Lactate is an energy substrate for rodent cortical neurons and enhances their firing activity

  1. Anastassios Karagiannis
  2. Thierry Gallopin
  3. Alexandre Lacroix
  4. Fabrice Plaisier
  5. Juliette Piquet
  6. Hélène Geoffroy
  7. Régine Hepp
  8. Jérémie Naudé
  9. Benjamin Le Gac
  10. Richard Egger
  11. Bertrand Lambolez
  12. Dongdong Li
  13. Jean Rossier
  14. Jochen F Staiger
  15. Hiromi Imamura
  16. Susumu Seino
  17. Jochen Roeper
  18. Bruno Cauli  Is a corresponding author
  1. CNRS, INSERM, Sorbonne Université, France
  2. CNRS, ESPCI Paris, France
  3. Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany
  4. Sorbonne Université, INSERM, CNRS, France
  5. Georg-August-University Goettingen, Germany
  6. Kyoto University, Japan
  7. Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan

Abstract

Glucose is the mandatory fuel for the brain, yet the relative contribution of glucose and lactate for neuronal energy metabolism is unclear. We found that increased lactate, but not glucose concentration, enhances the spiking activity of neurons of the cerebral cortex. Enhanced spiking was dependent on ATP-sensitive potassium (KATP) channels formed with KCNJ11 and ABCC8 subunits, which we show are functionally expressed in most neocortical neuronal types. We also demonstrate the ability of cortical neurons to take-up and metabolize lactate. We further reveal that ATP is produced by cortical neurons largely via oxidative phosphorylation and only modestly by glycolysis. Our data demonstrate that in active neurons, lactate is preferred to glucose as an energy substrate, and that lactate metabolism shapes neuronal activity in the neocortex through KATP channels. Our results highlight the importance of metabolic crosstalk between neurons and astrocytes for brain function.

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 to 6.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Anastassios Karagiannis

    CNRS, INSERM, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Thierry Gallopin

    Brain Plasticity Unit, CNRS UMR 8249, CNRS, ESPCI Paris, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Alexandre Lacroix

    CNRS, INSERM, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Fabrice Plaisier

    CNRS, INSERM, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Juliette Piquet

    CNRS, INSERM, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Hélène Geoffroy

    Brain Plasticity Unit, CNRS UMR 8249, CNRS, ESPCI Paris, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Régine Hepp

    CNRS, INSERM, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jérémie Naudé

    CNRS, INSERM, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5781-6498
  9. Benjamin Le Gac

    CNRS, INSERM, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Richard Egger

    Institute for Neurophysiology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Bertrand Lambolez

    Neuroscience Paris Seine - Institut de Biologie Paris Seine (NPS - IBPS), Sorbonne Université, INSERM, CNRS, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0653-480X
  12. Dongdong Li

    CNRS, INSERM, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Jean Rossier

    CNRS, INSERM, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1821-2135
  14. Jochen F Staiger

    Institute for Neuroanatomy, Georg-August-University Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Hiromi Imamura

    Graduate School of Biostudies, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1896-0443
  16. Susumu Seino

    Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Hyogo, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Jochen Roeper

    Institute for Neurophysiology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2145-8742
  18. Bruno Cauli

    CNRS, INSERM, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
    For correspondence
    bruno.cauli@upmc.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1471-4621

Funding

Human Frontier Science Program (RGY0070/2007)

  • Bruno Cauli

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR 2011 MALZ 003 01)

  • Bruno Cauli

Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale (FDT20100920106)

  • Anastassios Karagiannis

Fondation pour la Recherche sur Alzheimer

  • Benjamin Le Gac

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Wistar rats, C57BL/6RJ or Kcnj11-/- (B6.129P2-Kcnj11tm1Sse, backcrossed into C57BL6 over six generations) mice were used for all experiments in accordance with French regulations (Code Rural R214/87 to R214/130) and conformed to the ethical guidelines of both the directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and the French National Charter on the ethics of animal experimentation. A maximum of 3 rats or 5 mice were housed per cage and single animal housing was avoided. Male rats and mice of both genders were housed on a 12-hour light/dark cycle in a temperature-controlled (21-25{degree sign}C) room and were given food and water ad libitum. Animals were used for experimentation at 13-24 days of age.

