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

  • 780
    Page views
  • 129
    Downloads
  • 0
    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

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Arefeh Sherafati et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Cochlear implants are neuroprosthetic devices that can restore hearing in people with severe to profound hearing loss by electrically stimulating the auditory nerve. Because of physical limitations on the precision of this stimulation, the acoustic information delivered by a cochlear implant does not convey the same level of acoustic detail as that conveyed by normal hearing. As a result, speech understanding in listeners with cochlear implants is typically poorer and more effortful than in listeners with normal hearing. The brain networks supporting speech understanding in listeners with cochlear implants are not well understood, partly due to difficulties obtaining functional neuroimaging data in this population. In the current study, we assessed the brain regions supporting spoken word understanding in adult listeners with right unilateral cochlear implants (n=20) and matched controls (n=18) using high-density diffuse optical tomography (HD-DOT), a quiet and non-invasive imaging modality with spatial resolution comparable to that of functional MRI. We found that while listening to spoken words in quiet, listeners with cochlear implants showed greater activity in the left prefrontal cortex than listeners with normal hearing, specifically in a region engaged in a separate spatial working memory task. These results suggest that listeners with cochlear implants require greater cognitive processing during speech understanding than listeners with normal hearing, supported by compensatory recruitment of the left prefrontal cortex.

    1. Neuroscience
    Mohammad Ali Salehinejad et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Sleep strongly affects synaptic strength, making it critical for cognition, especially learning and memory formation. Whether and how sleep deprivation modulates human brain physiology and cognition is not well understood. Here we examined how overnight sleep deprivation vs overnight sufficient sleep affects (a) cortical excitability, measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation, (b) inducibility of long-term potentiation (LTP)- and long-term depression (LTD)-like plasticity via transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and (c) learning, memory, and attention. The results suggest that sleep deprivation upscales cortical excitability due to enhanced glutamate-related cortical facilitation and decreases and/or reverses GABAergic cortical inhibition. Furthermore, tDCS-induced LTP-like plasticity (anodal) abolishes while the inhibitory LTD-like plasticity (cathodal) converts to excitatory LTP-like plasticity under sleep deprivation. This is associated with increased EEG theta oscillations due to sleep pressure. Finally, we show that learning and memory formation, behavioral counterparts of plasticity, and working memory and attention, which rely on cortical excitability, are impaired during sleep deprivation. Our data indicate that upscaled brain excitability and altered plasticity, due to sleep deprivation, are associated with impaired cognitive performance. Besides showing how brain physiology and cognition undergo changes (from neurophysiology to higher-order cognition) under sleep pressure, the findings have implications for variability and optimal application of noninvasive brain stimulation.