takahashi G
    6. Montoliu L
    7. Gurumurthy CB

    (2014) Mouse genome editing using the CRISPR/Cas system

    Current Protocols in Human Genetics 83:15.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/0471142905.hg1507s83

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Harwell C
    2. Burbach B
    3. Svoboda K
    4. Nedivi E

    (2005) Regulation of cpg15 expression during single whisker experience in the barrel cortex of adult mice

    Journal of Neurobiology 65:85–96.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/neu.20176

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Huang Z
    2. Kunes S

    (1998) Signals transmitted along retinal axons in Drosophila: Hedgehog signal reception and the cell circuitry of lamina cartridge assembly

    Development 125:3753–3764.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.125.19.3753

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Katz LC
    2. Crowley JC

    (2002) Development of cortical circuits: Lessons from ocular dominance columns

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 3:34–42.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn703

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Kawasaki H

    (2015) Spatio-temporal regulation of the formation of the somatosensory system

    Development, Growth & Differentiation 57:193–199.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/dgd.12208

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Kraushar ML
    2. Viljetic B
    3. Wijeratne HRS
    4. Thompson K
    5. Jiao X
    6. Pike JW
    7. Medvedeva V
    8. Groszer M
    9. Kiledjian M
    10. Hart RP
    11. Rasin M-R

    (2015) Thalamic WNT3 Secretion Spatiotemporally Regulates the Neocortical Ribosome Signature and mRNA Translation to Specify Neocortical Cell Subtypes

    The Journal of Neuroscience 35:10911–10926.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0601-15.2015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Krubitzer L

    (2007) The magnificent compromise: cortical field evolution in mammals

    Neuron 56:201–208.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.10.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Kwan KY
    2. Sestan N
    3. Anton ES

    (2012) Transcriptional co-regulation of neuronal migration and laminar identity in the neocortex

    Development (Cambridge, England) 139:1535–1546.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.069963

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Li H
    2. Fertuzinhos S
    3. Mohns E
    4. Hnasko TS
    5. Verhage M
    6. Edwards R
    7. Sestan N
    8. Crair MC

    (2013) Laminar and Columnar Development of Barrel Cortex Relies on Thalamocortical Neurotransmission

    Neuron 79:970–986.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.06.043

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. López-Bendito G
    2. Molnár Z

    (2003) Thalamocortical development: how are we going to get there

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 4:276–289.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1075

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Martini FJ
    2. Moreno-Juan V
    3. Filipchuk A
    4. Valdeolmillos M
    5. López-Bendito G

    (2018) Impact of thalamocortical input on barrel cortex development

    Neuroscience 368:246–255.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.04.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Matsui A
    2. Yoshida AC
    3. Kubota M
    4. Ogawa M
    5. Shimogori T

    (2011) Electroporation: Controlled Spatiotemporal Gene Transfection

    Journal of Visualized Experiments 15:3024.

    https://doi.org/10.3791/3024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Matsui A
    2. Tran M
    3. Yoshida AC
    4. Kikuchi SS
    5. U M
    6. Ogawa M
    7. Shimogori T

    (2013) BTBD3 controls dendrite orientation toward active axons in mammalian neocortex

    Science (New York, N.Y.) 342:1114–1118.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244505

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Mezzera C
    2. López-Bendito G

    (2016) Cross-modal plasticity in sensory deprived animal models: From the thalamocortical development point of view

    Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75:32–40.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchemneu.2015.09.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Miyashita-Lin EM
    2. Hevner R
    3. Wassarman KM
    4. Martinez S
    5. Rubenstein JLR

    (1999) Early neocortical regionalization in the absence of thalamic innervation

    Science (New York, N.Y.) 285:906–909.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.285.5429.906

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Mizuno H
    2. Luo W
    3. Tarusawa E
    4. Saito YM
    5. Sato T
    6. Yoshimura Y
    7. Itohara S
    8. Iwasato T

    (2014) NMDAR-regulated dynamics of layer 4 neuronal dendrites during thalamocortical reorganization in neonates

    Neuron 82:365–379.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.02.026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Moreno-Juan V
    2. Filipchuk A
    3. Antón-Bolaños N
    4. Mezzera C
    5. Gezelius H
    6. Andrés B
    7. Rodríguez-Malmierca L
    8. Susín R
    9. Schaad O
    10. Iwasato T
    11. Schüle R
    12. Rutlin M
    13. Nelson S
    14. Ducret S
    15. Valdeolmillos M
    16. Rijli FM
    17. López-Bendito G

    (2017) Prenatal thalamic waves regulate cortical area size prior to sensory processing

    Nature Communications 8:14172.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14172

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Narboux-Nême N
    2. Evrard A
    3. Ferezou I
    4. Erzurumlu RS
    5. Kaeser PS
    6. Lainé J
    7. Rossier J
    8. Ropert N
    9. Südhof TC
    10. Gaspar P

    (2012) Neurotransmitter Release at the Thalamocortical Synapse Instructs Barrel Formation But Not Axon Patterning in the Somatosensory Cortex

    The Journal of Neuroscience 32:6183–6196.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0343-12.2012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Nishiyama C
    2. Uesaka T
    3. Manabe T
    4. Yonekura Y
    5. Nagasawa T
    6. Newgreen DF
    7. Young HM
    8. Enomoto H

    (2012) Trans-mesenteric neural crest cells are the principal source of the colonic enteric nervous system

    Nature Neuroscience 15:1211–1218.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3184

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Oishi K
    2. Nakagawa N
    3. Tachikawa K
    4. Sasaki S
    5. Aramaki M
    6. Hirano S
    7. Yamamoto N
    8. Yoshimura Y
    9. Nakajima K

    (2016) Identity of neocortical layer 4 neurons is specified through correct positioning into the cortex

    eLife 5:e10907.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10907

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. O’Leary D D

    (1989) Do cortical areas emerge from a protocortex

    Trends in Neurosciences 12:400–406.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-2236(89)90080-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. O’Leary DD
    2. Sahara S

    (2008) Genetic regulation of arealization of the neocortex

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 18:90–100.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2008.05.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Penn AA
    2. Shatz CJ

    (1999) Brain Waves and Brain Wiring: The Role of Endogenous and Sensory-Driven Neural Activity in Development

    Pediatric Research 45:447–458.

    https://doi.org/10.1203/00006450-199904010-00001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Pouchelon G
    2. Gambino F
    3. Bellone C
    4. Telley L
    5. Vitali I
    6. Lüscher C
    7. Holtmaat A
    8. Jabaudon D

    (2014) Modality-specific thalamocortical inputs instruct the identity of postsynaptic L4 neurons

    Nature 511:471–474.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13390

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Rakic P
    2. Ayoub AE
    3. Breunig JJ
    4. Dominguez MH

    (2009) Decision by division: making cortical maps

    Trends in Neurosciences 32:291–301.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2009.01.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Reavis EA
    2. Lee J
    3. Wynn JK
    4. Engel SA
    5. Jimenez AM
    6. Green MF

    (2017) Cortical Thickness of Functionally Defined Visual Areas in Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder

    Cerebral Cortex (New York, N.Y) 27:2984–2993.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw151

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Saito T
    2. Nakatsuji N

    (2001) Efficient gene transfer into the embryonic mouse brain using in vivo electroporation

    Developmental Biology 240:237–246.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/dbio.2001.0439

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Sanes JR
    2. Lichtman JW

    (2001) Induction, assembly, maturation and maintenance of a postsynaptic apparatus

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 2:791–805.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/35097557

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Sato H
    2. Fukutani Y
    3. Yamamoto Y
    4. Tatara E
    5. Takemoto M
    6. Shimamura K
    7. Yamamoto N

    (2012) Thalamus-Derived Molecules Promote Survival and Dendritic Growth of Developing Cortical Neurons

    The Journal of Neuroscience 32:15388–15402.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0293-12.2012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Selten M
    2. van Bokhoven H
    3. Nadif Kasri N

    (2018) Inhibitory control of the excitatory/inhibitory balance in psychiatric disorders

    F1000Research 7:23.

    https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12155.1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Snyder SE
    2. Cheng HW
    3. Murray KD
    4. Isackson PJ
    5. McNeill TH
    6. Salton SRJ

    (1997) The messenger RNA encoding VGF, a neuronal peptide precursor, is rapidly regulated in the rat central nervous system by neuronal activity, seizure and lesion

    Neuroscience 82:7–19.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4522(97)00280-7

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Spreafico R
    2. Frassoni C
    3. Arcelli P
    4. Selvaggio M
    5. De Biasi S

    (1995) In situ labeling of apoptotic cell death in the cerebral cortex and thalamus of rats during development

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 363:281–295.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.903630209

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Srinivas S
    2. Watanabe T
    3. Lin CS
    4. William CM
    5. Tanabe Y
    6. Jessell TM
    7. Costantini F

    (2001) Cre reporter strains produced by targeted insertion of EYFP and ECFP into the ROSA26 locus

    BMC Developmental Biology 1:4.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-213X-1-4

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Sur M
    2. Rubenstein JLR

    (2005) Patterning and plasticity of the cerebral cortex

    Science (New York, N.Y.) 310:805–810.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1112070

