Letter | Published:

Anatomy and function of an excitatory network in the visual cortex

Nature volume 532, pages 370374 (21 April 2016) | Download Citation

Abstract

Circuits in the cerebral cortex consist of thousands of neurons connected by millions of synapses. A precise understanding of these local networks requires relating circuit activity with the underlying network structure. For pyramidal cells in superficial mouse visual cortex (V1), a consensus is emerging that neurons with similar visual response properties excite each other1,2,3,4,5, but the anatomical basis of this recurrent synaptic network is unknown. Here we combined physiological imaging and large-scale electron microscopy to study an excitatory network in V1. We found that layer 2/3 neurons organized into subnetworks defined by anatomical connectivity, with more connections within than between groups. More specifically, we found that pyramidal neurons with similar orientation selectivity preferentially formed synapses with each other, despite the fact that axons and dendrites of all orientation selectivities pass near (<5 μm) each other with roughly equal probability. Therefore, we predict that mechanisms of functionally specific connectivity take place at the length scale of spines. Neurons with similar orientation tuning formed larger synapses, potentially enhancing the net effect of synaptic specificity. With the ability to study thousands of connections in a single circuit, functional connectomics is proving a powerful method to uncover the organizational logic of cortical networks.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    & Cortical connectivity and sensory coding. Nature 503, 51–58 (2013)

  2. 2.

    et al. Functional specificity of local synaptic connections in neocortical networks. Nature (2011)

  3. 3.

    , , , & Linear transformation of thalamocortical input by intracortical excitation. Nature Neurosci. 16, 1324–1330 (2013)

  4. 4.

    & Tuned thalamic excitation is amplified by visual cortical circuits. Nature Neurosci. 16, 1315–1323 (2013)

  5. 5.

    et al. Single-cell-initiated monosynaptic tracing reveals layer-specific cortical network modules. Science 349, 70–74 (2015)

  6. 6.

    & Highly selective receptive fields in mouse visual cortex. J. Neurosci. 28, 7520–7536 (2008)

  7. 7.

    , , & Broadly tuned response properties of diverse inhibitory neuron subtypes in mouse visual cortex. Neuron 67, 858–871 (2010)

  8. 8.

    et al. Network anatomy and in vivo physiology of visual cortical neurons. Nature 471, 177–182 (2011)

  9. 9.

    et al. Differential connectivity and response dynamics of excitatory and inhibitory neurons in visual cortex. Nature Neurosci. 14, 1045–1052 (2011)

  10. 10.

    , , , & Functional specialization of mouse higher visual cortical areas. Neuron 72, 1025–1039 (2011)

  11. 11.

    , , & Functional specialization of seven mouse visual cortical areas. Neuron 72, 1040–1054 (2011)

  12. 12.

    , , & Local diversity and fine-scale organization of receptive fields in mouse visual cortex. J. Neurosci. 31, 18506–18521 (2011)

  13. 13.

    , , & Cortico-cortical projections in mouse visual cortex are functionally target specific. Nature Neurosci. (2013)

  14. 14.

    et al. Functional organization of excitatory synaptic strength in primary visual cortex. Nature 518, 399–403 (2015)

  15. 15.

    , & Distinct recurrent versus afferent dynamics in cortical visual processing. Nature Neurosci. 18, 1789–1797 (2015)

  16. 16.

    , , & CATMAID: collaborative annotation toolkit for massive amounts of image data. Bioinformatics 25, 1984–1986 (2009)

  17. 17.

    , , & Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J. Stat. Mech. 2008, P10008 (2008)

  18. 18.

    , , , & Highly nonrandom features of synaptic connectivity in local cortical circuits. PLoS Biol. 3, e68 (2005)

  19. 19.

    , & Excitatory cortical neurons form fine-scale functional networks. Nature 433, 868–873 (2005)

  20. 20.

    , , , & Pyramidal cells make specific connections onto smooth (GABAergic) neurons in mouse visual cortex. PLoS Biol. 12, e1001932 (2014)

  21. 21.

    , & Geometry and structural plasticity of synaptic connectivity. Neuron 34, 275–288 (2002)

  22. 22.

    , & Cortical feed-forward networks for binding different streams of sensory information. Nature Neurosci. 9, 1472–1473 (2006)

  23. 23.

