Molecular and anatomical characterization of parabrachial neurons and their axonal projections

  1. Jordan L Pauli
  2. Jane Y Chen  Is a corresponding author
  3. Marcus L Basiri
  4. Sekun Park
  5. Matthew E Carter
  6. Elisenda Sanz
  7. G Stanley McKnight
  8. Garret D Stuber
  9. Richard D Palmiter  Is a corresponding author
  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, United States
  2. University of Washington, United States

Abstract

The parabrachial nucleus (PBN) is a major hub that receives sensory information from both internal and external environments. Specific populations of PBN neurons are involved in behaviors including food and water intake, nociceptive responses, breathing regulation, as well as learning and responding appropriately to threatening stimuli. However, it is unclear how many PBN neuron populations exist and how different behaviors may be encoded by unique signaling molecules or receptors. Here we provide a repository of data on the molecular identity, spatial location, and projection patterns of dozens of PBN neuron subclusters. Using single-cell RNA sequencing, we identified 21 subclusters of neurons in the PBN and neighboring regions. Multiplexed in situ hybridization showed many of these subclusters are enriched within specific PBN subregions with scattered cells in several other regions. We also provide detailed visualization of the axonal projections from 21 Cre-driver lines of mice. These results are all publicly available for download and provide a foundation for further interrogation of PBN functions and connections.

Data availability

Raw and preprocessed data for scRNA-seq: NCBI GEO accession number GSE207708Code for analysis of scRNA-Seq data: https://github.com/stuberlab/Pauli-Chen-Basiri-et-al-2022Raw and normalized data for RiboTag: NCBI GEO accession number GSE207153Images from RNAscope and all tracing experiments: Zenodo DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6707404; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6707404

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jordan L Pauli

    Department of Biochemistry, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Jane Y Chen

    Department of Biochemistry, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    jychen@uw.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3986-8785
  3. Marcus L Basiri

    Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4829-7187
  4. Sekun Park

    Department of Biochemistry, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Matthew E Carter

    Department of Biochemistry, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1802-090X
  6. Elisenda Sanz

    Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7932-8556
  7. G Stanley McKnight

    Department of Pharmacology, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Garret D Stuber

    Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1730-4855
  9. Richard D Palmiter

    Department of Biochemistry, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    palmiter@uw.edu
    Competing interests
    Richard D Palmiter, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6587-0582

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01-DA24908)

  • Richard D Palmiter

National Institutes of Health (R01-DA032750)

  • Garret D Stuber

National Institutes of Health (R01-DA038168)

  • Garret D Stuber

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. David D Ginty, Harvard Medical School, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experiments were approved by the Institutional Animals Care and Use Committee at the University of Washington (Protocol #2183-02).

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: July 13, 2022 (view preprint)
  2. Received: July 14, 2022
  3. Accepted: October 31, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: November 1, 2022 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: November 16, 2022 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2022, Pauli 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

  • 5,204
    Page views
  • 776
    Downloads
  • 25
    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. Jordan L Pauli
  2. Jane Y Chen
  3. Marcus L Basiri
  4. Sekun Park
  5. Matthew E Carter
  6. Elisenda Sanz
  7. G Stanley McKnight
  8. Garret D Stuber
  9. Richard D Palmiter
(2022)
Molecular and anatomical characterization of parabrachial neurons and their axonal projections
eLife 11:e81868.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.81868

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.81868

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Kiwamu Kudo, Kamalini G Ranasinghe ... Srikantan S Nagarajan
    Research Article

    Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-β and misfolded tau proteins causing synaptic dysfunction, and progressive neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. Altered neural oscillations have been consistently demonstrated in AD. However, the trajectories of abnormal neural oscillations in AD progression and their relationship to neurodegeneration and cognitive decline are unknown. Here, we deployed robust event-based sequencing models (EBMs) to investigate the trajectories of long-range and local neural synchrony across AD stages, estimated from resting-state magnetoencephalography. The increases in neural synchrony in the delta-theta band and the decreases in the alpha and beta bands showed progressive changes throughout the stages of the EBM. Decreases in alpha and beta band synchrony preceded both neurodegeneration and cognitive decline, indicating that frequency-specific neuronal synchrony abnormalities are early manifestations of AD pathophysiology. The long-range synchrony effects were greater than the local synchrony, indicating a greater sensitivity of connectivity metrics involving multiple regions of the brain. These results demonstrate the evolution of functional neuronal deficits along the sequence of AD progression.

    1. Medicine
    2. Neuroscience
    Luisa Fassi, Shachar Hochman ... Roi Cohen Kadosh
    Research Article

    In recent years, there has been debate about the effectiveness of treatments from different fields, such as neurostimulation, neurofeedback, brain training, and pharmacotherapy. This debate has been fuelled by contradictory and nuanced experimental findings. Notably, the effectiveness of a given treatment is commonly evaluated by comparing the effect of the active treatment versus the placebo on human health and/or behaviour. However, this approach neglects the individual’s subjective experience of the type of treatment she or he received in establishing treatment efficacy. Here, we show that individual differences in subjective treatment - the thought of receiving the active or placebo condition during an experiment - can explain variability in outcomes better than the actual treatment. We analysed four independent datasets (N = 387 participants), including clinical patients and healthy adults from different age groups who were exposed to different neurostimulation treatments (transcranial magnetic stimulation: Studies 1 and 2; transcranial direct current stimulation: Studies 3 and 4). Our findings show that the inclusion of subjective treatment can provide a better model fit either alone or in interaction with objective treatment (defined as the condition to which participants are assigned in the experiment). These results demonstrate the significant contribution of subjective experience in explaining the variability of clinical, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes. We advocate for existing and future studies in clinical and non-clinical research to start accounting for participants’ subjective beliefs and their interplay with objective treatment when assessing the efficacy of treatments. This approach will be crucial in providing a more accurate estimation of the treatment effect and its source, allowing the development of effective and reproducible interventions.