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Tabata H
    2. Nakajima K

    (2001) Efficient in utero gene transfer system to the developing mouse brain using electroporation: Visualization of neuronal migration in the developing cortex

    Neuroscience 103:865–872.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-4522(01)00016-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Takeo T
    2. Nakagata N

    (2015) Superovulation using the combined administration of Inhibin antiserum and equine chorionic gonadotropin increases the number of ovulated oocytes in C57BL/6 female mice

    PLOS ONE 10:e0128330.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128330

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Thomaidou D
    2. Mione MC
    3. Cavanagh JF
    4. Parnavelas JG

    (1997) Apoptosis and its relation to the cell cycle in the developing cerebral cortex

    The Journal of Neuroscience 17:1075–1085.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.17-03-01075.1997

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Verney C
    2. Takahashi T
    3. Bhide PG
    4. Nowakowski RS
    5. Caviness VS

    (2000) Independent controls for neocortical neuron production and histogenetic cell death

    Developmental Neuroscience 22:125–138.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000017434

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Vue TY
    2. Lee M
    3. Tan YE
    4. Werkhoven Z
    5. Wang L
    6. Nakagawa Y

    (2013) Thalamic Control of Neocortical Area Formation in Mice

    The Journal of Neuroscience 33:8442–8453.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5786-12.2013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Windrem MS
    2. Finlay BL

    (1991) Thalamic ablations and neocortical development: Alterations of cortical cytoarchitecture and cell number

    Cerebral Cortex (New York, N.Y) 1:230–240.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/1.3.230

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Wong FK
    2. Bercsenyi K
    3. Sreenivasan V
    4. Portalés A
    5. Fernández-Otero M
    6. Marín O

    (2018) Pyramidal cell regulation of interneuron survival sculpts cortical networks

    Nature 557:668–673.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0139-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Zhao H
    2. Maruyama T
    3. Hattori Y
    4. Sugo N
    5. Takamatsu H
    6. Kumanogoh A
    7. Shirasaki R
    8. Yamamoto N

    (2011) A molecular mechanism that regulates medially oriented axonal growth of upper layer neurons in the developing neocortex

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 519:834–848.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.22536

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Zhong Y
    2. Takemoto M
    3. Fukuda T
    4. Hattori Y
    5. Murakami F
    6. Nakajima D
    7. Nakayama M
    8. Yamamoto N

    (2004) Identification of the genes that are expressed in the upper layers of the neocortex

    Cerebral Cortex (New York, N.Y) 14:1144–1152.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhh074

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Zhou L
    2. Gall D
    3. Qu Y
    4. Prigogine C
    5. Cheron G
    6. Tissir F
    7. Schiffmann SN
    8. Goffinet AM

    (2010) Maturation of “neocortex isole” in vivo in mice

    The Journal of Neuroscience 30:7928–7939.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6005-09.2010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Decision letter after peer review:

[Editors’ note: the authors submitted for reconsideration following the decision after peer review. What follows is the decision letter after the first round of review.]

Thank you for submitting your work entitled "Thalamocortical axons control the cytoarchitecture of neocortical layers by area–specific supply of secretory proteins" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Reviewing Editor and a Senior Editor. The following individual involved in review of your submission has agreed to reveal their identity: Zoltan Molnar (Reviewer #3).

We are sorry to say that, after consultation with the reviewers, we have decided that your work will not be considered further for publication by eLife.

Your study on the role of factors secreted by thalamocortical axons during the establishment of cortical layers of the murine neocortex was viewed with great interest to the editors and reviewers, and is a welcome segue from your previous work that Vgf and Nrn1 deriving from thalamocortical neurons contribute specifically to layer 4 neuron development in vitro. By postnatally ablating thalamocortical projections and studying a Vgf knockout, you further investigate the role of these projections in layer 4 establishment and bring some light to the in vivo role of VGF. As you can see from the Public Reviews, the reviewers found your study to be relevant and important to the question of the role factors derived from the thalamic afferents themselves, after intrinsic factors are at play, in cortical layer development. Nonetheless, they have numerous suggestions in the Recommendations for authors, also below, for amendments and further analyses, especially on the quantification, factor expression, assessment of cell death, and other areal and layer impairments in your in vivo genetic and experimental analyses.

Please note that we aim to publish articles with a single round of revision that under normal circumstances can be accomplished within two months. This means that work that has potential, but in our judgment would need extensive additional work, will not be considered for in–depth review. We do not intend any criticism of the quality of the data or the rigor of the science. We wish you good luck with your work and we hope you will consider eLife for future submissions.

Reviewer #1:

Sato et al. investigated the role of the thalamus–derived factor, VGF, as extrinsic cue that controls layer 4 development in the cortex. They show that this process is necessary for further maturation of the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) and the barrel field formation. To explore the role of thalamocortical axon (TCA) projections in cortical layer formation, the authors developed a mouse model with TCA ablation from the ventrobasal (VB) thalamic nucleus by the administration of diphtheria toxin (DT) from P0. They induced a decrease in the VB nucleus size and the TCAs terminals were also diminished in layer 4 of S1. Sato et al. demonstrated that the number of layer 4 cells in S1 is reduced in TCA–ablated model and to verify that these TCA ablation from the VB was indeed responsible for this laminar phenotype, they used a different approach to specifically ablate only the VB neurons. By performing a technically impressive in utero electroporation at e11.5 in the thalamus with a diphtheria toxin receptor (DTR) expression plasmid and then administered DT at P0, they mimicked the laminar phenotype in the cortex and the results were similar to the TCA–ablated mice. Moreover, they showed that, apparently, the rest of the cortical layers remain intact. Interestingly, the authors demonstrated that VGF and NRN1 as TCA–derived factors play an important role to maintain the layer 4 neuronal number during cortical development by restoring these cell number after the overexpression of these factors in TCA–ablated model in vivo. To further address this question, they induced a genetic inactivation of Vgf by using CRISPR/Cas9–mediated gene editing, and they proved that VGF is necessary for the maintenance of layer 4 neurons number.

The manuscript shows potentially interesting findings but there are some open questions and experiments that should be done to better support the conclusions of the paper. Moreover, some aspects of image acquisition and data analysis need to be clarified.

1) The figures need to be reorganized to achieve a better flow of the manuscript. For example, Figure 1 does not contribute to the story, and it would make more sense to transfer it to supplementary figures. Moreover, the Figure 5—figure supplement 1 could be a principal figure to show the absence of VGF in thalamus and cortex of TCA–ablated mice because this leads to wonder about the role of this gene and justify the following experiments of overexpression and knock–down.

2) In Figure 2—figure supplement 1 the authors show lipophilic dyes tracings assuming that they only labeled TCAs and thalamic neurons retrogradely. However, this is a conceptual mistake because these tracers label indistinctly, retrogradely and anterogradely. They inject the dyes at P7 when corticothalamic axons have already innervated the thalamus and thus presumably, the labelling shown in PO is, at least in part, from S1 layer 5. It would be better to use a L4 specific virus to trace only retrogradely projections. Moreover, they state that the number of labeled cells were similar in TCA–ablation and control mice, however, there is a need to increase the n to support this statement as there is a strong variability in this technique due to the change in labelling related the change in the size of the dyes.

3) There are some affirmations in the manuscript that would need a quantification for support. For example, when the authors state that dLGN was not reduced in TCA–ablated mice would need a quantification. The same in Figure 2A where it is stated that 5HTT–Cre is expressed in dLGN, and in Figure 2D, where the authors show a reduction in the size of the nucleus. Therefore, dLGN size quantifications should be done and it would be interesting to show a slice of 5HTT–Cre;R26–YEFP in V1 layer 4 showing 5HTT–Cre expression at P0–P7.

4) The results for cell death are not convincing, the authors should improve the detection method, for example, they could use caspase 3 in postnatal brains. In Figure 3—figure supplement 1 they only show quantifications in layer 2/3 and layer 4 where there is an increased tendency for cell death, but again the n is too small for some conditions. Additionally, in Figure 3—figure supplement 1C a quantification should be provided for cell death in layer 6. It is very likely that this cell death is due to the expression of Cre recombinase in layer 6 in the TCA–ablated mice. Thus, the results for cell death are not clear enough and some experiments should be repeated and /or conclusions clarify.

5) The authors sometimes underestimate the interpretation of the results. For example, in Figure 4 Tbr1 positive cells (layer 6) are reduced in TCA–ablated mice, and thus indicate that layer 6 is also affected in this mouse. Therefore, this model might not be the best one to investigate how extrinsic cues mechanisms regulate layer 4 development.

6) It would be interesting to explore the neural activity of layer 4 in the somatosensory cortex of Vgf–KO and TCA–ablated mice. Behavioral experiments with environmental enrichment and c–fos immunostaining would demonstrate the laminar functionality of the cortex under these different conditions.

Reviewer #2:

Sato H. and colleagues here investigate the role of extrinsic factors in the development of the murine neocortex. It was previously shown by these authors that thalamocortical neurons, through the expression of Vgf and Nrn1 among others, contribute specifically to layer 4 neurons development in vitro. In the current study, by postnatally ablating thalamocortical projections and studying a Vgf knockout, they further investigate the role of these projections in layer 4 establishment and bring some light to the in vivo role of VGF.

