Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

A cross-modal genetic framework for the development and plasticity of sensory pathways

Nature volume 538, pages 96–98 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Modality-specific sensory inputs from individual sense organs are processed in parallel in distinct areas of the neocortex. For each sensory modality, input follows a cortico–thalamo–cortical loop in which a ‘first-order’ exteroceptive thalamic nucleus sends peripheral input to the primary sensory cortex, which projects back to a ‘higher order’ thalamic nucleus that targets a secondary sensory cortex1,2,3,4,5,6. This conserved circuit motif raises the possibility that shared genetic programs exist across sensory modalities. Here we report that, despite their association with distinct sensory modalities, first-order nuclei in mice are genetically homologous across somatosensory, visual, and auditory pathways, as are higher order nuclei. We further reveal peripheral input-dependent control over the transcriptional identity and connectivity of first-order nuclei by showing that input ablation leads to induction of higher-order-type transcriptional programs and rewiring of higher-order-directed descending cortical input to deprived first-order nuclei. These findings uncover an input-dependent genetic logic for the design and plasticity of sensory pathways, in which conserved developmental programs lead to conserved circuit motifs across sensory modalities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Hierarchical order is the primary determinant of transcriptional identity in somatosensory and visual thalamic nuclei.
Figure 2: Peripheral input ablation induces HO-type transcriptional programs in FO nuclei.
Figure 3: Enucleation leads to acquisition of LP-directed descending L5B input by deprived LG neurons.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Guillery, R. W. Anatomical evidence concerning the role of the thalamus in corticocortical communication: a brief review. J. Anat. 187, 583–592 (1995)

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Sherman, S. M. S. Thalamocortical interactions. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 22, 575–579 (2012)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Herkenham, M. Laminar organization of thalamic projections to the rat neocortex. Science 207, 532–535 (1980)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Smith, P. H., Uhlrich, D. J., Manning, K. A. & Banks, M. I. Thalamocortical projections to rat auditory cortex from the ventral and dorsal divisions of the medial geniculate nucleus. J. Comp. Neurol. 520, 34–51 (2012)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Clascá, F., Rubio-Garrido, P. & Jabaudon, D. Unveiling the diversity of thalamocortical neuron subtypes. Eur. J. Neurosci. 35, 1524–1532 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Theyel, B. B., Llano, D. A. & Sherman, S. M. The corticothalamocortical circuit drives higher-order cortex in the mouse. Nat. Neurosci. 13, 84–88 (2010)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pouchelon, G. et al. Modality-specific thalamocortical inputs instruct the identity of postsynaptic L4 neurons. Nature 511, 471–474 (2014)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Frangeul, L. et al. Specific activation of the paralemniscal pathway during nociception. Eur. J. Neurosci. 39, 1455–1464 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Viaene, A. N., Petrof, I. & Sherman, S. M. Properties of the thalamic projection from the posterior medial nucleus to primary and secondary somatosensory cortices in the mouse. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 18156–18161 (2011)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Chou, S.-J. et al. Geniculocortical input drives genetic distinctions between primary and higher-order visual areas. Science 340, 1239–1242 (2013)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang, S., Eisenback, M. A. & Bickford, M. E. Relative distribution of synapses in the pulvinar nucleus of the cat: implications regarding the “driver/modulator” theory of thalamic function. J. Comp. Neurol. 454, 482–494 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Reichova, I. & Sherman, S. M. Somatosensory corticothalamic projections: distinguishing drivers from modulators. J. Neurophysiol. 92, 2185–2197 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee, C. C. & Sherman, S. M. Synaptic properties of thalamic and intracortical inputs to layer 4 of the first- and higher-order cortical areas in the auditory and somatosensory systems. J. Neurophysiol. 100, 317–326 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Grant, E., Hoerder-Suabedissen, A. & Molnár, Z. The regulation of corticofugal fiber targeting by retinal inputs. Cereb. Cortex 26, 1336–1348 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Telley, L. et al. Sequential transcriptional waves direct the differentiation of newborn neurons in the mouse neocortex. Science 351, 1443–1446 (2016)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Macosko, E. Z. et al. Highly parallel genome-wide expression profiling of individual cells using nanoliter droplets. Cell 161, 1202–1214 (2015)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lu, E., Llano, D. A. & Sherman, S. M. Different distributions of calbindin and calretinin immunostaining across the medial and dorsal divisions of the mouse medial geniculate body. Hear. Res. 257, 16–23 (2009)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Shanks, J. A. et al. Corticothalamic axons are essential for retinal ganglion cell axon targeting to the mouse dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus. J. Neurosci. 36, 5252–5263 (2016)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Gong, S. et al. Targeting Cre recombinase to specific neuron populations with bacterial artificial chromosome constructs. J. Neurosci. 27, 9817–9823 (2007)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Butler, A. B. Evolution of the thalamus: a morphological and functional review. Thalamus Relat. Syst. 4, 1–24 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bishop, G. H. The relation between nerve fiber size and sensory modality: phylogenetic implications of the afferent innervation of cortex. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 128, 89–114 (1959)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Wong-Riley, M. T. & Welt, C. Histochemical changes in cytochrome oxidase of cortical barrels after vibrissal removal in neonatal and adult mice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 77, 2333–2337 (1980)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wong-Riley, M. Changes in the visual system of monocularly sutured or enucleated cats demonstrable with cytochrome oxidase histochemistry. Brain Res. 171, 11–28 (1979)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Yamashita, T. et al. Membrane potential dynamics of neocortical projection neurons driving target-specific signals. Neuron 80, 1477–1490 (2013)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Bavelier, D. & Neville, H. J. Cross-modal plasticity: where and how? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3, 443–452 (2002)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. De la Rossa, A. & Jabaudon, D. In vivo rapid gene delivery into postmitotic neocortical neurons using iontoporation. Nat. Protocols 10, 25–32 (2015)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Golding, B. et al. Retinal input directs the recruitment of inhibitory interneurons into thalamic visual circuits. Neuron 81, 1057–1069 (2014)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Scholkopf, B., Smola, A. J., Williamson, R. C. & Bartlett, P. L. New support vector algorithms. Neural Comput. 12, 1207–1245 (2000)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Noble, W. S. What is a support vector machine? Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 1565–1567 (2006)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Guyon, I., Weston, J., Barnhill, S. & Vapnik, V. Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines. Mach. Learn. 46, 389–422 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Magdaleno, S. et al. BGEM: an in situ hybridization database of gene expression in the embryonic and adult mouse nervous system. PLoS Biol. 4, e86 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bian, W.-J., Miao, W.-Y., He, S.-J., Qiu, Z. & Yu, X. Coordinated spine pruning and maturation mediated by inter-spine competition for cadherin/catenin complexes. Cell 162, 808–822 (2015)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Benoit, S. Binvignat, M. Lanzillo and members of the Genomics Platform of the University of Geneva for technical assistance, A. Holtmaat and A. Carleton for the gift of the transgenic mouse lines. We thank J. Prados for help in the bioinformatics analysis. We thank E. Azim, A. Holtmaat, M. Scanziani and S. Tole for helpful comments on the manuscript. Work in the Jabaudon laboratory is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) (PP00P3_123447), the Leenaards Foundation, the Synapsis Foundation and the NARSAD Foundation.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Gabrielle Pouchelon

