Dorsal premammillary projection to periaqueductal gray controls escape vigor from innate and conditioned threats

Abstract

Escape from threats has paramount importance for survival. However, it is unknown if a single circuit controls escape vigor from innate and conditioned threats. Cholecystokinin (cck)-expressing cells in the hypothalamic dorsal premammillary nucleus (PMd) are necessary for initiating escape from innate threats via a projection to the dorsolateral periaqueductal gray (dlPAG). We now show that in mice PMd-cck cells are activated during escape, but not other defensive behaviors. PMd-cck ensemble activity can also predict future escape. Furthermore, PMd inhibition decreases escape speed from both innate and conditioned threats. Inhibition of the PMd-cck projection to the dlPAG also decreased escape speed. Intriguingly, PMd-cck and dlPAG activity in mice showed higher mutual information during exposure to innate and conditioned threats. In parallel, human fMRI data show that a posterior hypothalamic-to-dlPAG pathway increased activity during exposure to aversive images, indicating that a similar pathway may possibly have a related role in humans. Our data identify the PMd-dlPAG circuit as a central node, controlling escape vigor elicited by both innate and conditioned threats.

Data availability

All custom written software has been uploaded to https://github.com/schuettepeter/PMd_escape_vigorData has been uploaded tohttps://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5068/D19H5X

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Weisheng Wang

    Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Peter J Schuette

    Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Mimi Q La-Vu

    Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Anita Torossian

    Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Brooke C Tobias

    Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2043-9523
  6. Marta Ceko

    Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Philip A Kragel

    Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Fernando MCV Reis

    Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0121-2887
  9. Shiyu Ji

    Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3413-5766
  10. Megha Sehgal

    Department of Neurobiology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Sandra Maesta-Pereira

    Department of Neurobiology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6522-8311
  12. Meghmik Chakerian

    Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Alcino J Silva

    Departments of Neurobiology, Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, and Psychology, UCLA, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1587-4558
  14. Newton S Canteras

    Department of Anatomy, University of São Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7205-5372
  15. Tor Wager

    Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Jonathan C Kao

    Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9298-0143
  17. Avishek Adhikari

    Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    For correspondence
    avi@psych.ucla.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9187-9211

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R00 MH106649)

  • Avishek Adhikari

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2017/08668-1)

  • Fernando MCV Reis

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2014/05432-9)

  • Newton S Canteras

Hellman Foundation

  • Avishek Adhikari

Achievement Rewards for College Scientists Foundation

  • Mimi Q La-Vu

National Institutes of Health (R01 MH119089)

  • Avishek Adhikari

Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (22663)

  • Avishek Adhikari

Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (27654)

  • Fernando MCV Reis

Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (27780)

  • Weisheng Wang

Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (29204)

  • Jonathan C Kao

National Institutes of Health (F31 MH121050-01A1)

  • Mimi Q La-Vu

National Science Foundation (DGE-1650604)

  • Peter J Schuette

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2015/23092-3)

  • Fernando MCV Reis

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All procedures have been approved by the University of California, Los Angeles Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, protocols 2017-011 and 2017-075.

Copyright

© 2021, Wang 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

  • 2,208
    views
  • 338
    downloads
  • 26
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

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

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

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

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

  1. Weisheng Wang
  2. Peter J Schuette
  3. Mimi Q La-Vu
  4. Anita Torossian
  5. Brooke C Tobias
  6. Marta Ceko
  7. Philip A Kragel
  8. Fernando MCV Reis
  9. Shiyu Ji
  10. Megha Sehgal
  11. Sandra Maesta-Pereira
  12. Meghmik Chakerian
  13. Alcino J Silva
  14. Newton S Canteras
  15. Tor Wager
  16. Jonathan C Kao
  17. Avishek Adhikari
(2021)
Dorsal premammillary projection to periaqueductal gray controls escape vigor from innate and conditioned threats
eLife 10:e69178.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.69178

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.69178

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Georgin Jacob, RT Pramod, SP Arun
    Research Article

    Most visual tasks involve looking for specific object features. But we also often perform property-based tasks where we look for specific property in an image, such as finding an odd item, deciding if two items are same, or if an object has symmetry. How do we solve such tasks? These tasks do not fit into standard models of decision making because their underlying feature space and decision process is unclear. Using well-known principles governing multiple object representations, we show that displays with repeating elements can be distinguished from heterogeneous displays using a property we define as visual homogeneity. In behavior, visual homogeneity predicted response times on visual search, same-different and symmetry tasks. Brain imaging during visual search and symmetry tasks revealed that visual homogeneity was localized to a region in the object-selective cortex. Thus, property-based visual tasks are solved in a localized region in the brain by computing visual homogeneity.

    1. Neuroscience
    Ana Fló, Lucas Benjamin ... Ghislaine Dehaene-Lambertz
    Research Article

    Interest in statistical learning in developmental studies stems from the observation that 8-month-olds were able to extract words from a monotone speech stream solely using the transition probabilities (TP) between syllables (Saffran et al., 1996). A simple mechanism was thus part of the human infant’s toolbox for discovering regularities in language. Since this seminal study, observations on statistical learning capabilities have multiplied across domains and species, challenging the hypothesis of a dedicated mechanism for language acquisition. Here, we leverage the two dimensions conveyed by speech –speaker identity and phonemes– to examine (1) whether neonates can compute TPs on one dimension despite irrelevant variation on the other and (2) whether the linguistic dimension enjoys an advantage over the voice dimension. In two experiments, we exposed neonates to artificial speech streams constructed by concatenating syllables while recording EEG. The sequence had a statistical structure based either on the phonetic content, while the voices varied randomly (Experiment 1) or on voices with random phonetic content (Experiment 2). After familiarisation, neonates heard isolated duplets adhering, or not, to the structure they were familiarised with. In both experiments, we observed neural entrainment at the frequency of the regularity and distinct Event-Related Potentials (ERP) to correct and incorrect duplets, highlighting the universality of statistical learning mechanisms and suggesting it operates on virtually any dimension the input is factorised. However, only linguistic duplets elicited a specific ERP component, potentially an N400 precursor, suggesting a lexical stage triggered by phonetic regularities already at birth. These results show that, from birth, multiple input regularities can be processed in parallel and feed different higher-order networks.