Although this is an interesting study, the novelty is relatively limited as it incrementally builds on previous work from this laboratory as well as previous work from several laboratories directly addressing the effects of ablation of specific thalamic nuclei on cortical neuron identity. In order to increase interest and relevance, several key experiments should be performed.

– It is interesting to see that RORC staining emerges in a rostrocaudal manner from P0 to P7. With the current data, the authors could perhaps assess whether this emergence also occurs in a mediolateral manner. This would help to better describe the emergence of the layer 4 across cortical areas. Moreover, to confirm the statement of layer 4 being thicker in S1, a quantification or a reference to quantification of layer 4 across cortical areas would be required.

– Some of the quantifications and experiments present only 2 cases. The authors should consider at least to increase the number of cases to 3. In addition, considering the number of cases in most of the experiments, the use of parametric statistical analyses is incorrect (not possible to assess dataset normality with less than 30 data points). The authors should switch to non–parametric statistical analyses.

– The use of a Cre–dependent DT strategy to ablate thalamic neurons is interesting to study the role of their projections postnatally. However, it seems important to better analyze the dynamics of their death after DT administration. The authors should try to assess, both thalamic and cortical, cell death from 24h post DT administration up to their analysis time point (P7). It is important to understand the dynamics of cell death in both regions to try to establish a clearer correlation. This could by assessed by performing Caspase3 immunolabelling at P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, and P7 after P0 DT injection both in the thalamus and the cortex. In Figure 5C, it is unclear why there is no Dd–red signal in the control and DTA conditions.

– The authors should consider further describing the impact of this strategy on deep–layer neurons (YFP+ in Figure2A). As they are Cre+ during their developmental time course, DT is most likely going to target them (which could explain the reduced thickness of deep layers when compared to controls). This could be added as supplemental information, but it is important to evaluate the ground state of the neocortex to evaluate the real impact of TCAs.

– For the panels containing thalamic nuclei, it would help to have white dotted lines (as in Figure 2D) around them in all the panels. As an example, it is difficult to determine the MG position in DiA images (Figure 2—figure supplement 1).

– Throughout the paper, the fluctuation of layer 4 number of neurons throughout conditions is assessed by the expression of RORC (example: Figure 3C). In addition, to investigate possible layer 4 fate changes, the authors quantify L2/3 or L5/6 number of cells (with known markers). In order to improve the analysis of layer 4 neurons, instead of using postnatal markers, it would perhaps be interesting to electroporate at E14 to have permanent labelling of this cell population. On the one hand, it would help at first to assess if these specific cells are dying, and on the other, it would better allow the analysis of possible fate changes. This methodology would be complementary to the actual Cre–DTR system, making it optimal for this type of analysis. Another possibility would be to inject birth dating markers embryonically, such as CFSE.

– Regarding Nrn1 and Vgf rescue experiments, it is interesting to see that the absence of TCAs promotes their absence in layer 4. It would be interesting to add whether the over–expression of Nrn1 and Vgf, alone, can maintain "normal" levels of RorC+ cells in layer 4. Moreover, besides analyzing the presence of DsRed (Figure 5C) in double electroporations, it would be interesting to see the presence of the proteins themselves (either by ISH or immunolabelling) as a positive control for the experiment.

– Additionally, it would be interesting to visualize the expression of Vgf and Nrn1 receptors expression by layer 4 cells and their expression dynamics. Is it constantly expressed or there is a critical period for their expression? Can the authors rescue L4 neurons by overexpressing Vgf in L2/3 neurons? This would demonstrate a non–cell–autonomous effect onto L4 neurons.

– In Vgf–/– mutants, there is an increase of Brn2+ and Ctip2+ cells, which could correspond to a fate change of layer 4 cells in absence of Vgf. It would be interesting to electroporate Gfp at E14 to label layer 4 cells and analyze the expression of these markers at P7.

– For Nrn1–/– analysis of layer 4 cell number, there should be a quantification. It is hard to tell from the images alone if there is a difference or not.

Reviewer #3:

The first extrinsic influences that shape the cortical neuroepithelium are secretory factors, emanating from signaling centers adjacent to the telencephalic vesicles. These centers set up the gross areal pattern of the neocortex without any extrinsic signals. While it is clear that there are intrinsic gradients from the beginning of cortical neurogenesis, there are also extrinsic cues that contribute to the differences. The best candidate to deliver the area–specific cues to the cortex is via area–specific thalamocortical projections. These arrive to the cortex very early, at the peak of the cortical neurogenesis and neuronal migration. The impact of thalamic lesions on cortical lamination was demonstrated by Windrem and Finlay, 1991. Moreover, the influence of ephrin A5 on cortical progenitor cells and the effect of secreted Wnt3 on neuronal differentiation has been previously described.

The Sato et al., paper studies two thalamus–derived factors that might mediate some of the area–specific differences to the cortex. The authors used the results of their previous screens to identify secreted molecules that are not produced in the cortex, but delivered to the cortex through the thalamocortical projections. The authors screened for thalamus–specific genes by comparing expression profiles of the thalamus and the cortex (Sato et al., 2012). These screens identified neuritin 1 (NRN1) and VGF nerve growth factor inducible (Vgf) transported to the cortex through TCAs. This study demonstrates that VGF maintains the proper amount of layer 4 neurons in S1.

The study is reported in a logical sequence. First the authors established that birthdates of all cortical layers in various cortical areas are all prenatal. Since all neurons were generated before birth, no NeuN positive birthdated cells were found after postnatal EdU injection and therefore it is unlikely that layer 4 neurons are additively generated in S1. The study also analysed the emergence of RORβ (RAR–related orphan receptor β) expression in the postnatal primary somatosensory cortex.

Then, they performed toxin–mediated ventrobasal complex ablation in vivo. Cre expression was the highest in VB among the thalamic nuclei in 5HTT–Cre mice, therefore the lesion was the greatest there. This reduced the thalamocortical axons that project to primary somatosensory cortex. The ablation triggered accumulation of Iba1–immunoreactive microglial cells in VB. This indicated that these are the regions with dead cells, in the thalamus. After this ablation VB was reduced at P5, and RORα–expressing thalamic neurons were decreased.

The authors examined the possibility that other thalamic neurons project to the S1, but detailed tracing from S1 did not produce backlabeling pattern in the thalamus that would indicate TCA ingrowth from the dLGN or MG to S1. No such re–wiring was observed in the PO VB TCA–ablated mice.

The number of RORβ–expressing cortical cells was decreased to 67% as compared with control cortex. Moreover, the absolute number of layer 4 neurons also decreased in the TCA–ablated S1. This argued against the possibilities of altered RORβ expression or fate change of the layer 4–destined cells to those of other layers. The authors suggested cell death as a possible mechanism for getting these differences. However, all the conventional cell death detection methods (ssDNA, cleaved caspase 3, Iba1, mRNA of Bax, Bad, and Bak, and DAPI), they could not obtain convincing evidence for significant cell death induction in layer 4 upon TCA ablation.

The toxin–mediated ventrobasal complex ablation in vivo is based on cre expression. Since Cre expression was the highest in VB among the thalamic nuclei in 5HTT–Cre mice, this was the region for the greatest damage. Nevertheless, there was additional cre expression in layer 6 and also in the raphe nucleus the authors designed experiments to exclude that the layer 4 reduction in 5HTT–Cre; R26–DTR mice is due to ablation of these brain parts rather than the VB in the thalamus. The authors used DTR expression plasmid that was electroporated into the embryonic dorsal thalamus in utero at E11.5, when VB neurons are generated. The authors demonstrated that the effect was S1 specific. The cortical areas with dLGN and MGN innervation were not affected. Layers 2/3 (revealed with Brn2), layer 5 (revealed with Ctip2) and layer 6 (revealed with Tbr1) appear intact upon TCA elimination suggesting that the effect was specific for layer 4. The number of layer 4 neurons is restored by forced expression of NRN1 and VGF in the cortex of TCA–ablated mice NRN1 and VGF was lost in the thalamic nuclei and their axon terminals in layer 4 of S1 in TCA–ablated mice

The next group of experiments demonstrated that genetic inactivation of Vgf in thalamocortical projection neurons results in a reduction in layer 4 neurons in S1 cortex and that NRN1 is dispensable in this process. The authors used three single–guide RNAs (sgRNAs) cutting exons of Nrn1 and Vgf to induce frame shifts resulting in failure of protein translation of both NRN1 and VGF. They electroporated the sgRNAs and Cas9 protein into fertilized eggs, mutations were induced in the genomic sequences of Nrn1 and Vgf allele near designed sgRNAs. The loss of TCA–derived VGF from the cortex resulted in the significant reduction of RORβ immunoreactive layer 4 cells in S1 and in V1. These observations suggest that the regulation of the neuronal number of layer 4 by TCAs via VGF is a common mechanism operating widely in sensory areas.

VGF released from TCA terminals sets the exact numbers of cortical layer 4 neurons. Then, the activity dependent sorting of thalamocortical afferents will impose the cytoarchitectonic changes that will form the cytoarchitectonic barrels. This interaction between thalamic and layer 4 neurons to form the cytoarchitectonic barrel formation in S1 was significantly impaired in Vgf–KO mice despite the presence of TCAs. The paper convincingly demonstrates that thalamocortical axons play instructive roles in the regulation of layer 4 cell numbers and the specification of area properties of somatosensory and visual cortices.

