Abstract

The development of connectivity between the thalamus and maturing cortex is a fundamental process in the second half of human gestation, establishing the neural circuits that are the basis for several important brain functions. In this study, we acquired high-resolution in utero diffusion MRI from 140 fetuses as part of the Developing Human Connectome Project, to examine the emergence of thalamocortical white matter over the second to third trimester. We delineate developing thalamocortical pathways and parcellate the fetal thalamus according to its cortical connectivity using diffusion tractography. We then quantify microstructural tissue components along the tracts in fetal compartments that are critical substrates for white matter maturation, such as the subplate and intermediate zone. We identify patterns of change in the diffusion metrics that reflect critical neurobiological transitions occurring in the second to third trimester, such as the disassembly of radial glial scaffolding and the lamination of the cortical plate. These maturational trajectories of MR signal in transient fetal compartments provide a normative reference to complement histological knowledge, facilitating future studies to establish how developmental disruptions in these regions contribute to pathophysiology.

Data availability

Developing Human Connectome project data is open-access and available for download following completion of a data-usage agreement via: http://www.developingconnectome.org/. Data will also be available at: https://nda.nih.gov/edit_collection.html?id=3955

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Sian Wilson

    Centre for the Developing Brain, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4617-3583
  2. Maximilian Pietsch

    Centre for the Developing Brain, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Lucilio Cordero-Grande

    Centre for the Developing Brain, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Daan Christiaens

    Centre for the Developing Brain, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Alena Uus

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Vyacheslav R Karolis

    Centre for the Developing Brain, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Vanessa Kyriakopoulou

    Centre for the Developing Brain, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Kathleen Colford

    Centre for the Developing Brain, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Anthony N Price

    Centre for the Developing Brain, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Jana Hutter

    Centre for the Developing Brain, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Mary A Rutherford

    Centre for the Developing Brain, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Emer J Hughes

    Centre for the Developing Brain, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Serena J Counsell

    Centre for the Developing Brain, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8033-5673
  14. Jacques-Donald Tournier

    Centre for the Developing Brain, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Joseph V Hajnal

    Centre for the Developing Brain, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. A David Edwards

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4801-7066
  17. Jonathan O'Muicheartaigh

    Centre for the Developing Brain, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    jonathanom@kcl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Tomoki Arichi

    Centre for the Developing Brain, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    tomoki.arichi@kcl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3550-1644

Funding

European Research Council (Seventh Framework Programme: FP/2007/2013)

  • Maximilian Pietsch
  • Lucilio Cordero-Grande
  • Daan Christiaens
  • Vyacheslav R Karolis
  • Vanessa Kyriakopoulou
  • Anthony N Price
  • Jana Hutter
  • Emer J Hughes
  • Jacques-Donald Tournier
  • Joseph V Hajnal
  • A David Edwards

Wellcome Trust (Sir Henry Dale Fellowship: 206675/Z/17/Z)

  • Jonathan O'Muicheartaigh

Medical Research Council Centre for Neurodevelopmental Disorders (MR/N0266063/1)

  • Sian Wilson
  • Mary A Rutherford
  • A David Edwards
  • Jonathan O'Muicheartaigh
  • Tomoki Arichi

Medical Research Council (Translation support fellowship: MR/V036874/1)

  • Vyacheslav R Karolis
  • Tomoki Arichi

Wellcome / EPSRC Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Kings College London (WT 203148/Z/16/Z)

  • Anthony N Price
  • Jana Hutter
  • Jacques-Donald Tournier
  • Joseph V Hajnal

Medical Research Council (Clinician Scientist Fellowship MR/P008712/1)

  • Tomoki Arichi

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Finnegan J Calabro, University of Pittsburgh, United States

Ethics

Human subjects: The study was approved by the UK Health Research Authority (Research Ethics Committee reference number: 14/LO/1169) and written parental consent was obtained in every case for imaging and open data release of the anonymized data.

Version history

  1. Received: September 26, 2022
  2. Preprint posted: October 25, 2022 (view preprint)
  3. Accepted: March 31, 2023
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: April 3, 2023 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: April 24, 2023 (version 2)
  6. Version of Record updated: May 26, 2023 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2023, Wilson 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

  • 893
    views
  • 173
    downloads
  • 4
    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. Sian Wilson
  2. Maximilian Pietsch
  3. Lucilio Cordero-Grande
  4. Daan Christiaens
  5. Alena Uus
  6. Vyacheslav R Karolis
  7. Vanessa Kyriakopoulou
  8. Kathleen Colford
  9. Anthony N Price
  10. Jana Hutter
  11. Mary A Rutherford
  12. Emer J Hughes
  13. Serena J Counsell
  14. Jacques-Donald Tournier
  15. Joseph V Hajnal
  16. A David Edwards
  17. Jonathan O'Muicheartaigh
  18. Tomoki Arichi
(2023)
Spatiotemporal tissue maturation of thalamocortical pathways in the human fetal brain
eLife 12:e83727.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.83727

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.83727

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Gang Xue, Xiaoyi Zhang ... Zhiyuan Li
    Research Article

    Organisms utilize gene regulatory networks (GRN) to make fate decisions, but the regulatory mechanisms of transcription factors (TF) in GRNs are exceedingly intricate. A longstanding question in this field is how these tangled interactions synergistically contribute to decision-making procedures. To comprehensively understand the role of regulatory logic in cell fate decisions, we constructed a logic-incorporated GRN model and examined its behavior under two distinct driving forces (noise-driven and signal-driven). Under the noise-driven mode, we distilled the relationship among fate bias, regulatory logic, and noise profile. Under the signal-driven mode, we bridged regulatory logic and progression-accuracy trade-off, and uncovered distinctive trajectories of reprogramming influenced by logic motifs. In differentiation, we characterized a special logic-dependent priming stage by the solution landscape. Finally, we applied our findings to decipher three biological instances: hematopoiesis, embryogenesis, and trans-differentiation. Orthogonal to the classical analysis of expression profile, we harnessed noise patterns to construct the GRN corresponding to fate transition. Our work presents a generalizable framework for top-down fate-decision studies and a practical approach to the taxonomy of cell fate decisions.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Zhuqing Wang, Yue Wang ... Wei Yan
    Research Article

    Despite rapid evolution across eutherian mammals, the X-linked MIR-506 family miRNAs are located in a region flanked by two highly conserved protein-coding genes (SLITRK2 and FMR1) on the X chromosome. Intriguingly, these miRNAs are predominantly expressed in the testis, suggesting a potential role in spermatogenesis and male fertility. Here, we report that the X-linked MIR-506 family miRNAs were derived from the MER91C DNA transposons. Selective inactivation of individual miRNAs or clusters caused no discernible defects, but simultaneous ablation of five clusters containing 19 members of the MIR-506 family led to reduced male fertility in mice. Despite normal sperm counts, motility, and morphology, the KO sperm were less competitive than wild-type sperm when subjected to a polyandrous mating scheme. Transcriptomic and bioinformatic analyses revealed that these X-linked MIR-506 family miRNAs, in addition to targeting a set of conserved genes, have more targets that are critical for spermatogenesis and embryonic development during evolution. Our data suggest that the MIR-506 family miRNAs function to enhance sperm competitiveness and reproductive fitness of the male by finetuning gene expression during spermatogenesis.