    Present address: †Present address: New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, 10016 New York, USA.,

  2. Laura Frangeul, Gabrielle Pouchelon and Ludovic Telley: These authors contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Basic Neurosciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, 1211, Switzerland

    Laura Frangeul, Gabrielle Pouchelon, Ludovic Telley, Sandrine Lefort, Christian Luscher & Denis Jabaudon

  2. Clinic of Neurology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, 1211, Switzerland

    Christian Luscher & Denis Jabaudon

Authors
  1. Laura Frangeul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabrielle Pouchelon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ludovic Telley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sandrine Lefort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christian Luscher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Denis Jabaudon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

G.P., L.F. and D.J. conceived the project; G.P., L.F. and S.L. performed the experiments; L.T., G.P., L.F., S.L. and D.J. performed analyses; D.J. and L.F. wrote the manuscript with help of all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denis Jabaudon.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Reviewer Information Nature thanks S. Nelson, F. Polleux and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Hierarchical order is the primary determinant of transcriptional identity in somatosensory and visual thalamic nuclei at P0 and P10.

a, ‘Leave-one-out’ cross-validation analysis confirms the robustness of the support vector machine model at P3. See Methods for details. b, FO versus HO delineation is superior to the S versus V delineation at all levels of stringency. c, Type-specific genes are more differentially expressed between FO and HO nuclei than between S and V nuclei. Fold changes represent ratios of expression between significantly differentially expressed genes for each condition. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; Welch’s two-sample t-test.

Extended Data Figure 2 Hierarchical order-based transcriptional logic applies across sensory modalities.

