Motor skill learning induces long-lasting reorganization of dendritic spines, principal sites of excitatory synapses, in the motor cortex. However, mechanisms that regulate these excitatory synaptic changes remain poorly understood. Here, using in vivo two-photon imaging in awake mice, we found that learning-induced spine reorganization of layer (L) 2/3 excitatory neurons occurs in the distal branches of their apical dendrites in L1 but not in the perisomatic dendrites. This compartment-specific spine reorganization coincided with subtype-specific plasticity of local inhibitory circuits. Somatostatin-expressing inhibitory neurons (SOM-INs), which mainly inhibit distal dendrites of excitatory neurons, showed a decrease in axonal boutons immediately after the training began, whereas parvalbumin-expressing inhibitory neurons (PV-INs), which mainly inhibit perisomatic regions of excitatory neurons, exhibited a gradual increase in axonal boutons during training. Optogenetic enhancement and suppression of SOM-IN activity during training destabilized and hyperstabilized spines, respectively, and both manipulations impaired the learning of stereotyped movements. Our results identify SOM inhibition of distal dendrites as a key regulator of learning-related changes in excitatory synapses and the acquisition of motor skills.
Your institute does not have access to this article
Open Access articles citing this article.
Nature Communications Open Access 17 June 2021
Scientific Reports Open Access 19 January 2021
Long-term motor skill training with individually adjusted progressive difficulty enhances learning and promotes corticospinal plasticity
Scientific Reports Open Access 24 September 2020
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $4.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Peters, A.J., Chen, S.X. & Komiyama, T. Emergence of reproducible spatiotemporal activity during motor learning. Nature 510, 263–267 (2014).
Costa, R.M., Cohen, D. & Nicolelis, M.A. Differential corticostriatal plasticity during fast and slow motor skill learning in mice. Curr. Biol. 14, 1124–1134 (2004).
Huber, D. et al. Multiple dynamic representations in the motor cortex during sensorimotor learning. Nature 484, 473–478 (2012).
Nudo, R.J., Milliken, G.W., Jenkins, W.M. & Merzenich, M.M. Use-dependent alterations of movement representations in primary motor cortex of adult squirrel monkeys. J. Neurosci. 16, 785–807 (1996).
Rioult-Pedotti, M.S., Friedman, D. & Donoghue, J.P. Learning-induced LTP in neocortex. Science 290, 533–536 (2000).
Komiyama, T. et al. Learning-related fine-scale specificity imaged in motor cortex circuits of behaving mice. Nature 464, 1182–1186 (2010).
Sanes, J.N. & Donoghue, J.P. Plasticity and primary motor cortex. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 23, 393–415 (2000).
Rokni, U., Richardson, A.G., Bizzi, E. & Seung, H.S. Motor learning with unstable neural representations. Neuron 54, 653–666 (2007).
Picard, N., Matsuzaka, Y. & Strick, P.L. Extended practice of a motor skill is associated with reduced metabolic activity in M1. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 1340–1347 (2013).
Xu, T. et al. Rapid formation and selective stabilization of synapses for enduring motor memories. Nature 462, 915–919 (2009).
Yang, G., Pan, F. & Gan, W.B. Stably maintained dendritic spines are associated with lifelong memories. Nature 462, 920–924 (2009).
Markram, H. et al. Interneurons of the neocortical inhibitory system. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5, 793–807 (2004).
Hensch, T.K. Critical period plasticity in local cortical circuits. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6, 877–888 (2005).
Levelt, C.N. & Hubener, M. Critical-period plasticity in the visual cortex. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 35, 309–330 (2012).
Froemke, R.C., Merzenich, M.M. & Schreiner, C.E. A synaptic memory trace for cortical receptive field plasticity. Nature 450, 425–429 (2007).
Chen, J.L. et al. Clustered dynamics of inhibitory synapses and dendritic spines in the adult neocortex. Neuron 74, 361–373 (2012).
van Versendaal, D. et al. Elimination of inhibitory synapses is a major component of adult ocular dominance plasticity. Neuron 74, 374–383 (2012).
Donato, F., Rompani, S.B. & Caroni, P. Parvalbumin-expressing basket-cell network plasticity induced by experience regulates adult learning. Nature 504, 272–276 (2013).
Kuhlman, S.J. et al. A disinhibitory microcircuit initiates critical-period plasticity in the visual cortex. Nature 501, 543–546 (2013).
Chen, J.L. et al. Structural basis for the role of inhibition in facilitating adult brain plasticity. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 587–594 (2011).
Pfeffer, C.K., Xue, M., He, M., Huang, Z.J. & Scanziani, M. Inhibition of inhibition in visual cortex: the logic of connections between molecularly distinct interneurons. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 1068–1076 (2013).
Rudy, B., Fishell, G., Lee, S. & Hjerling-Leffler, J. Three groups of interneurons account for nearly 100% of neocortical GABAergic neurons. Dev. Neurobiol. 71, 45–61 (2011).