I consider this study a very important and significant step in our field. This is a direct demonstration of the instructive role of the thalamocortical projections. The major conclusions of the study will have to be supported by additional experiments (cell death – fate change distinction).

Overall, this is an excellent study with important findings.

1. While the authors clearly observed that layer 4 exhibited marked reduction in the number of neurons specifically within the primary somatosensory cortex and they reported no change in the number of layers 2–3, 5 or 6 neurons, I would be still interested in the neuron numbers in the entire depth of the cortex in an arbitrary unit column. "The number of RORβ–expressing cortical cells was decreased to 67% as compared with control cortex. Moreover, the absolute number of layer 4 neurons also decreased in the TCA–ablated S1." This argued against the possibilities of altered RORβ expression or fate change of the layer 4–destined cells to those of another layer. Is the reduction being just because the effect to layer 4?

2. While the study is commenting on the changes within S1, it does not comment on the possibility that the size of S1 changed. It would be good to show the areal extension of the S1 barrel field on flatmounts and compare the representation of the S1 and V1 after all these manipulations. However, it is not essential for the basic conclusions of the study.

3. Formation of the barrels requires two stages. The periphery related sorting of the thalamocortical afferents (revealed with stains for thalamocortical afferents 5HTT or DiI or CO staining) and then, the activity dependent sorting of thalamocortical afferents will impose the cytoarchitectonic changes that will form the cytoarchitectonic barrels (revealed with DAPI, Nissl or NeuN staining) (see Lopez–Bendito and Molnar, 2003). It would be good to clarify which mechanism is affected.

4. The authors suggested cell death in layer 4 as a possible mechanisms for getting these differences. However, all the conventional cell death detection methods (ssDNA, cleaved caspase 3, Iba1, mRNA of Bax, Bad, and Bak, and DAPI), they could not obtain convincing evidence for significant cell death induction in layer 4 upon TCA ablation. Was there any change in microglia distribution in layer 4 after the ablation of the VB thalamic neurons?

Even though the authors justify a possible technical difficulty in detecting dead cells in a dynamic developing system (which I completely agree with and understand), they don't provide a solid explanation for such a great decrease in cell number in layer 4. As the authors describe layer 4 neurons are already generated at the time of ablation, therefore they either die or change their fate. The cell fate change should be better investigated and discussed. Can the loss of 67% of neurons be completely due to cell death?

5. There are numerous studies that demonstrated that six layered cortex can develop relatively normally without thalamic connections (Miyashita–Lin et al., 1999 DOI: 10.1126/science.285.5429.906; Zhou et al., 2010, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6005–09.2010). Did any of these studies suggested reduced layer 4 cell numbers? Do the authors used more sensitive methods for their detection? These issues should be discussed in more detail.

6. The study described that after ablation at P0, VB was significantly reduced by P5. Parallel with this RORα–expressing thalamic neurons were also decreased. The traced from S1 and did not see any signs of TCA rewiring from the dLGN or MG to S1. Why do the authors think that Mezzera and López–Bendito, (2016) had different findings? Is is because of the methods, timing, tracing?

7. The results explain why layer 4 is thick in the somatosensory cortex. However, it is not known whether the same mechanism operates in the motor cortex where there is a very thin layer 4. The authors reduce the possibility of a cell death–based mechanism by examining the Bax and Casp3 mutant mice. In this lone the laminar configuration across the areas appeared to be normal.

Do the authors suggest that the thinner layer 4 in M1 is the result of a different neurogenetic program generating these proportions?

8. Do the authors suspect possible interaction with neurogenesis if the VB is ablated from early embryonic stages? I am not requesting this experiment, just some speculations in the discussion.

In fact, TCA ablation at earlier periods of development is expected to have a greater effect on neurogenesis, as the latter is at its peak and the neuronal output has yet to be imposed. This would be the ideal time window to observe the effect of a TCA–secreted molecule, so it would be interesting to further discuss this possibility.

9. TCAs innervation's influence on cortical neurogenesis has been extensively correlated with the upper layer formation. The time of TCA arrival in the cortex closely matches the peak of upper layer neurogenesis, further supporting this view. It is quite surprising that the authors do not observe any alteration of any nature in the upper layers' analysis (Brn2 immunohistochemistry). Is this expected, or in line with other studies?

[Editors’ note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

Thank you for resubmitting your work entitled "Thalamocortical axons control the cytoarchitecture of neocortical layers by area–specific supply of VGF" for further consideration by eLife. Your revised article has been evaluated by John Huguenard (Senior Editor) and a Reviewing Editor.

The manuscript has been improved, and Reviewers 1 and 2 applaud the very substantial work that you performed to improve the manuscript, with the clarifications and additional experiments you provide. Reviewer 4, who is new, calls it "a nice and important study". However, there are some remaining issues that need to be addressed, as outlined below:

Reviewer 1: In the last two comments, Reviewer 1 specifically asks for:

1. In Figure 2 figure supplement 3 E and G: this reviewer would like to see the same immunohistochemistry as performed in Figure 1 and 2 for 5HTT and Rorb expression. The labels are clearer ("labels" likely means "labeling".)

2. You state that the "the VB appeared intact in terms of shape, size, and cell density" (Figure 6B, 5 sections from 5 mice). Here quantification is requested to support this conclusion, given that there is a clear change in the shape of the VB nucleus.

Reviewer 4 asks a number of questions, the most interesting #2 and #5 regarding differences between primary sensory areas and motor cortex. These and the other comments can be addressed in the Discussion and also in your rebuttal letter, although the experiments that some of these points address would not be necessary to perform at this time.

Reviewer #1:

Overall, the authors have answered the main points of my previous review. However, some aspects of the imaging and data analysis could be further improved. The way of presenting the results is not well refined.

1) In Figure 1C, the VB nucleus shows the same size and shape in control and in the TCA–ablated model, and this is not consistent. I am still not fully convinced about the criteria for nuclei delimitation. It would have been convenient to use common markers for VB and dLGN as for example vGlut2.

2) In Figure 1 figure supplement 3B, the example image for the TCA–ablated is damaged in the nuclei in which the experiment is focused, therefore it should be replaced.

Lines 194–198: "DiI–labeled neurons that project to V1 were found in the dLGN and lateral posterior nucleus (LP) in both control and TCA–ablated mice (Figure 1—figure supplement 3A, B, 12 sections from 6 mice for each), and the ratios of retrogradely labeled cells with DiI in dLGN to those in LP were similar in the two groups." This is in my opinion an overstated statement based on the example that the authors show.

3) In Figure 2 figure supplement 3E and G, I would like to see the same immunohistochemistry as performed in Figure 1 and 2 for 5HTT and Rorb expression. The labels are clearer.

Lines 453–454: "Importantly, the thalamic structure was not affected: the VB appeared intact in terms of shape, size, and cell density (Figure 6B, 5 sections from 5 mice)." In my opinion, quantifications should be provided to support this conclusion. There is a clear change in the shape of the VB nucleus in the Vgf–/– example the authors provide.

Reviewer #3:

As I mentioned in the first round of reviewing, this is an important study linking the area-specific thalamocortical innervation to the differences in cytoarchitecture of the cortex. For me, this can be considered as one of the most important questions of developmental neurobiology - what are the mechanisms to shape the cortex for the area-specific cortical computational functions.

Overall, the authors answered most of the criticisms, or explained why they could not do it for all 3 reviewers.

Their response for all my specific points were to my satisfaction:

1. The authors considered my comment and performed a reasonable attempt to answer it. Response with the new data is fine.

2. The authors performed in situ hybridization of RORβ on flat-mount sections of control and TCA-ablated mice and presented it for the reviewer in Figure 4. This answers my question.

3. The authors observed that TCA terminals are segregated in a barrel-like fashion in VGF-KO S1 revealed by 5HTT staining (Figure 6B), but the cytoarchitectonic pattern formation in layer 4 neuron is affected. This answers my question.

4. Microglia distribution in layer 4 revealed by IbaI immunostaining was not changed in the TCA ablated specimens.

The authors also examined the expression of Brn2 and Ctip2 in addition to RORβ in EdU-labeled samples and showed that none of these cohorts among EdU-labeled cells was altered.

5. As requested the reduction of ROR expression is discussed in previous and the present study with TCA ablation.

6. The differences between Mezzera and López-Bendito, (2016) are discussed and it is speculated that the differences emerge because (i) only the output from thalamus were altered primarily in an acute manner and (ii) timing of cell death matters. I am content with the changes in discussion.

7. The response is reasonable and to my satisfaction.

8. The authors argue that VGF plays a role in maintenance of layer 4 cell number at postnatal stages, but not a neurogenic role at embryonic stages. This argument is reasonable in the light of the results.

9. The authors explain the less impact on upper cortical layer formation is due to the postnatal ablation of TCAs when upper layer neurogenesis is finished. This is reasonable.

Both of my minor technical comments were answered.

Overall, I find the study much improved and I am still very enthusiastic to see it published at eLife.

