Abstract

Rodent studies have demonstrated that synaptic dynamics from excitatory to inhibitory neuron types are often dependent on the target cell type. However, these target cell-specific properties have not been well investigated in human cortex, where there are major technical challenges in reliably obtaining healthy tissue, conducting multiple patch-clamp recordings on inhibitory cell types, and identifying those cell types. Here, we take advantage of newly developed methods for human neurosurgical tissue analysis with multiple patch-clamp recordings, post-hoc fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), machine learning-based cell type classification and prospective GABAergic AAV-based labeling to investigate synaptic properties between pyramidal neurons and PVALB- vs. SST-positive interneurons. We find that there are robust molecular differences in synapse-associated genes between these neuron types, and that individual presynaptic pyramidal neurons evoke postsynaptic responses with heterogeneous synaptic dynamics in different postsynaptic cell types. Using molecular identification with FISH and classifiers based on transcriptomically identified PVALB neurons analyzed by Patch-seq, we find that PVALB neurons typically show depressing synaptic characteristics, whereas other interneuron types including SST-positive neurons show facilitating characteristics. Together, these data support the existence of target cell-specific synaptic properties in human cortex that are similar to rodent, thereby indicating evolutionary conservation of local circuit connectivity motifs from excitatory to inhibitory neurons and their synaptic dynamics.

Data availability

Single nucleus transcriptomic datasets from human MTG (Hodge et al., 2019) and mouse VISp (Tasic et al., 2018) are available in the Allen Institute website (https://portal.brain-map.org/atlases-and-data/rnaseq). Synaptic connectivity assay datasets including raw traces and related metadata information with MATLAB files (.mat), classifier analysis codes, and their intrinsic membrane property values are available in the DRYAD repository (doi:10.5061/dryad.jdfn2z3dm). Synaptic physiology experimental protocols and related topics are also available in the Allen Institute website (https://portal.brain-map.org/explore/connectivity/synaptic-physiology). To provide more publicly accessible data format, Neurodata Without Borders (NWB) files for synaptic connectivity assay performed in this study and human single cell patch-seq experimental data will be also available soon at DANDI or the BICCN data catalog.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Mean-Hwan Kim

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    meanhwank@alleninstitute.org
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8065-4631
  2. Cristina Radaelli

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Elliot R Thomsen

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Deja Monet

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Thomas Chartrand

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7093-8681
  6. Nikolas L Jorstad

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Joseph T Mahoney

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1374-3893
  8. Michael J Taormina

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Brian Long

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Katherine Baker

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Trygve E Bakken

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3373-7386
  12. Luke Campagnola

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Tamara Casper

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Michael Clark

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Nick Dee

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Florence D'Orazi

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  17. Clare Gamlin

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  18. Brian E Kalmbach

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  19. Sara Kebede

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  20. Brian R Lee

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3210-5638
  21. Lindsay Ng

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  22. Jessica Trinh

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  23. Charles Cobbs

    Epilepsy Surgery and Functional Neurosurgery, Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  24. Ryder P Gwinn

    Epilepsy Surgery and Functional Neurosurgery, Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  25. C Dirk Keene

    Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5291-1469
  26. Andrew L Ko

    Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  27. Jeffrey G Ojemann

    Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  28. Daniel L Silbergeld

    Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  29. Staci Sorensen

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  30. Jim Berg

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  31. Kimberly A Smith

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  32. Philip R Nicovich

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  33. Tim Jarsky

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4399-539X
  34. Gabe J Murphy

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  35. Hongkui Zeng

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0326-5878
  36. Jonathan T Ting

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    Jonathan T Ting, U.S. patent application #PCT_US2019_054539 related to this work (vector CN1390)..
  37. Boaz P. Levi

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seatlle, United States
    Competing interests
    Boaz P. Levi, U.S. patent application #PCT_US2019_054539 related to this work (vector CN1390)..
  38. Ed Lein

    Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    Ed Lein, U.S. patent application #PCT_US2019_054539 related to this work (vector CN1390)..