Copyright

© 2021, Karagiannis et al.

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

Metrics

  • 3,470
    views
  • 584
    downloads
  • 61
    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. Anastassios Karagiannis
  2. Thierry Gallopin
  3. Alexandre Lacroix
  4. Fabrice Plaisier
  5. Juliette Piquet
  6. Hélène Geoffroy
  7. Régine Hepp
  8. Jérémie Naudé
  9. Benjamin Le Gac
  10. Richard Egger
  11. Bertrand Lambolez
  12. Dongdong Li
  13. Jean Rossier
  14. Jochen F Staiger
  15. Hiromi Imamura
  16. Susumu Seino
  17. Jochen Roeper
  18. Bruno Cauli
(2021)
Lactate is an energy substrate for rodent cortical neurons and enhances their firing activity
eLife 10:e71424.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71424

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71424

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Jun Sun, Francisca Rojo-Cortes ... Alicia Hidalgo
    Research Article

    Experience shapes the brain as neural circuits can be modified by neural stimulation or the lack of it. The molecular mechanisms underlying structural circuit plasticity and how plasticity modifies behaviour are poorly understood. Subjective experience requires dopamine, a neuromodulator that assigns a value to stimuli, and it also controls behaviour, including locomotion, learning, and memory. In Drosophila, Toll receptors are ideally placed to translate experience into structural brain change. Toll-6 is expressed in dopaminergic neurons (DANs), raising the intriguing possibility that Toll-6 could regulate structural plasticity in dopaminergic circuits. Drosophila neurotrophin-2 (DNT-2) is the ligand for Toll-6 and Kek-6, but whether it is required for circuit structural plasticity was unknown. Here, we show that DNT-2-expressing neurons connect with DANs, and they modulate each other. Loss of function for DNT-2 or its receptors Toll-6 and kinase-less Trk-like kek-6 caused DAN and synapse loss, impaired dendrite growth and connectivity, decreased synaptic sites, and caused locomotion deficits. In contrast, over-expressed DNT-2 increased DAN cell number, dendrite complexity, and promoted synaptogenesis. Neuronal activity modified DNT-2, increased synaptogenesis in DNT-2-positive neurons and DANs, and over-expression of DNT-2 did too. Altering the levels of DNT-2 or Toll-6 also modified dopamine-dependent behaviours, including locomotion and long-term memory. To conclude, a feedback loop involving dopamine and DNT-2 highlighted the circuits engaged, and DNT-2 with Toll-6 and Kek-6 induced structural plasticity in this circuit modifying brain function and behaviour.

    1. Neuroscience
    Mengqiao Cui, Xiaoyuan Pan ... Jun-Li Cao
    Research Article

    Memory impairment in chronic pain patients is substantial and common, and few therapeutic strategies are available. Chronic pain-related memory impairment has susceptible and unsusceptible features. Therefore, exploring the underlying mechanisms of its vulnerability is essential for developing effective treatments. Here, combining two spatial memory tests (Y-maze test and Morris water maze), we segregated chronic pain mice into memory impairment-susceptible and -unsusceptible subpopulations in a chronic neuropathic pain model induced by chronic constrictive injury of the sciatic nerve. RNA-Seq analysis and gain/loss-of-function study revealed that S1P/S1PR1 signaling is a determinant for vulnerability to chronic pain-related memory impairment. Knockdown of the S1PR1 in the dentate gyrus (DG) promoted a susceptible phenotype and led to structural plasticity changes of reduced excitatory synapse formation and abnormal spine morphology as observed in susceptible mice, while overexpression of the S1PR1 and pharmacological administration of S1PR1 agonist in the DG promoted an unsusceptible phenotype and prevented the occurrence of memory impairment, and rescued the morphological abnormality. Finally, the Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis and biochemical evidence indicated that downregulation of S1PR1 in susceptible mice may impair DG structural plasticity via interaction with actin cytoskeleton rearrangement-related signaling pathways including Itga2 and its downstream Rac1/Cdc42 signaling and Arp2/3 cascade. These results reveal a novel mechanism and provide a promising preventive and therapeutic molecular target for vulnerability to chronic pain-related memory impairment.