Reviewer #4 (Recommendations for the authors):

In the manuscript titled " Thalamocortical axons control the cytoarchitecture of neocortical layers by area–specific supply of VGF" by Sato et al., the authors investigated the reasons for the distinct laminar architecture among different cortical areas. They focused on layer 4, which is thicker in the primary sensory cortices but is thinner in the motor cortex. Previous studies had shown that TCAs play instructive roles to regulate area–specific properties in layer 4. In this study, the authors extended their previous study and used a variety of methods, including ablating VB neurons, performing in utero electroporation to overexpress genes in the cortex, and generating KO animals to demonstrate that TCAs secrete VGF to control the number of layer 4 neurons in the sensory cortices.

Overall, it is nicely organized with very interesting findings and the description of their findings was clear. The authors nicely demonstrated that TCA ablation leads to the reduction of layer 4 RORβ–positive cells. The most convincing results were from the Vgf KO mice: while the TCAs are still projecting to S1 and inducing the expression of Btbd3 (suggesting the presence of TCA activities), the layer 4 cell density is greatly reduced in the Vgf KO.

I have few suggestions:

1. In Figure 1—figure supplement 3, strong input from Po was found in the TCA ablated S1 ("in TCA–ablated mice, the retrogradely labeled VB was markedly reduced in size, but the Po was broadly and intensely labeled" (p9)). This agrees with the previous study (Pouchelon, 2014) showing that the genetic ablation of the VB at birth rewired Po projections to S1 layer 4 neurons and that respecified layer 4 neurons. This might be the reason for the reduction of Rorb expression and reduced cell density in layer 4 in the TCA ablated S1. I am wondering if the authors had considered this as one of the reasons for the phenotypes observed. Using additional S1–specific markers (such as MDGA1, as described in Takeuchi, 2007) might be able to clarify this point.

2. As in the introduction, the authors mentioned that the major differences in layer 4 neuron density are between sensory cortices and motor cortex. Did the authors electroporate VGF into layer 4 of the motor cortex or any other cortical areas (such as S2, next to S1) in control animals, or even in L5 or L2/3 in S1? I am wondering whether layer 4 neurons in sensory areas have area–specific responses to VGF (e.g. expression of the receptors).

3. The authors suggested the cell death could be a possible reason for the decrease of layer 4 neuronal number in TCA ablated S1, but it was difficult to show convincing data as it is not easy to detect dying cells. My suggestion is to compare the number of EdU+ cells (EdU injected at E14.3 to label layer 4 neurons), from P0 to P7. This way, one could detect whether layer 4 neuronal number is decreased after TCA ablation.

4. I am puzzled by the result presented in Figure 7—figure supplement–1H, where the authors showed among EdU+ cells in the Vgf mutants, while layer 4 Rorb+ cells are decreased, but others are not changed. They showed ~50% Rorb+, ~35% Brn2+ and ~2% Ctip2+ in wild type and ~30% Rorb+, ~30% Brn2+ and ~2% Ctip2+ in mutants. What other cell types are the rest of EdU+ cells in the mutants?

5. In Figure 7A, it seems like differences in layer 4 neuronal density could still be detected between primary sensory areas and motor cortex in the Vgf KO. It could be informative to compare the relative layer 4 neuronal density in S1 and motor cortex in WT and KO.

6. Do Vgf KO animals show a developmental delay? It would be informative to compare the distribution variance of layer 4 cells at a later time point between WT and KO.

[Editors’ note: The authors appealed the original decision. What follows is the authors’ response to the first round of review.]

Reviewer #1:

Sato et al. investigated the role of the thalamus–derived factor, VGF, as extrinsic cue that controls layer 4 development in the cortex. They show that this process is necessary for further maturation of the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) and the barrel field formation. To explore the role of thalamocortical axon (TCA) projections in cortical layer formation, the authors developed a mouse model with TCA ablation from the ventrobasal (VB) thalamic nucleus by the administration of diphtheria toxin (DT) from P0. They induced a decrease in the VB nucleus size and the TCAs terminals were also diminished in layer 4 of S1. Sato et al. demonstrated that the number of layer 4 cells in S1 is reduced in TCA–ablated model and to verify that these TCA ablation from the VB was indeed responsible for this laminar phenotype, they used a different approach to specifically ablate only the VB neurons. By performing a technically impressive in utero electroporation at e11.5 in the thalamus with a diphtheria toxin receptor (DTR) expression plasmid and then administered DT at P0, they mimicked the laminar phenotype in the cortex and the results were similar to the TCA–ablated mice. Moreover, they showed that, apparently, the rest of the cortical layers remain intact. Interestingly, the authors demonstrated that VGF and NRN1 as TCA–derived factors play an important role to maintain the layer 4 neuronal number during cortical development by restoring these cell number after the overexpression of these factors in TCA–ablated model in vivo. To further address this question, they induced a genetic inactivation of Vgf by using CRISPR/Cas9–mediated gene editing, and they proved that VGF is necessary for the maintenance of layer 4 neurons number.

The manuscript shows potentially interesting findings but there are some open questions and experiments that should be done to better support the conclusions of the paper. Moreover, some aspects of image acquisition and data analysis need to be clarified.

1) The figures need to be reorganized to achieve a better flow of the manuscript. For example, Figure 1 does not contribute to the story, and it would make more sense to transfer it to supplementary figures. Moreover, the Figure 5—figure supplement 1 could be a principal figure to show the absence of VGF in thalamus and cortex of TCA–ablated mice because this leads to wonder about the role of this gene and justify the following experiments of overexpression and knock–down.

We reorganized the figures according to this suggestion. Previous Figure 1 and Figure 5—figure supplement 1 are now Figure 1—figure supplement 1 and Figure 4, respectively. The other figure numbers were adapted accordingly.

2) In Figure 2—figure supplement 1 the authors show lipophilic dyes tracings assuming that they only labeled TCAs and thalamic neurons retrogradely. However, this is a conceptual mistake because these tracers label indistinctly, retrogradely and anterogradely. They inject the dyes at P7 when corticothalamic axons have already innervated the thalamus and thus presumably, the labelling shown in PO is, at least in part, from S1 layer 5. It would be better to use a L4 specific virus to trace only retrogradely projections. Moreover, they state that the number of labeled cells were similar in TCA–ablation and control mice, however, there is a need to increase the n to support this statement as there is a strong variability in this technique due to the change in labelling related the change in the size of the dyes.

Thank you for this criticism. Indeed, our method do not distinguish signals labeled retrogradely or anterogradely, but we still can focus on the distribution of the labeled cell bodies by reducing an intensity threshold, which are mostly retrogradely labeled (anterograde labeling yields less intensive and diffuse signals). Magnified views of VB and PO were added to show retrogradely labeled cell bodies (Figure 1—figure supplement 3B, lower panels). We also described it in Results (P9, L4-6). The number of specimens was increased from 2 to 6 for both control and TCA-ablated mice, and we observed essentially same phenotype.

3) There are some affirmations in the manuscript that would need a quantification for support. For example, when the authors state that dLGN was not reduced in TCA–ablated mice would need a quantification. The same in Figure 2A where it is stated that 5HTT–Cre is expressed in dLGN, and in Figure 2D, where the authors show a reduction in the size of the nucleus. Therefore, dLGN size quantifications should be done and it would be interesting to show a slice of 5HTT–Cre;R26–YEFP in V1 layer 4 showing 5HTT–Cre expression at P0–P7.

We quantified the size of dLGN and VB (Figure 1E). In addition, we examined TCA projection from dLGN to V1 by 5HTT immunohistochemistry in P7 TCAablated mice. Although the staining intensity in V1 was weaker compared with S1, the amount of TCAs was comparable to that of control mice (Author response image 1) . This supports the notion that a substantial amount of dLGN neurons remained in 5HTT-Cre; R26-DTR mice upon DT administration.

Author response image 1

Download asset Open asset

4) The results for cell death are not convincing, the authors should improve the detection method, for example, they could use caspase 3 in postnatal brains. In Figure 3—figure supplement 1 they only show quantifications in layer 2/3 and layer 4 where there is an increased tendency for cell death, but again the n is too small for some conditions. Additionally, in Figure 3—figure supplement 1C a quantification should be provided for cell death in layer 6. It is very likely that this cell death is due to the expression of Cre recombinase in layer 6 in the TCA–ablated mice. Thus, the results for cell death are not clear enough and some experiments should be repeated and /or conclusions clarify.

We did try several cell-death detection methods including caspase 3 (cleaved caspase 3, TUNEL, IbaI, ssDNA and mRNA of Bax, Bad and Bak) as described (P13, L15-22), and found that ssDNA immunostaining was the most sensitive way to detect dying cells in our situations. We now provided ssDNA data with increased N of upper layer (layer 2-4), deep layer (layer 5-6), and VB from P1 to P7 (Figure 2—figure supplement 2D). While induction of cell death was detected in deep layer and VB, we failed to observe increase of the signals in upper layer.

5) The authors sometimes underestimate the interpretation of the results. For example, in Figure 4 Tbr1 positive cells (layer 6) are reduced in TCA–ablated mice, and thus indicate that layer 6 is also affected in this mouse. Therefore, this model might not be the best one to investigate how extrinsic cues mechanisms regulate layer 4 development.