Funding

NIH BRAIN Initiative (1RF1MH114126-01)

  • Jonathan T Ting
  • Boaz P. Levi
  • Ed Lein

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

Copyright

© 2023, Kim 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

  • 2,197
    views
  • 330
    downloads
  • 15
    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. Mean-Hwan Kim
  2. Cristina Radaelli
  3. Elliot R Thomsen
  4. Deja Monet
  5. Thomas Chartrand
  6. Nikolas L Jorstad
  7. Joseph T Mahoney
  8. Michael J Taormina
  9. Brian Long
  10. Katherine Baker
  11. Trygve E Bakken
  12. Luke Campagnola
  13. Tamara Casper
  14. Michael Clark
  15. Nick Dee
  16. Florence D'Orazi
  17. Clare Gamlin
  18. Brian E Kalmbach
  19. Sara Kebede
  20. Brian R Lee
  21. Lindsay Ng
  22. Jessica Trinh
  23. Charles Cobbs
  24. Ryder P Gwinn
  25. C Dirk Keene
  26. Andrew L Ko
  27. Jeffrey G Ojemann
  28. Daniel L Silbergeld
  29. Staci Sorensen
  30. Jim Berg
  31. Kimberly A Smith
  32. Philip R Nicovich
  33. Tim Jarsky
  34. Gabe J Murphy
  35. Hongkui Zeng
  36. Jonathan T Ting
  37. Boaz P. Levi
  38. Ed Lein
(2023)
Target cell-specific synaptic dynamics of excitatory to inhibitory neuron connections in supragranular layers of human neocortex
eLife 12:e81863.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.81863

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.81863

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Jeffrey Barr, Austin Walz ... Paola D Vermeer
    Research Article

    Cancer patients often experience changes in mental health, prompting an exploration into whether nerves infiltrating tumors contribute to these alterations by impacting brain functions. Using a mouse model for head and neck cancer and neuronal tracing, we show that tumor-infiltrating nerves connect to distinct brain areas. The activation of this neuronal circuitry altered behaviors (decreased nest-building, increased latency to eat a cookie, and reduced wheel running). Tumor-infiltrating nociceptor neurons exhibited heightened calcium activity and brain regions receiving these neural projections showed elevated Fos as well as increased calcium responses compared to non-tumor-bearing counterparts. The genetic elimination of nociceptor neurons decreased brain Fos expression and mitigated the behavioral alterations induced by the presence of the tumor. While analgesic treatment restored nesting and cookie test behaviors, it did not fully restore voluntary wheel running indicating that pain is not the exclusive driver of such behavioral shifts. Unraveling the interaction between the tumor, infiltrating nerves, and the brain is pivotal to developing targeted interventions to alleviate the mental health burdens associated with cancer.

    1. Neuroscience
    Xinlin Hou, Peng Zhang ... Dandan Zhang
    Research Article

    Emotional responsiveness in neonates, particularly their ability to discern vocal emotions, plays an evolutionarily adaptive role in human communication and adaptive behaviors. The developmental trajectory of emotional sensitivity in neonates is crucial for understanding the foundations of early social-emotional functioning. However, the precise onset of this sensitivity and its relationship with gestational age (GA) remain subjects of investigation. In a study involving 120 healthy neonates categorized into six groups based on their GA (ranging from 35 and 40 weeks), we explored their emotional responses to vocal stimuli. These stimuli encompassed disyllables with happy and neutral prosodies, alongside acoustically matched nonvocal control sounds. The assessments occurred during natural sleep states using the odd-ball paradigm and event-related potentials. The results reveal a distinct developmental change at 37 weeks GA, marking the point at which neonates exhibit heightened perceptual acuity for emotional vocal expressions. This newfound ability is substantiated by the presence of the mismatch response, akin to an initial form of adult mismatch negativity, elicited in response to positive emotional vocal prosody. Notably, this perceptual shift’s specificity becomes evident when no such discrimination is observed in acoustically matched control sounds. Neonates born before 37 weeks GA do not display this level of discrimination ability. This developmental change has important implications for our understanding of early social-emotional development, highlighting the role of gestational age in shaping early perceptual abilities. Moreover, while these findings introduce the potential for a valuable screening tool for conditions like autism, characterized by atypical social-emotional functions, it is important to note that the current data are not yet robust enough to fully support this application. This study makes a substantial contribution to the broader field of developmental neuroscience and holds promise for future research on early intervention in neurodevelopmental disorders.