    , , , & An algorithm to predict the connectome of neural microcircuits. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 9, 120 (2015)

  24. 24.

    et al. Saturated reconstruction of a volume of neocortex. Cell 162, 648–661 (2015)

  25. 25.

    et al. Nanoconnectomic upper bound on the variability of synaptic plasticity. Elife 4, (2015)

  26. 26.

    & Dendritic spines of CA 1 pyramidal cells in the rat hippocampus: serial electron microscopy with reference to their biophysical characteristics. J. Neurosci. 9, 2982–2997 (1989)

  27. 27.

    et al. Dendritic spine geometry is critical for AMPA receptor expression in hippocampal CA1 pyramidal neurons. Nature Neurosci. 4, 1086–1092 (2001)

  28. 28.

    et al. Cell type and pathway dependence of synaptic AMPA receptor number and variability in the hippocampus. Neuron 21, 545–559 (1998)

  29. 29.

    , , , & Different modes of expression of AMPA and NMDA receptors in hippocampal synapses. Nature Neurosci. 2, 618–624 (1999)

  30. 30.

    From functional architecture to functional connectomics. Neuron 75, 209–217 (2012)

  31. 31.

    & Weight-conserving characterization of complex functional brain networks. Neuroimage 56, 2068–2079 (2011)

  32. 32.

    , & Chronic cellular imaging of mouse visual cortex during operant behavior and passive viewing. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 4, 3 (2010)

  33. 33.

    et al. Imaging neural activity in worms, flies and mice with improved GCaMP calcium indicators. Nature Methods 6, 875–881 (2009)

  34. 34.

    et al. A genetically encoded calcium indicator for chronic in vivo two-photon imaging. Nature Methods 5, 805–811 (2008)

  35. 35.

    et al. Chronic cellular imaging of entire cortical columns in awake mice using microprisms. Neuron 80, 900–913 (2013)

  36. 36.

    & The neuronal composition of area 17 of rat visual cortex. I. The pyramidal cells. J. Comp. Neurol. 234, 218–241 (1985)

  37. 37.

    , & Condom, E. A Golgi study of the sixth layer of the cerebral cortex. I. The lissencephalic brain of Rodentia, Lagomorpha, Insectivora and Chiroptera. J. Anat. 145, 217–234 (1986)

  38. 38.

    , & Visually evoked calcium action potentials in cat striate cortex. Nature 378, 612–616 (1995)

  39. 39.

    , , & Dendritic spikes enhance stimulus selectivity in cortical neurons in vivo. Nature 503, 115–120 (2013)

  40. 40.

    , & Dendritic calcium transients evoked by single back-propagating action potentials in rat neocortical pyramidal neurons. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 485, 1–20 (1995)

  41. 41.

    & Correlations between morphology and electrophysiology of pyramidal neurons in slices of rat visual cortex. I. Establishment of cell classes. J. Neurosci. 10, 1407–1414 (1990)

  42. 42.

    , & d. The fine structure of the nervous system: neurons and their supporting cells 3rd edn (Oxford Univ. Press, 1991)

  43. 43.

    & Dendritic spines of rat cerebellar Purkinje cells: serial electron microscopy with reference to their biophysical characteristics. J. Neurosci. 8, 4455–4469 (1988)

  44. 44.

    , & A pyramid approach to subpixel registration based on intensity. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 7, 27–41 (1998)

  45. 45.

    & Complex network measures of brain connectivity: uses and interpretations. Neuroimage 52, 1059–1069 (2010)

  46. 46.

    & Consensus clustering in complex networks. Sci. Rep. 2, 336 (2012)

  47. 47.