We think that the reduction of Tbr1-positive layer 6 cells is largely due to Cre expression by this population. We provided evidence that reduction of layer 4 neuron is solely due to TCA ablation by electroporating a DTR-expressing plasmid to E11.5 thalamus (Figure 2—figure supplement 3). We also ablated layer 6 neurons by electroporation to E11.5 cortex to see its effect on layer 4. Whereas Tbr1-positive layer 6 neurons were greatly reduced, the number of RORβ-positive layer 4 neurons was not markedly changed (Author response image 2) . We described this in Results (P14, L19-23).

Author response image 2

Download asset Open asset

6) It would be interesting to explore the neural activity of layer 4 in the somatosensory cortex of Vgf–KO and TCA–ablated mice. Behavioral experiments with environmental enrichment and c–fos immunostaining would demonstrate the laminar functionality of the cortex under these different conditions.

Thank you for suggesting an interesting point. We have examined expression of c-Fos by immunostaining at P7 and found that the signal was hardly detected in the neocortex including S1 both in control and TCA-ablated mice, suggesting that the neuronal activity in the cortex is not yet very strong at P7. Since these issues are beyond the scope of the present study, we just would like to show Btbd3 data as evidence for neuronal activity.

Reviewer #2:

Sato H. and colleagues here investigate the role of extrinsic factors in the development of the murine neocortex. It was previously shown by these authors that thalamocortical neurons, through the expression of Vgf and Nrn1 among others, contribute specifically to layer 4 neurons development in vitro. In the current study, by postnatally ablating thalamocortical projections and studying a Vgf knockout, they further investigate the role of these projections in layer 4 establishment and bring some light to the in vivo role of VGF.

Although this is an interesting study, the novelty is relatively limited as it incrementally builds on previous work from this laboratory as well as previous work from several laboratories directly addressing the effects of ablation of specific thalamic nuclei on cortical neuron identity. In order to increase interest and relevance, several key experiments should be performed.

– It is interesting to see that RORC staining emerges in a rostrocaudal manner from P0 to P7. With the current data, the authors could perhaps assess whether this emergence also occurs in a mediolateral manner. This would help to better describe the emergence of the layer 4 across cortical areas. Moreover, to confirm the statement of layer 4 being thicker in S1, a quantification or a reference to quantification of layer 4 across cortical areas would be required.

Thank you for the suggestion. We added a series of coronal sections in Figure 1—figure supplement 1B, showing that RORC immunostaining emerges in a lateral-medial (ventral to dorsal) fashion. Regarding a quantitative assessment, we analyzed the intensity of RORC immunostaining signal in Figure 1—figure supplement 1B to show clear boundaries of S1, especially PMBSF (posteromedial barrel subfield), become evident after P0 by P7. We added it as Figure 1—figure supplement 1C and described it in Results (P7, L4-9).

– Some of the quantifications and experiments present only 2 cases. The authors should consider at least to increase the number of cases to 3. In addition, considering the number of cases in most of the experiments, the use of parametric statistical analyses is incorrect (not possible to assess dataset normality with less than 30 data points). The authors should switch to non–parametric statistical analyses.

Thank you for the criticism and suggestion. We have increased the number of cases more than 3 with two exceptions listed below:

– Figure 4C: NRN1 immunostaining (n=2), because anti-NRN1 antibody (cat# s25261, Santa Cruz) was discontinued.

– Figure 2—figure supplement 2: P1 TCA-ablated mice (n=2), due to shortage of the animal resource.

We re-evaluated cases with < 30 data points using Mann-Whitney U test as a non-parametric statistical analysis. However, because the test needs paired data points more than 3 and 5 or 4 and 4, some experiments did not meet the criteria and could not perform a statistical analysis (Figure 2—figure supplement 2D, P1 to P5; Figure 4C, NRN1).

– The use of a Cre–dependent DT strategy to ablate thalamic neurons is interesting to study the role of their projections postnatally. However, it seems important to better analyze the dynamics of their death after DT administration. The authors should try to assess, both thalamic and cortical, cell death from 24h post DT administration up to their analysis time point (P7). It is important to understand the dynamics of cell death in both regions to try to establish a clearer correlation. This could by assessed by performing Caspase3 immunolabelling at P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, and P7 after P0 DT injection both in the thalamus and the cortex. In Figure 5C, it is unclear why there is no Dd–red signal in the control and DTA conditions.

Thank you for the insightful comment. We provided the time course of the ssDNA data both for the thalamus (VB) and the cortex (L2-4 and L5-6, separately) from P1 to P7 (Figure 2—figure supplement 2D), showing that cell death in VB and L5-6 increased within several days after DT administration. We still could not detect a sign of cell death up-regulation in L2-4. We described it in Results (P13, L13-22). In Figure 5C, the control and TCA-ablated rows represent the non-electroporated side of the animals. We have confirmed that electroporation of Ds-Red only had no effect on L4 (data not shown).

– The authors should consider further describing the impact of this strategy on deep–layer neurons (YFP+ in Figure2A). As they are Cre+ during their developmental time course, DT is most likely going to target them (which could explain the reduced thickness of deep layers when compared to controls). This could be added as supplemental information, but it is important to evaluate the ground state of the neocortex to evaluate the real impact of TCAs.

Thank you for the suggestion. We analyzed cell death in deep layers from P1 to P7 after DT administration at P0. It peaked at P5-6 (Figure 2—figure supplement 2C, D), consistent with Cre activity in layer 6 (Figure 1A). In order to examine effects of cell death in layer 6 on layer 4, we electroporated DTR to the cortex at E11.5 when layer 6 neuron are produced. We found that the number of RORβ+ cells in layer 4 was not reduced significantly despite massive cell death in layer 6 (Author response image 2, Reviewer 1-point 5). Therefore, we conclude that the reduction of layer 4 is most likely due to elimination of TCA rather than cell death in layer 6. We mentioned this in Results (P14, L19-23).

– For the panels containing thalamic nuclei, it would help to have white dotted lines (as in Figure 2D) around them in all the panels. As an example, it is difficult to determine the MG position in DiA images (Figure 2—figure supplement 1).

We encircled the VB and MG in all panels containing thalamic nuclei.

– Throughout the paper, the fluctuation of layer 4 number of neurons throughout conditions is assessed by the expression of RORC (example: Figure 3C). In addition, to investigate possible layer 4 fate changes, the authors quantify L2/3 or L5/6 number of cells (with known markers). In order to improve the analysis of layer 4 neurons, instead of using postnatal markers, it would perhaps be interesting to electroporate at E14 to have permanent labelling of this cell population. On the one hand, it would help at first to assess if these specific cells are dying, and on the other, it would better allow the analysis of possible fate changes. This methodology would be complementary to the actual Cre–DTR system, making it optimal for this type of analysis. Another possibility would be to inject birth dating markers embryonically, such as CFSE.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have tried to label layer 4 neuron both by electroporation and CFSE before the initial submission. However, we concluded that these methods with our hands are not suitable for reliable quantitative statistical analyses, because variability of labeling among the specimens was considerably high. We then examined the possibility of fate change by labeling prospective layer 4 cells by EdU and examined the expression of RORC. The data strongly support that the cells themselves disappeared (Figure 2E, F; Figure 2—figure supplement 2A, B). We further examined Brn2 and Ctip2 expression, however we did not detect significant increase in the percentage of Brn2 or Ctip2-positive cells among EdU-positive cells (Figure 2—figure supplement 2A, B). We described it in Results (P12, L8-P13, L11).

– Regarding Nrn1 and Vgf rescue experiments, it is interesting to see that the absence of TCAs promotes their absence in layer 4. It would be interesting to add whether the over–expression of Nrn1 and Vgf, alone, can maintain "normal" levels of RorC+ cells in layer 4. Moreover, besides analyzing the presence of DsRed (Figure 5C) in double electroporations, it would be interesting to see the presence of the proteins themselves (either by ISH or immunolabelling) as a positive control for the experiment.

We provided expression of VGF and NRN1 in the electroporated specimens (Figure 5—figure supplement 1). We also conducted a solo rescue experiment with VGF or NRN1, and found that VGF but not NRN1 was sufficient to restore the phenotype (Figure 5E). Neither of them affected the number of layer 4 in the presence of TCA (data not shown). We described this in Results (P19, L1-7).

– Additionally, it would be interesting to visualize the expression of Vgf and Nrn1 receptors expression by layer 4 cells and their expression dynamics. Is it constantly expressed or there is a critical period for their expression? Can the authors rescue L4 neurons by overexpressing Vgf in L2/3 neurons? This would demonstrate a non–cell–autonomous effect onto L4 neurons.

It would indeed be interesting, but receptors for VGF and NRN1 are currently unknown. In some specimens for the rescue experiments in which exogenous VGF was expressed in the bottom part of layer 2/3, the layer 4 phenotype was restored, suggesting that VGF acts on layer 4 neurons in a non-cell autonomous fashion.

– In Vgf–/– mutants, there is an increase of Brn2+ and Ctip2+ cells, which could correspond to a fate change of layer 4 cells in absence of Vgf. It would be interesting to electroporate Gfp at E14 to label layer 4 cells and analyze the expression of these markers at P7.

Increase of Brn2+ and Ctip2+ cells in VGF-KO is not statistically significant (Figure 7G). We examined the possibility of fate change in Vgf-KO by EdU labeling at E14.3 which gives global and unbiased labeling of cells born immediately after as we did for the TCA-ablated specimens (Figure 2—figure supplement 2A, B). The result indicated decrease of RORC-positive cell population, but no substantial increase in Brn2- or Ctip2-positive cell populations among EdU-labeled cells (Figure 7—figure supplement 1G, H). Although we cannot rule out the possibility that the fate conversion occurred, our result at least argue against that fate change of layer 4-destined neurons is the major cause of the reduction of RORβ+ cells in layer 4. We explained it in Results (P24, L1-21).

– For Nrn1–/– analysis of layer 4 cell number, there should be a quantification. It is hard to tell from the images alone if there is a difference or not.

We increased the number of cases and added the quantification data to Figures (Figure 7—figure supplement 2B).

Reviewer #3:

[…]

Overall, this is an excellent study with important findings.

1. While the authors clearly observed that layer 4 exhibited marked reduction in the number of neurons specifically within the primary somatosensory cortex and they reported no change in the number of layers 2–3, 5 or 6 neurons, I would be still interested in the neuron numbers in the entire depth of the cortex in an arbitrary unit column. "The number of RORβ–expressing cortical cells was decreased to 67% as compared with control cortex. Moreover, the absolute number of layer 4 neurons also decreased in the TCA–ablated S1." This argued against the possibilities of altered RORβ expression or fate change of the layer 4–destined cells to those of another layer. Is the reduction being just because the effect to layer 4?

We counted pan-neuronal marker NeuN-positive cells in an arbitrary unit column passing through layers 2-5 in S1. Layer 6 was excluded because Cre-positive cells are present and they would die regardless of TCA upon DT administration. NeuN+ cell number was slightly decreased in TCA-ablated mice, although it was not statistically significant (Figure 2—figure supplement 1A, C). It is perhaps due to a sort of dilution such that the decrease in layer 4 cell number was diluted by an overwhelming number of total NeuN-positive cells which include GABAergic neurons as well. Instead, we analyzed the number of Cux1-positive layers 2-4 neurons in S1 and found slight but significant decrease in TCA-ablated mice (Figure 2—figure supplement 1B, C). We described it in Results (P12, L17-20).

2. While the study is commenting on the changes within S1, it does not comment on the possibility that the size of S1 changed. It would be good to show the areal extension of the S1 barrel field on flatmounts and compare the representation of the S1 and V1 after all these manipulations. However, it is not essential for the basic conclusions of the study.

Thank you for pointing out the interesting point. We have tried assessment of the cortical areas with RORβ, Cad6, Cad8, Igfbp4, and Bhlhb5 on flat-mount sections at the plane of layer 4 as well as whole-mount cerebral hemispheres of P7 mice. However, the whole-mounts did not provide informative results. Instead, we conducted in situ hybridization of RORβ on flat-mount sections of control and TCA-ablated mice. Although the barrel pattern disappeared and areal borders became indistinct in TCA-ablated mice, as reported for another TCA-deficient mice (Olig3-Cre-specific Gbx2-cKO; Vue et al., 2013), the size and position of S1 barrel field including PMBSF (posteromedial barrel subfield) and ALBSF (anterolateral barrel subfield) and V1 were apparently similar between them (Author response image 3) . Since the analysis is not thorough enough, we would like to leave this issue out of the present study.

Author response image 3

Download asset Open asset

3. Formation of the barrels requires two stages. The periphery related sorting of the thalamocortical afferents (revealed with stains for thalamocortical afferents 5HTT or DiI or CO staining) and then, the activity dependent sorting of thalamocortical afferents will impose the cytoarchitectonic changes that will form the cytoarchitectonic barrels (revealed with DAPI, Nissl or NeuN staining) (see Lopez–Bendito and Molnar, 2003). It would be good to clarify which mechanism is affected.

Thank you for the suggestion. We did observe that TCA terminals are segregated in a barrel-like fashion in VGF-KO S1 revealed by 5HTT staining (please see Figure 6B). Thus, it seems that cytoarchitectonic pattern formation in layer 4 neuron is affected. We added this point to the text (P25, L4-6; P33, L11-14).

4. The authors suggested cell death in layer 4 as a possible mechanisms for getting these differences. However, all the conventional cell death detection methods (ssDNA, cleaved caspase 3, Iba1, mRNA of Bax, Bad, and Bak, and DAPI), they could not obtain convincing evidence for significant cell death induction in layer 4 upon TCA ablation. Was there any change in microglia distribution in layer 4 after the ablation of the VB thalamic neurons?

Even though the authors justify a possible technical difficulty in detecting dead cells in a dynamic developing system (which I completely agree with and understand), they don't provide a solid explanation for such a great decrease in cell number in layer 4. As the authors describe layer 4 neurons are already generated at the time of ablation, therefore they either die or change their fate. The cell fate change should be better investigated and discussed. Can the loss of 67% of neurons be completely due to cell death?

Thank you for the insightful comment. We observed that microglia distribution in layer 4 revealed by IbaI immunostaining was not changed in the TCA ablated specimens. To investigate whether fate change of layer 4 neurons is involved in TCA-ablation phenotype, we examined the expression of Brn2 and Ctip2 in addition to RORβ in EdU-labeled samples (Figure 2—figure supplement 2A, B). None of these cohorts among EdU-labeled cells was substantially altered. Thus, at this moment we at least can conclude that cell fate change is not the major cause of the reduction of layer 4 cells in TCA-ablated mice, although we cannot exclude the possibility of fate conversion of layer 4-destined cells. We mentioned this in the text (P12, L21-P13, L11).

5. There are numerous studies that demonstrated that six layered cortex can develop relatively normally without thalamic connections (Miyashita–Lin et al., 1999 DOI: 10.1126/science.285.5429.906; Zhou et al., 2010, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6005–09.2010). Did any of these studies suggested reduced layer 4 cell numbers? Do the authors used more sensitive methods for their detection? These issues should be discussed in more detail.

Those authors analyzed ROR expression by in situ hybridization. While the number of neurons in each layer was not counted in the previous studies, reduction of ROR expression is consistent with the present study. We mentioned this in Discussion (P29, L19-22).

6. The study described that after ablation at P0, VB was significantly reduced by P5. Parallel with this RORα–expressing thalamic neurons were also decreased. The traced from S1 and did not see any signs of TCA rewiring from the dLGN or MG to S1. Why do the authors think that Mezzera and López–Bendito, (2016) had different findings? Is is because of the methods, timing, tracing?

Thank you for bringing up the important point. We assume that rewiring may occur when inputs to the thalamus have been changed. We speculate that we could not detect rewiring because only the output from thalamus were altered primarily in an acute manner. Also, we think that the timing of cell death matters: Pouchelon et al., (2014) reported that using a DTA-expressing strategy, which should lead to cell death at earlier time point than ours, rewiring from PO to S1 occurred. We described this point in Discussion (P29, L22-P29, L6).

7. The results explain why layer 4 is thick in the somatosensory cortex. However, it is not known whether the same mechanism operates in the motor cortex where there is a very thin layer 4. The authors reduce the possibility of a cell death–based mechanism by examining the Bax and Casp3 mutant mice. In this lone the laminar configuration across the areas appeared to be normal. Do the authors suggest that the thinner layer 4 in M1 is the result of a different neurogenetic program generating these proportions?

In the present study, we have not addressed experimentally why layer 4 in M1 is thin. Yet, the results obtained from Bax- and Casp3-KO mice suggest that it may not depend on cell death, exactly as the reviewer pointed out. At present, we would like just to mention this point in Discussion (P30, L16-21; P31, L1015), but to leave this issue for future studies.

8. Do the authors suspect possible interaction with neurogenesis if the VB is ablated from early embryonic stages? I am not requesting this experiment, just some speculations in the discussion.

In fact, TCA ablation at earlier periods of development is expected to have a greater effect on neurogenesis, as the latter is at its peak and the neuronal output has yet to be imposed. This would be the ideal time window to observe the effect of a TCA–secreted molecule, so it would be interesting to further discuss this possibility.

Thank you for bringing up the important point. Although it is reported that TCAs affect cortical neurogenesis (e.g., Gerstmann et al., 2015; Kraushar at el., 2015), such effect may not be restricted to sensory TCAs. We so far have not found obvious neurogenic abnormality in Vgf-KO cortex at P7 (Figure 7E-G) and also at P0 (Figure 7—figure supplement 1C-F, newly added data). These results suggest that VGF plays a role in maintenance of layer 4 cell number at postnatal stages, but not a neurogenic role at embryonic stages. Although we may be able to eliminate TCAs at the earlier time point, it would be out of scope of the current study (i.e., layer 4 in sensory areas and TCA innervation). We discussed this point in Discussion (P30, L6-15).

9. TCAs innervation's influence on cortical neurogenesis has been extensively correlated with the upper layer formation. The time of TCA arrival in the cortex closely matches the peak of upper layer neurogenesis, further supporting this view. It is quite surprising that the authors do not observe any alteration of any nature in the upper layers' analysis (Brn2 immunohistochemistry). Is this expected, or in line with other studies?

