Corollary discharge promotes a sustained motor state in a neural circuit for navigation

  1. Ni Ji
  2. Vivek Venkatachalam
  3. Hillary Denise Rodgers
  4. Wesley Hung
  5. Taizo Kawano
  6. Christopher M Clark
  7. Maria Lim
  8. Mark J Alkema  Is a corresponding author
  9. Mei Zhen  Is a corresponding author
  10. Aravinthan DT Samuel  Is a corresponding author
  1. Harvard University, United States
  2. Mount Sinai Hospital, Canada
  3. University of Massachusetts Medical School, United States

Abstract

Animals exhibit behavioral and neural responses that persist on longer time scales than transient or fluctuating stimulus inputs. Here, we report that C. elegans uses feedback from the motor circuit to a sensory processing interneuron to sustain its motor state during thermotactic navigation. By imaging circuit activity in behaving animals, we show that a principal postsynaptic partner of the AFD thermosensory neuron, the AIY interneuron, encodes both temperature and motor state information. By optogenetic and genetic manipulation of this circuit, we demonstrate that the motor state representation in AIY is a corollary discharge signal. RIM, an interneuron that is connected with premotor interneurons, is required for this corollary discharge. Ablation of RIM eliminates the motor representation in AIY, allows thermosensory representations to reach downstream premotor interneurons, and reduces the animal's ability to sustain forward movements during thermotaxis. We propose that feedback from the motor circuit to the sensory processing circuit underlies a positive feedback mechanism to generate persistent neural activity and sustained behavioral patterns in a sensorimotor transformation.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided for Figures 1-6. Source code has been provided for Figure 7.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ni Ji

    Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Vivek Venkatachalam

    Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2414-7416
  3. Hillary Denise Rodgers

    Department of Physics and Center for Brain Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0565-1940
  4. Wesley Hung

    Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Taizo Kawano

    Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Christopher M Clark

    Neurobiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Maria Lim

    Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Mark J Alkema

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    For correspondence
    mark.alkema@umassmed.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1311-5179
  9. Mei Zhen

    Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada
    For correspondence
    meizhen@lunenfeld.ca
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0086-9622
  10. Aravinthan DT Samuel

    Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    For correspondence
    samuel@physics.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1672-8720

Funding

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS082525-01A1)

  • Aravinthan DT Samuel

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (PO1 GM103770)

  • Aravinthan DT Samuel

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (RO1 GM084491)

  • Mark J Alkema

Burroughs Wellcome Fund

  • Vivek Venkatachalam

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (154274)

  • Mei Zhen

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Manuel Zimmer, Research Institute of Molecular Pathology, Vienna Biocenter and University of Vienna, Austria

Version history

  1. Received: March 27, 2021
  2. Accepted: April 8, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 21, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: April 22, 2021 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: May 21, 2021 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2021, Ji et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,047
    Page views
  • 298
    Downloads
  • 9
    Citations

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

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Ni Ji
  2. Vivek Venkatachalam
  3. Hillary Denise Rodgers
  4. Wesley Hung
  5. Taizo Kawano
  6. Christopher M Clark
  7. Maria Lim
  8. Mark J Alkema
  9. Mei Zhen
  10. Aravinthan DT Samuel
(2021)
Corollary discharge promotes a sustained motor state in a neural circuit for navigation
eLife 10:e68848.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.68848

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.68848

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Kiwamu Kudo, Kamalini G Ranasinghe ... Srikantan S Nagarajan
    Research Article

    Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-β and misfolded tau proteins causing synaptic dysfunction, and progressive neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. Altered neural oscillations have been consistently demonstrated in AD. However, the trajectories of abnormal neural oscillations in AD progression and their relationship to neurodegeneration and cognitive decline are unknown. Here, we deployed robust event-based sequencing models (EBMs) to investigate the trajectories of long-range and local neural synchrony across AD stages, estimated from resting-state magnetoencephalography. The increases in neural synchrony in the delta-theta band and the decreases in the alpha and beta bands showed progressive changes throughout the stages of the EBM. Decreases in alpha and beta band synchrony preceded both neurodegeneration and cognitive decline, indicating that frequency-specific neuronal synchrony abnormalities are early manifestations of AD pathophysiology. The long-range synchrony effects were greater than the local synchrony, indicating a greater sensitivity of connectivity metrics involving multiple regions of the brain. These results demonstrate the evolution of functional neuronal deficits along the sequence of AD progression.

    1. Medicine
    2. Neuroscience
    Luisa Fassi, Shachar Hochman ... Roi Cohen Kadosh
    Research Article

    In recent years, there has been debate about the effectiveness of treatments from different fields, such as neurostimulation, neurofeedback, brain training, and pharmacotherapy. This debate has been fuelled by contradictory and nuanced experimental findings. Notably, the effectiveness of a given treatment is commonly evaluated by comparing the effect of the active treatment versus the placebo on human health and/or behaviour. However, this approach neglects the individual’s subjective experience of the type of treatment she or he received in establishing treatment efficacy. Here, we show that individual differences in subjective treatment - the thought of receiving the active or placebo condition during an experiment - can explain variability in outcomes better than the actual treatment. We analysed four independent datasets (N = 387 participants), including clinical patients and healthy adults from different age groups who were exposed to different neurostimulation treatments (transcranial magnetic stimulation: Studies 1 and 2; transcranial direct current stimulation: Studies 3 and 4). Our findings show that the inclusion of subjective treatment can provide a better model fit either alone or in interaction with objective treatment (defined as the condition to which participants are assigned in the experiment). These results demonstrate the significant contribution of subjective experience in explaining the variability of clinical, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes. We advocate for existing and future studies in clinical and non-clinical research to start accounting for participants’ subjective beliefs and their interplay with objective treatment when assessing the efficacy of treatments. This approach will be crucial in providing a more accurate estimation of the treatment effect and its source, allowing the development of effective and reproducible interventions.