1. Neuroscience

A tonic nicotinic brake controls spike timing in striatal spiny projection neurons

  1. Lior Matityahu
  2. Jeffrey M Malgady
  3. Meital Schirelman
  4. Yvonne Johansson
  5. Jennifer Wilking
  6. Gilad Silberberg
  7. Joshua A Goldberg  Is a corresponding author
  8. Joshua L Plotkin  Is a corresponding author
  1. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
  2. Stony Brook University, United States
  3. University College London, United Kingdom
  4. Karolinska Institutet, Sweden
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.75829
Share this article
Cite this article
  1. Lior Matityahu
  2. Jeffrey M Malgady
  3. Meital Schirelman
  4. Yvonne Johansson
  5. Jennifer Wilking
  6. Gilad Silberberg
  7. Joshua A Goldberg
  8. Joshua L Plotkin
(2022)
A tonic nicotinic brake controls spike timing in striatal spiny projection neurons
eLife 11:e75829.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.75829
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

Abstract

Striatal spiny projection neurons (SPNs) transform convergent excitatory corticostriatal inputs into an inhibitory signal that shapes basal ganglia output. This process is fine-tuned by striatal GABAergic interneurons (GINs), which receive overlapping cortical inputs and mediate rapid corticostriatal feedforward inhibition of SPNs. Adding another level of control, cholinergic interneurons (CINs), which are also vigorously activated by corticostriatal excitation, can disynaptically inhibit SPNs by activating α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) on various GINs. Measurements of this disynaptic inhibitory pathway, however, indicate that it is too slow to compete with direct GIN-mediated feed-forward inhibition. Moreover, functional nAChRs are also present on populations of GINs that respond only weakly to phasic activation of CINs, such as parvalbumin-positive fast-spiking interneurons (PV-FSIs), making the overall role of nAChRs in shaping striatal synaptic integration unclear. Using acute striatal slices from mice we show that upon synchronous optogenetic activation of corticostriatal projections blockade of α4β2 nAChRs shortened SPN spike latencies and increased postsynaptic depolarizations. The nAChR-dependent inhibition was mediated by downstream GABA release, and data suggest that the GABA source was not limited to GINs that respond strongly to phasic CIN activation. In particular, the observed decrease in spike latency caused by nAChR blockade was associated with a diminished frequency of spontaneous inhibitory postsynaptic currents in SPNs, a parallel hyperpolarization of PV-FSIs, and was occluded by pharmacologically preventing cortical activation of PV-FSIs. Taken together, we describe a role for tonic (as opposed to phasic) activation of nAChRs in striatal function. We conclude that tonic activation of nAChRs by CINs maintains a GABAergic brake on cortically-driven striatal output by 'priming' feedforward inhibition, a process that may shape SPN spike timing, striatal processing and synaptic plasticity.

Data availability

All analyzed data sets, whether included in figures or referenced as 'not shown', have been uploaded to OSF and made publically available: https://osf.io/7kazd

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Lior Matityahu

    Department of Medical Neurobiology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  2. Jeffrey M Malgady

    Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1129-2155

  3. Meital Schirelman

    Department of Medical Neurobiology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  4. Yvonne Johansson

    Sainsbury Wellcome Centre for Neural Circuits and Behaviour, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  5. Jennifer Wilking

    Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  6. Gilad Silberberg

    Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9964-505X

  7. Joshua A Goldberg

    Department of Medical Neurobiology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
    For correspondence
    joshua.goldberg2@mail.huji.ac.il
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5740-4087

  8. Joshua L Plotkin

    Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, United States
    For correspondence
    joshua.plotkin@stonybrook.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6232-7613

Funding

BSF (2017020)

  • Joshua A Goldberg
  • Joshua L Plotkin

ISF (154/14)

  • Joshua A Goldberg

ERC Consolidator (646880)

  • Joshua A Goldberg

NIH (R01 NS104089/NINDS)

  • Joshua L Plotkin

NIH (NS022061/NINDS)

  • Joshua L Plotkin

Swedish Brain Fund grant (FO2021-0333)

  • Gilad Silberberg

Swedish Brain Fund grant (PS2020-0020)

  • Yvonne Johansson

Swedish Research Council grant (2019-01254)

  • Gilad Silberberg

Wallenberg Academy Fellowship (KAW 2017.0273)

  • Gilad Silberberg

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jun Ding, Stanford University, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experimental procedures on mice adhered to and received prior written approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (MD-14-14195-3 and MD-18-15657-3) and of Stony Brook University (737496) and of the local ethics committee of Stockholm, Stockholms Norra djurförsöksetiska nämnd (N2022_2020).

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: November 3, 2021 (view preprint)
  2. Received: November 24, 2021
  3. Accepted: May 15, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: May 17, 2022 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: May 27, 2022 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2022, Matityahu 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

  • 1,514
    views
  • 361
    downloads
  • 8
    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. Lior Matityahu
  2. Jeffrey M Malgady
  3. Meital Schirelman
  4. Yvonne Johansson
  5. Jennifer Wilking
  6. Gilad Silberberg
  7. Joshua A Goldberg
  8. Joshua L Plotkin
(2022)
A tonic nicotinic brake controls spike timing in striatal spiny projection neurons
eLife 11:e75829.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.75829

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.75829

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience

    Determinantal point process attention over grid cell code supports out of distribution generalization

    Shanka Subhra Mondal, Steven Frankland ... Jonathan D Cohen
    Research Article

    Deep neural networks have made tremendous gains in emulating human-like intelligence, and have been used increasingly as ways of understanding how the brain may solve the complex computational problems on which this relies. However, these still fall short of, and therefore fail to provide insight into how the brain supports strong forms of generalization of which humans are capable. One such case is out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization – successful performance on test examples that lie outside the distribution of the training set. Here, we identify properties of processing in the brain that may contribute to this ability. We describe a two-part algorithm that draws on specific features of neural computation to achieve OOD generalization, and provide a proof of concept by evaluating performance on two challenging cognitive tasks. First we draw on the fact that the mammalian brain represents metric spaces using grid cell code (e.g., in the entorhinal cortex): abstract representations of relational structure, organized in recurring motifs that cover the representational space. Second, we propose an attentional mechanism that operates over the grid cell code using determinantal point process (DPP), that we call DPP attention (DPP-A) – a transformation that ensures maximum sparseness in the coverage of that space. We show that a loss function that combines standard task-optimized error with DPP-A can exploit the recurring motifs in the grid cell code, and can be integrated with common architectures to achieve strong OOD generalization performance on analogy and arithmetic tasks. This provides both an interpretation of how the grid cell code in the mammalian brain may contribute to generalization performance, and at the same time a potential means for improving such capabilities in artificial neural networks.

    1. Neuroscience

    Bidirectional fear modulation by discrete anterior insular circuits in male mice

    Sanggeon Park, Yeowool Huh ... Jeiwon Cho
    Research Article

    The brain’s ability to appraise threats and execute appropriate defensive responses is essential for survival in a dynamic environment. Humans studies have implicated the anterior insular cortex (aIC) in subjective fear regulation and its abnormal activity in fear/anxiety disorders. However, the complex aIC connectivity patterns involved in regulating fear remain under investigated. To address this, we recorded single units in the aIC of freely moving male mice that had previously undergone auditory fear conditioning, assessed the effect of optogenetically activating specific aIC output structures in fear, and examined the organization of aIC neurons projecting to the specific structures with retrograde tracing. Single-unit recordings revealed that a balanced number of aIC pyramidal neurons’ activity either positively or negatively correlated with a conditioned tone-induced freezing (fear) response. Optogenetic manipulations of aIC pyramidal neuronal activity during conditioned tone presentation altered the expression of conditioned freezing. Neural tracing showed that non-overlapping populations of aIC neurons project to the amygdala or the medial thalamus, and the pathway bidirectionally modulated conditioned fear. Specifically, optogenetic stimulation of the aIC-amygdala pathway increased conditioned freezing, while optogenetic stimulation of the aIC-medial thalamus pathway decreased it. Our findings suggest that the balance of freezing-excited and freezing-inhibited neuronal activity in the aIC and the distinct efferent circuits interact collectively to modulate fear behavior.

    1. Neuroscience

    Fundamental processes in sensorimotor learning: Reasoning, refinement, and retrieval

    Jonathan S Tsay, Hyosub E Kim ... Richard B Ivry
    Review Article

    Motor learning is often viewed as a unitary process that operates outside of conscious awareness. This perspective has led to the development of sophisticated models designed to elucidate the mechanisms of implicit sensorimotor learning. In this review, we argue for a broader perspective, emphasizing the contribution of explicit strategies to sensorimotor learning tasks. Furthermore, we propose a theoretical framework for motor learning that consists of three fundamental processes: reasoning, the process of understanding action–outcome relationships; refinement, the process of optimizing sensorimotor and cognitive parameters to achieve motor goals; and retrieval, the process of inferring the context and recalling a control policy. We anticipate that this ‘3R’ framework for understanding how complex movements are learned will open exciting avenues for future research at the intersection between cognition and action.