    & Specificity and stability in topology of protein networks. Science 296, 910–913 (2002)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank R. Arora, E. Ashbolt, L. Bailey, L. Beaton, P. Chopra, A. Coda, M. Driesbach, R. Fang, M. Fisher, A. Giuliano, H. Godtfredsen, A. Henry, E. Holtzman, P. Hughes, K. Joines, J. Larson, S. Maillet, K. Moody, E. Nguyen, A. Orban, V. Osuiji, K. Robertson, D. Sandman, S. Schwartz, E. Sczerzenie, N. Thatra, L. Thomas, B. Titus, R. Torres for tracing and reconstruction; E. Raviola for discussions and advice; H. Kim for technical support at the beginning of the study; A. Wetzel for help with alignment and stitching; A. Cardona and S. Saalfeld for the CATMAID project being openly available; and N. da Costa for launching the EM annotation program at the Allen Institute for Brain Science, with help and support from B. Youngstrom, R. Young, C. Dang and J. Phillips. We also thank D. Brittain, W. Gray Roncal, L. Thomas, S. Yurgenson, H. Elliot, and the HMS Image and Data Analysis Core for programming; E. Benecchi and the HMS EM Core Facility for technical support; P.J. Manavalan, K. Lillaney, and R. Burns, for helping make the data freely available; and S. Druckmann, Y. Park, C. Priebe, and J. Vogelstein for discussions on statistical analyses. We are indebted to M. Andermann, S. Chatterjee, N. da Costa, L. Glickfeld, C. Harwell, D. Hildebrand, M. Histed, S. Mihalas, L. Ostroff, E. Raviola, and J. T. Vogelstein for critical reading of various versions of the manuscript. This work was supported by NIH grants to RCR (R01 EY10115 and R01 NS075436); through resources provided by the NRBSC (P41 RR06009) and MMBioS (P41 GM103712); the HMS Vision Core Grant (P30 EY12196); and the AIBS. We thank the Allen Institute founders, P. G. Allen and J. Allen, for their vision, encouragement, and support. WCL was also supported by the Bertarelli Program in Translational Neuroscience and Neuroengineering, Edward R. and Anne G. Lefler Center, and Stanley and Theodora Feldberg Fund, and the NIH (R21 NS085320). VB was also supported by Neuro-Electronics Research Flanders. The project described was partially supported by the NIH by the above named awards. Its content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurobiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA

    • Wei-Chung Allen Lee
    • , Vincent Bonin
    • , Michael Reed
    • , Brett J. Graham
    •  & R. Clay Reid
  2. Neuro-Electronics Research Flanders, a research initiative by imec, Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie (VIB) and Katholieke Universiteit (KU) Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium

    • Vincent Bonin
  3. Biomedical Applications Group, Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA

    • Greg Hood
  4. Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington 98103, USA

    • Katie Glattfelder
    •  & R. Clay Reid

Authors

  1. Search for Wei-Chung Allen Lee in:

  2. Search for Vincent Bonin in:

  3. Search for Michael Reed in:

  4. Search for Brett J. Graham in:

  5. Search for Greg Hood in:

  6. Search for Katie Glattfelder in:

  7. Search for R. Clay Reid in:

Contributions

W.-C.A.L. and V.B. performed the in vivo calcium imaging and analysed it. W.-C.A.L. processed the tissue for EM, sectioned the series, and aligned the block with the in vivo imaging. W.-C.A.L. and M.R. imaged it on the TEMCA. G.H. and W.-C.A.L. aligned the EM images into a volume. W.-C.A.L., M.R., K.G. annotated the EM dataset and W.-C.A.L. and K.G. supervised segmentation efforts. B.J.G. and W.-C.A.L. generated software for visualization and analysis. W.-C.A.L. performed quantitative analysis on the tracing. W.-C.A.L., V.B., and R.C.R. designed the experiment and wrote the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Wei-Chung Allen Lee or R. Clay Reid.

The aligned EM dataset will be publicly accessible at http://neurodata.io/lee16.

Extended data

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Data

    This file contains Supplementary Data 1-3.

Videos

  1. 1.

    In vivo fluorescence to EM correspondence

    Fluorescence in vivo two-photon microscopy data 3-D aligned with the EM volume. To visualize three imaging datasets (in vivo anatomy: fluorescence volume, in vivo physiology: fluorescence planes; and EM) first, the volume is flown-through, oriented with the EM sections (coronally, relative to the brain). Then the volume is rotated so that the perspective is above the surface and horizontal relative to the brain. Next, descending into the brain, note the correspondence of GCaMP3 (green) and functionally colored cell bodies with the nuclei in EM, the blood vessels (red) with clear vasculature in EM, and track apical dendrites in vivo (green radially oriented processes) in EM (large caliber cylindrical dendrites with spines).

  2. 2.

    EM volume overview

    The video shows a fly-through of the aligned EM series. Please see Author Information for directions to the publicly accessible high-resolution aligned dataset.

  3. 3.

    Higher resolution EM core

    The video shows fly-through of a cropped (16.4 x 16.4 µm) region traversing 400 of the aligned EM sections in the functionally imaged volume.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17192

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.