A conserved neuropeptide system links head and body motor circuits to enable adaptive behavior

  1. Shankar Ramachandran
  2. Navonil Banerjee
  3. Raja Bhattacharya
  4. Michele L Lemons
  5. Jeremy Florman
  6. Christopher M Lambert
  7. Denis Touroutine
  8. Kellianne Alexander
  9. Liliane Schoofs
  10. Mark J Alkema
  11. Isabel Beets
  12. Michael M Francis  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Massachusetts Medical School, United States
  2. Assumption University, United States
  3. University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, United States
  4. University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Belgium

Abstract

Neuromodulators promote adaptive behaviors that are often complex and involve concerted activity changes across circuits that are often not physically connected. It is not well understood how neuromodulatory systems accomplish these tasks. Here we show that the C. elegans NLP-12 neuropeptide system shapes responses to food availability by modulating the activity of head and body wall motor neurons through alternate G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) targets, CKR-1 and CKR-2. We show ckr-2 deletion reduces body bend depth during movement under basal conditions. We demonstrate CKR-1 is a functional NLP-12 receptor and define its expression in the nervous system. In contrast to basal locomotion, biased CKR-1 GPCR stimulation of head motor neurons promotes turning during local searching. Deletion of ckr-1 reduces head neuron activity and diminishes turning while specific ckr-1 overexpression or head neuron activation promote turning. Thus, our studies suggest locomotor responses to changing food availability are regulated through conditional NLP-12 stimulation of head or body wall motor circuits.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files; source data files are provided as supplemental files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Shankar Ramachandran

    Neurobiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Navonil Banerjee

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Raja Bhattacharya

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Michele L Lemons

    Biological and Physical Sciences, Assumption University, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8459-4130
  5. Jeremy Florman

    Neurobiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7578-3511
  6. Christopher M Lambert

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

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Kellianne Alexander

    University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Liliane Schoofs

    University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Leuven, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Mark J Alkema

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1311-5179
  11. Isabel Beets

    University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Leuven, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Michael M Francis

    University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, United States
    For correspondence
    michael.francis@umassmed.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8076-6668

Funding

NIH (R21NS093492)

  • Michael M Francis

European Research Council (340318)

  • Isabel Beets

Research Foundation Flanders Grant (G0C0618N)

  • Isabel Beets

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

Copyright

© 2021, Ramachandran 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

  • 2,131
    views
  • 294
    downloads
  • 14
    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. Shankar Ramachandran
  2. Navonil Banerjee
  3. Raja Bhattacharya
  4. Michele L Lemons
  5. Jeremy Florman
  6. Christopher M Lambert
  7. Denis Touroutine
  8. Kellianne Alexander
  9. Liliane Schoofs
  10. Mark J Alkema
  11. Isabel Beets
  12. Michael M Francis
(2021)
A conserved neuropeptide system links head and body motor circuits to enable adaptive behavior
eLife 10:e71747.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71747

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71747

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Moritz F Wurm, Doruk Yiğit Erigüç
    Research Article

    Recognizing goal-directed actions is a computationally challenging task, requiring not only the visual analysis of body movements, but also analysis of how these movements causally impact, and thereby induce a change in, those objects targeted by an action. We tested the hypothesis that the analysis of body movements and the effects they induce relies on distinct neural representations in superior and anterior inferior parietal lobe (SPL and aIPL). In four fMRI sessions, participants observed videos of actions (e.g. breaking stick, squashing plastic bottle) along with corresponding point-light-display (PLD) stick figures, pantomimes, and abstract animations of agent–object interactions (e.g. dividing or compressing a circle). Cross-decoding between actions and animations revealed that aIPL encodes abstract representations of action effect structures independent of motion and object identity. By contrast, cross-decoding between actions and PLDs revealed that SPL is disproportionally tuned to body movements independent of visible interactions with objects. Lateral occipitotemporal cortex (LOTC) was sensitive to both action effects and body movements. These results demonstrate that parietal cortex and LOTC are tuned to physical action features, such as how body parts move in space relative to each other and how body parts interact with objects to induce a change (e.g. in position or shape/configuration). The high level of abstraction revealed by cross-decoding suggests a general neural code supporting mechanical reasoning about how entities interact with, and have effects on, each other.

    1. Neuroscience
    Gyeong Hee Pyeon, Hyewon Cho ... Yong Sang Jo
    Research Article Updated

    Recent studies suggest that calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) neurons in the parabrachial nucleus (PBN) represent aversive information and signal a general alarm to the forebrain. If CGRP neurons serve as a true general alarm, their activation would modulate both passive nad active defensive behaviors depending on the magnitude and context of the threat. However, most prior research has focused on the role of CGRP neurons in passive freezing responses, with limited exploration of their involvement in active defensive behaviors. To address this, we examined the role of CGRP neurons in active defensive behavior using a predator-like robot programmed to chase mice. Our electrophysiological results revealed that CGRP neurons encode the intensity of aversive stimuli through variations in firing durations and amplitudes. Optogenetic activation of CGRP neurons during robot chasing elevated flight responses in both conditioning and retention tests, presumably by amplifying the perception of the threat as more imminent and dangerous. In contrast, animals with inactivated CGRP neurons exhibited reduced flight responses, even when the robot was programmed to appear highly threatening during conditioning. These findings expand the understanding of CGRP neurons in the PBN as a critical alarm system, capable of dynamically regulating active defensive behaviors by amplifying threat perception, and ensuring adaptive responses to varying levels of danger.