a, Top, schematic representation of auditory pathways. Bottom left, anterograde labelling from vMG and dMG. Note that in contrast to somatosensory and visual modalities, both nuclei project to L1 and avoid L5A. Bottom right, Illustrative microdissection, acute coronal section. Nuclei were identified by retrograde labelling from A1. b, Unbiased clustering delineates FO and HO nuclei. Shaded ellipse represents 85% confidence area around centroid. Circles represent individual samples. c, Expression of the FO- and HO-specific transcripts (‘FO genes’, ‘HO genes’) in distinct sensory nuclei. Error bars in the right panel indicate s.e.m. d, Unbiased classification using vMG- and dMG-specific transcripts as training sets showed a corresponding hierarchical order-based distribution of somatosensory and visual nuclei. e, f, In situ hybridization on coronal sections showing 8 FO (e) and 13 HO-specific transcripts (f) and their corresponding level of expression in microarray data. P4 in situ hybridization of Slc6a4, Gbx2, Calb2 and Cdhr1 are from the Allen Brain Atlas. P7 in situ hybridization of Sorbs1, Dcdc2a, Gria2, Adarb1, Nefm, Plxcn1, Lypd1, Adcyap1, Sstr4, Prox1, Caln1 and Cit are from the St Jude Brain Gene Expression Map (BGEM, hosted at http://www.gensat.org)31. In situ hybridization for Id2, Cdkn1c, Glra3, Nxph1 and Tcf7l2 are not available within these databases and were performed based on their high fold-change in gene expression in FO versus HO. Scale bar, 200 μm.

Extended Data Figure 3 Acquisition of final FO neuron identity is a periphery-dependent process.

a, Expression of VB and LG peripheral input-dependent genes (highlighted with an asterisk in Fig. 2). b, Top, IONS leads to decreased expression of VB-type genes and increased expression of Po-type genes. Bottom, Enucleation (enu) leads to decreased expression of LG-type genes and increased expression of LP-type genes. c, IONS and enucleation affect overlapping sets of genes. Top, genes whose expression is modified by IONS are congruently affected by enucleation. Bottom, genes whose expression is modified by enucleation are congruently affected by IONS. Expression of input-dependent genes in both condition is thus highly correlated (VBIONS: P < 0.0001; LGenu P < 0.0001). r, regression coefficient. d, P0 IONS or enucleation prevents the induction of transcriptional programs normally observed between P0 and P3. Linear model using gene expression in control VB at P0 and P3 or control LG at P0 and P3 as training sets.

Extended Data Figure 4 HO nucleus identity is largely independent of peripheral input.

a, P0 IONS or enucleation does not detectably affect gene expression in the Po and LP. Linear model using gene expression in corresponding control FO and HO nuclei as training sets. b, Expression of peripheral input-dependent genes in the Po and LP. c, Quantification of the data shown in b. L, left; R, right; Ctl, control; n.s., not significant. Top, **P < 0.01 (Fisher’s exact test); bottom, P = n.s. (Welch’s two-sample t-test). d, Input ablation does not affect HO developmental dynamics. P = n.s. (Welch’s two-sample t-test). e, IONS and enucleation affect distinct sets of genes. Top, genes with expression that is modified by IONS are not affected by enucleation. Bottom, genes with expression that is modified by enucleation are not affected by IONS. Expression of input-dependent genes in both condition is thus not correlated (top: PoIONS r = −0.33, P < 0.0001; bottom: LPenu r = −0.11, P = not significant).

Extended Data Figure 5 Probing L5B connectivity in Rbp4-Cre mice.

a, Top, schematic representation of the experimental setting and hypothesis. Centre, bottom, the presynaptic terminals of L5B neurons were revealed by crossing Rbp4-Cre mice, in which Cre recombinase is selectively expressed by L5B neurons19, with floxed mutants expressing a tomato-red-tagged version of the presynaptic protein synaptophysin (Syp)32. In contrast to normal LG, L5B presynaptic terminals are present in LG following enucleation. b, Top, Rbp4-Cre+ L5B neurons express mCherry. Bottom left, Burst-firing of L5B mCherry+ neurons. Bottom right: example of photocurrents recorded in voltage-clamp during continuous blue-light stimulation and action potentials induced by blue light stimulation. c, Optogenetic stimulation of primary visual cortex L5B input elicits postsynaptic responses in LP control and LPenu. Percentage of connectivity of LP versus LPenu: not significant; χ2 statistics on contingency table. EPSC amplitude (pA): LP (n = 14 out of 20), 353.1 ± 94.6; LPenu (n = 22 out of 22), 365.5 ± 57.9; LG (n = 1 out of 23), 8.6; LGenu (n = 10 out of 20), 24.5 ± 13.7. Values are shown as mean ± s.e.m.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Notes 1-2 and an additional reference. (PDF 118 kb)

Supplementary Table 1

This file contains FO/HO- and Somatosensory/Visual-type transcripts. (XLSX 140 kb)

Supplementary Table 2

This file contains VP/Po, LG/LP, and vMG/dMG-type transcripts. (XLSX 185 kb)

Supplementary Table 3

This file shows input-dependent transcripts in the somatosensory and visual system. (XLSX 168 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Frangeul, L., Pouchelon, G., Telley, L. et al. A cross-modal genetic framework for the development and plasticity of sensory pathways. Nature 538, 96–98 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19770

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19770

This article is cited by

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.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing