No evidence from complementary data sources of a direct glutamatergic projection from the mouse anterior cingulate area to the hippocampal formation

  1. Lilya Andrianova
  2. Steliana Yanakieva
  3. Gabriella Margetts-Smith
  4. Shivali Kohli
  5. Erica S Brady
  6. John P Aggleton
  7. Michael T Craig  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Glasgow, United Kingdom
  2. Cardiff University, United Kingdom
  3. University of Exeter, United Kingdom

Abstract

The connectivity and interplay between the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus underpin various key cognitive processes, with changes in these interactions being implicated in both neurodevelopmental as well as neurodegenerative conditions. Understanding the precise cellular connections through which this circuit is organised is, therefore, vital for understanding these same processes. Overturning earlier findings, a recent study described a novel excitatory projection from anterior cingulate area to dorsal hippocampus. We sought to validate this unexpected finding using multiple, complementary methods: anterograde and retrograde anatomical tracing, using anterograde and retrograde AAVs, monosynaptic rabies tracing and the Fast Blue classical tracer. Additionally, an extensive data search of the Allen Projection Brain Atlas database was conducted to find the stated projection within any of the deposited anatomical studies, as an independent verification of our own results. However, we failed to find any evidence of a direct, monosynaptic glutamatergic projection from mouse anterior cingulate cortex to the hippocampus proper.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting file; Source Data file have been provided for Figure 3.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Lilya Andrianova

    School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Steliana Yanakieva

    School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Gabriella Margetts-Smith

    Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1885-2661
  4. Shivali Kohli

    Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Erica S Brady

    Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. John P Aggleton

    School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Michael T Craig

    School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    mick.craig@glasgow.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8481-6709

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/P001475/1)

  • Michael T Craig

Medical Research Council (MR/N0137941/1)

  • Gabriella Margetts-Smith
  • Erica S Brady

Wellcome Trust (108891/B/15/Z)

  • Steliana Yanakieva

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All UK-based research was carried out in accordance with the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and was subject to local ethical review by the Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Board at the University of Exeter or University of Glasgow. All surgical procedures were carried out using aseptic technique under isoflurane anaesthesia, with additional analgesia provided peri- and post-operatively. Every effort was made to minimise animal suffering.

Copyright

© 2023, Andrianova 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

  • 2,106
    views
  • 261
    downloads
  • 5
    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. Lilya Andrianova
  2. Steliana Yanakieva
  3. Gabriella Margetts-Smith
  4. Shivali Kohli
  5. Erica S Brady
  6. John P Aggleton
  7. Michael T Craig
(2023)
No evidence from complementary data sources of a direct glutamatergic projection from the mouse anterior cingulate area to the hippocampal formation
eLife 12:e77364.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.77364

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.77364

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Paul I Jaffe, Gustavo X Santiago-Reyes ... Russell A Poldrack
    Research Article

    Evidence accumulation models (EAMs) are the dominant framework for modeling response time (RT) data from speeded decision-making tasks. While providing a good quantitative description of RT data in terms of abstract perceptual representations, EAMs do not explain how the visual system extracts these representations in the first place. To address this limitation, we introduce the visual accumulator model (VAM), in which convolutional neural network models of visual processing and traditional EAMs are jointly fitted to trial-level RTs and raw (pixel-space) visual stimuli from individual subjects in a unified Bayesian framework. Models fitted to large-scale cognitive training data from a stylized flanker task captured individual differences in congruency effects, RTs, and accuracy. We find evidence that the selection of task-relevant information occurs through the orthogonalization of relevant and irrelevant representations, demonstrating how our framework can be used to relate visual representations to behavioral outputs. Together, our work provides a probabilistic framework for both constraining neural network models of vision with behavioral data and studying how the visual system extracts representations that guide decisions.

    1. Neuroscience
    Aneri Soni, Michael J Frank
    Research Article

    How and why is working memory (WM) capacity limited? Traditional cognitive accounts focus either on limitations on the number or items that can be stored (slots models), or loss of precision with increasing load (resource models). Here, we show that a neural network model of prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia can learn to reuse the same prefrontal populations to store multiple items, leading to resource-like constraints within a slot-like system, and inducing a trade-off between quantity and precision of information. Such ‘chunking’ strategies are adapted as a function of reinforcement learning and WM task demands, mimicking human performance and normative models. Moreover, adaptive performance requires a dynamic range of dopaminergic signals to adjust striatal gating policies, providing a new interpretation of WM difficulties in patient populations such as Parkinson’s disease, ADHD, and schizophrenia. These simulations also suggest a computational rather than anatomical limit to WM capacity.