Reciprocally inhibitory circuits operating with distinct mechanisms are differently robust to perturbation and modulation

  1. Ekaterina Morozova
  2. Peter Newstein
  3. Eve Marder  Is a corresponding author
  1. Brandeis University, United States
  2. University of Oregon, United States

Abstract

Reciprocal inhibition is a building block in many sensory and motor circuits. We studied the features that underly robustness in reciprocally inhibitory two neuron circuits. We used the dynamic clamp to create reciprocally inhibitory circuits from pharmacologically isolated neurons of the crab stomatogastric ganglion by injecting artificial graded synaptic (ISyn) and hyperpolarization-activated inward (IH) currents. There is a continuum of mechanisms in circuits that generate antiphase oscillations, with 'release' and 'escape' mechanisms at the extremes, and mixed mode oscillations in between these extremes. In release, the active neuron primarily controls the off/on transitions. In escape, the inhibited neuron controls the transitions. We characterized the robustness of escape and release circuits to alterations in circuit parameters, temperature, and neuromodulation. We found that escape circuits rely on tight correlations between synaptic and H conductances to generate bursting but are resilient to temperature increase. Release circuits are robust to variations in synaptic and H conductances but fragile to temperature increase. The modulatory current (IMI) restores oscillations in release circuits but has little effect in escape circuits. Perturbations can alter the balance of escape and release mechanisms and can create mixed mode oscillations. We conclude that the same perturbation can have dramatically different effects depending on the circuits' mechanism of operation that may not be observable from basal circuit activity.

Data availability

Data as been deposited at Zenodo and will be publicly available upon publicationDOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5504612

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ekaterina Morozova

    Volen Center, Brandeis University, Waltham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Peter Newstein

    Biology Department, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Eve Marder

    Volen Center, Brandeis University, Waltham, United States
    For correspondence
    marder@brandeis.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9632-5448

Funding

National Institute of Health (2 R01 MH046742)

  • Eve Marder

Swartz Foundation (Postdoctoral Fellowship for Theoretical Neuroscience)

  • Ekaterina Morozova

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ronald L Calabrese, Emory University, United States

Publication history

  1. Preprint posted: September 19, 2021 (view preprint)
  2. Received: September 30, 2021
  3. Accepted: January 26, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: February 1, 2022 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: February 28, 2022 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2022, Morozova 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

  • 925
    Page views
  • 155
    Downloads
  • 3
    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. Ekaterina Morozova
  2. Peter Newstein
  3. Eve Marder
(2022)
Reciprocally inhibitory circuits operating with distinct mechanisms are differently robust to perturbation and modulation
eLife 11:e74363.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74363
  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Maria Cecilia Martinez, Camila Lidia Zold ... Mariano Andrés Belluscio
    Research Article

    The automatic initiation of actions can be highly functional. But occasionally these actions cannot be withheld and are released at inappropriate times, impulsively. Striatal activity has been shown to participate in the timing of action sequence initiation and it has been linked to impulsivity. Using a self-initiated task, we trained adult male rats to withhold a rewarded action sequence until a waiting time interval has elapsed. By analyzing neuronal activity we show that the striatal response preceding the initiation of the learned sequence is strongly modulated by the time subjects wait before eliciting the sequence. Interestingly, the modulation is steeper in adolescent rats, which show a strong prevalence of impulsive responses compared to adults. We hypothesize this anticipatory striatal activity reflects the animals’ subjective reward expectation, based on the elapsed waiting time, while the steeper waiting modulation in adolescence reflects age-related differences in temporal discounting, internal urgency states, or explore–exploit balance.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Sergio Oscar Verduzco-Flores, Erik De Schutter
    Research Article Updated

    How dynamic interactions between nervous system regions in mammals performs online motor control remains an unsolved problem. In this paper, we show that feedback control is a simple, yet powerful way to understand the neural dynamics of sensorimotor control. We make our case using a minimal model comprising spinal cord, sensory and motor cortex, coupled by long connections that are plastic. It succeeds in learning how to perform reaching movements of a planar arm with 6 muscles in several directions from scratch. The model satisfies biological plausibility constraints, like neural implementation, transmission delays, local synaptic learning and continuous online learning. Using differential Hebbian plasticity the model can go from motor babbling to reaching arbitrary targets in less than 10 min of in silico time. Moreover, independently of the learning mechanism, properly configured feedback control has many emergent properties: neural populations in motor cortex show directional tuning and oscillatory dynamics, the spinal cord creates convergent force fields that add linearly, and movements are ataxic (as in a motor system without a cerebellum).