We interpret that the less impact on upper layer formation is due to the postnatal ablation of TCAs when upper layer neurogenesis is almost finished. In that sense, VGF does not appear to play a role in upper layer neurogenesis. We mentioned this point in Discussion (P30, L6-15).

[Editors’ note: what follows is the authors’ response to the second round of review.]

Reviewer #1:

Overall, the authors have answered the main points of my previous review. However, some aspects of the imaging and data analysis could be further improved. The way of presenting the results is not well refined.

1) In Figure 1C, the VB nucleus shows the same size and shape in control and in the TCA–ablated model, and this is not consistent. I am still not fully convinced about the criteria for nuclei delimitation. It would have been convenient to use common markers for VB and dLGN as for example vGlut2.

In Figure 1C, the size of the VB has not yet become markedly reduced, as cell death just started and would proceed rapidly thereafter (please see Figure 2—figure supplement 2D). In fact, the size of the VB is quite fluctuated among the P5 specimens. The VB size was much reduced consistently at P6 or later, as shown in Figure 1D. We replaced Figure 1C with the one with more shrunk VB.

2) In Figure 1 figure supplement 3B, the example image for the TCA–ablated is damaged in the nuclei in which the experiment is focused, therefore it should be replaced.

We replaced the panels with those without damage.

Lines 194–198: "DiI–labeled neurons that project to V1 were found in the dLGN and lateral posterior nucleus (LP) in both control and TCA–ablated mice (Figure 1—figure supplement 3A, B, 12 sections from 6 mice for each), and the ratios of retrogradely labeled cells with DiI in dLGN to those in LP were similar in the two groups." This is in my opinion an overstated statement based on the example that the authors show.

We admit that this particular image does not necessarily support this notion. We removed this statement which it is not essential for the main conclusion.

3) In Figure 2 figure supplement 3E and G, I would like to see the same immunohistochemistry as performed in Figure 1 and 2 for 5HTT and Rorb expression. The labels are clearer.

We performed another immunohistochemistry using the same staining method (fluorescence) so that Figure 2 figure supplement 3E, F appear in a similar way to Figure 1 and 2 (the former F and G are integrated as F).

Lines 453–454: "Importantly, the thalamic structure was not affected: the VB appeared intact in terms of shape, size, and cell density (Figure 6B, 5 sections from 5 mice)." In my opinion, quantifications should be provided to support this conclusion. There is a clear change in the shape of the VB nucleus in the Vgf–/– example the authors provide.

This particular image shows the VB in a different shape perhaps due to a plane of section, but its overall shape was similar between the mutant and wild-type animals. Nonetheless we deleted “shape” from the text and replaced the image of a section in which the VB appears more similar to the control. We measured the area size of the VB in sections where it is represented at the maximum. The result is provided as Figure 6C.

Reviewer #4:

In the manuscript titled " Thalamocortical axons control the cytoarchitecture of neocortical layers by area–specific supply of VGF" by Sato et al., the authors investigated the reasons for the distinct laminar architecture among different cortical areas. They focused on layer 4, which is thicker in the primary sensory cortices but is thinner in the motor cortex. Previous studies had shown that TCAs play instructive roles to regulate area–specific properties in layer 4. In this study, the authors extended their previous study and used a variety of methods, including ablating VB neurons, performing in utero electroporation to overexpress genes in the cortex, and generating KO animals to demonstrate that TCAs secrete VGF to control the number of layer 4 neurons in the sensory cortices.

Overall, it is nicely organized with very interesting findings and the description of their findings was clear. The authors nicely demonstrated that TCA ablation leads to the reduction of layer 4 RORβ–positive cells. The most convincing results were from the Vgf KO mice: while the TCAs are still projecting to S1 and inducing the expression of Btbd3 (suggesting the presence of TCA activities), the layer 4 cell density is greatly reduced in the Vgf KO.

I have few suggestions:

1. In Figure 1—figure supplement 3, strong input from Po was found in the TCA ablated S1 ("in TCA–ablated mice, the retrogradely labeled VB was markedly reduced in size, but the Po was broadly and intensely labeled" (p9)). This agrees with the previous study (Pouchelon, 2014) showing that the genetic ablation of the VB at birth rewired Po projections to S1 layer 4 neurons and that respecified layer 4 neurons. This might be the reason for the reduction of Rorb expression and reduced cell density in layer 4 in the TCA ablated S1. I am wondering if the authors had considered this as one of the reasons for the phenotypes observed. Using additional S1–specific markers (such as MDGA1, as described in Takeuchi, 2007) might be able to clarify this point.

Thank you for an insightful suggestion. While neurons in the VB were eliminated slightly later than the case reported by Pouchelon et al., we observed that the PO was labeled more in some TCA-ablated specimens, suggesting that rewiring from PO to S1 may have occurred to some extent. Although we did not examine whether S1 is respecified to S2 in our case, we would argue that this could not be the primary cause of the phenotype, because overexpression of VGF rescued the phonotype. Moreover, Pouchelon et al. reported that the neuron number in S1 including layer 4 was unchanged, suggesting conversion to S2 does not accompany reduction of layer 4. We mentioned rewiring from PO in Discussion (page 28, line 22-page 29, line 3).

2. As in the introduction, the authors mentioned that the major differences in layer 4 neuron density are between sensory cortices and motor cortex. Did the authors electroporate VGF into layer 4 of the motor cortex or any other cortical areas (such as S2, next to S1) in control animals, or even in L5 or L2/3 in S1? I am wondering whether layer 4 neurons in sensory areas have area–specific responses to VGF (e.g. expression of the receptors).

As we mentioned in Discussion, the present notion does not necessarily explain why layer 4 is thin in motor cortex. Although VGF receptor is currently unidentified, it may not be expressed in the motor cortex or other layers. Given that the exogenous VGF did not show an additive effect in the presence of TCAs in S1 layer 4, we assume that effects on other layers in S1 would be less likely. On the other hand, it appears that VGF exerts its function widely in the sensory areas which exhibit various degree of layer 4 enrichment though, as layer 4 in V1 was also reduced in VGF-KO. Our preliminary trial by which VGF was electroporated in the motor cortex indicated that ROR-β-positive layer 4 was unchanged. Moreover, our observation of Casp3- and Bax-KO mice suggests that cell death may not be involved in the layer 4 formation in the motor cortex. We however would like to leave this issue for the future studies as we wrote in Discussion.

3. The authors suggested the cell death could be a possible reason for the decrease of layer 4 neuronal number in TCA ablated S1, but it was difficult to show convincing data as it is not easy to detect dying cells. My suggestion is to compare the number of EdU+ cells (EdU injected at E14.3 to label layer 4 neurons), from P0 to P7. This way, one could detect whether layer 4 neuronal number is decreased after TCA ablation.

We observed that EdU-labeled cells began to decrease at P4 and were reduced as much as P7 at P6, although the number of cases obtained is too small for statistic evaluation.

4. I am puzzled by the result presented in Figure 7—figure supplement–1H, where the authors showed among EdU+ cells in the Vgf mutants, while layer 4 Rorb+ cells are decreased, but others are not changed. They showed ~50% Rorb+, ~35% Brn2+ and ~2% Ctip2+ in wild type and ~30% Rorb+, ~30% Brn2+ and ~2% Ctip2+ in mutants. What other cell types are the rest of EdU+ cells in the mutants?

Thank you for pointing out an interesting issue. Currently we do not know the identity of those populations, although it is likely that they failed to express those layer markers examined, implicating a role of VGF in fate specification of the cortical neurons.

5. In Figure 7A, it seems like differences in layer 4 neuronal density could still be detected between primary sensory areas and motor cortex in the Vgf KO. It could be informative to compare the relative layer 4 neuronal density in S1 and motor cortex in WT and KO.

Thank you for an interesting suggestion. We added quantification of ROR-β expressing cells in M1 in Figure 7C. M1 was not statistically different between the mutant and wild-type animals. We would like to leave the further issue of motor cortex for the future study as mentioned above.

6. Do Vgf KO animals show a developmental delay? It would be informative to compare the distribution variance of layer 4 cells at a later time point between WT and KO.

Thank you for raising an interesting possibility. We searched for specimens of the adult homozygote to examine this possibility, but we did not have any unfortunately. Since it will take some time to accomplish this, we would be grateful if we may leave this issue at this time.

Author details

1. Haruka Sato

   Department of Brain Morphogenesis, Institute of Molecular Embryology and Genetics, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing - original draft

   For correspondence

   stharuka@kumamoto-u.ac.jp

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6839-0146

2. Jun Hatakeyama

   Department of Brain Morphogenesis, Institute of Molecular Embryology and Genetics, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Funding acquisition

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Takuji Iwasato

   Laboratory of Mammalian Neural Circuits, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Japan

   Contribution

   Resources

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Kimi Araki

   Division of Developmental Genetics, Institute of Resource Development and Analysis, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan

   Contribution

   Funding acquisition, Methodology, Resources

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Nobuhiko Yamamoto

   Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, Graduate School of Frontier Biosciences, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Kenji Shimamura

   Department of Brain Morphogenesis, Institute of Molecular Embryology and Genetics, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   simamura@kumamoto-u.ac.jp

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7102-6513

• 1,291

  Page views

• 246

  Downloads

• 3

  Citations

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