Taniguchi, H. et al. A resource of Cre driver lines for genetic targeting of GABAergic neurons in cerebral cortex. Neuron 71, 995–1013 (2011).
Hippenmeyer, S. et al. A developmental switch in the response of DRG neurons to ETS transcription factor signaling. PLoS Biol. 3, e159 (2005).
De Paola, V. et al. Cell type-specific structural plasticity of axonal branches and boutons in the adult neocortex. Neuron 49, 861–875 (2006).
Yang, G. et al. Sleep promotes branch-specific formation of dendritic spines after learning. Science 344, 1173–1178 (2014).
Feng, G. et al. Imaging neuronal subsets in transgenic mice expressing multiple spectral variants of GFP. Neuron 28, 41–51 (2000).
Holtmaat, A. & Svoboda, K. Experience-dependent structural synaptic plasticity in the mammalian brain. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 10, 647–658 (2009).
Kasai, H., Fukuda, M., Watanabe, S., Hayashi-Takagi, A. & Noguchi, J. Structural dynamics of dendritic spines in memory and cognition. Trends Neurosci. 33, 121–129 (2010).
Caroni, P., Donato, F. & Muller, D. Structural plasticity upon learning: regulation and functions. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 13, 478–490 (2012).
Fu, M., Yu, X., Lu, J. & Zuo, Y. Repetitive motor learning induces coordinated formation of clustered dendritic spines in vivo. Nature 483, 92–95 (2012).
Hill, T.C. & Zito, K. LTP-induced long-term stabilization of individual nascent dendritic spines. J. Neurosci. 33, 678–686 (2013).
Hasan, M.T. et al. Role of motor cortex NMDA receptors in learning-dependent synaptic plasticity of behaving mice. Nat. Commun. 4, 2258 (2013).
Hayama, T. et al. GABA promotes the competitive selection of dendritic spines by controlling local Ca2+ signaling. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 1409–1416 (2013).
Gidon, A. & Segev, I. Principles governing the operation of synaptic inhibition in dendrites. Neuron 75, 330–341 (2012).
Steele, P.M. & Mauk, M.D. Inhibitory control of LTP and LTD: stability of synapse strength. J. Neurophysiol. 81, 1559–1566 (1999).
Sheffield, M.E. & Dombeck, D.A. Calcium transient prevalence across the dendritic arbour predicts place field properties. Nature 517, 200–204 (2015).
Cichon, J. & Gan, W.B. Branch-specific dendritic Ca2+ spikes cause persistent synaptic plasticity. Nature 520, 180–185 (2015).
Xue, M., Atallah, B.V. & Scanziani, M. Equalizing excitation-inhibition ratios across visual cortical neurons. Nature 511, 596–600 (2014).
Li, C.X. & Waters, R.S. Organization of the mouse motor cortex studied by retrograde tracing and intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) mapping. Can. J. Neurol. Sci. 18, 28–38 (1991).
Pronichev, I.V. & Lenkov, D.N. Functional mapping of the motor cortex of the white mouse by a microstimulation method. Neurosci. Behav. Physiol. 28, 80–85 (1998).
Ayling, O.G., Harrison, T.C., Boyd, J.D., Goroshkov, A. & Murphy, T.H. Automated light-based mapping of motor cortex by photoactivation of channelrhodopsin-2 transgenic mice. Nat. Methods 6, 219–224 (2009).
Tennant, K.A. et al. The organization of the forelimb representation of the C57BL/6 mouse motor cortex as defined by intracortical microstimulation and cytoarchitecture. Cereb. Cortex 21, 865–876 (2011).
Saito, T. & Nakatsuji, N. Efficient gene transfer into the embryonic mouse brain using in vivo electroporation. Dev. Biol. 240, 237–246 (2001).
Thévenaz, P., Ruttimann, U.E. & Unser, M. A pyramid approach to subpixel registration based on intensity. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 7, 27–41 (1998).
Holtmaat, A. et al. Long-term, high-resolution imaging in the mouse neocortex through a chronic cranial window. Nat. Protoc. 4, 1128–1144 (2009).
Muñoz-Cuevas, F.J., Athilingam, J., Piscopo, D. & Wilbrecht, L. Cocaine-induced structural plasticity in frontal cortex correlates with conditioned place preference. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 1367–1369 (2013).
We thank C. Levelt (Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience) for the Gephyrin-GFP construct and B. Bloodgood, R. Malinow and members of the Komiyama laboratory for comments and discussions. This work was supported by grants from Japan Science and Technology Agency (PRESTO), Pew Charitable Trusts, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, Human Frontier Science Program, McKnight Foundation, US National Institutes of Health (R01 NS091010A), University of California San Diego Center for Brain Activity Mapping and New York Stem Cell Foundation (NYSCF) to T.K. S.X.C. is a Human Frontier Science Program postdoctoral fellow. A.J.P. is supported by the Neuroplasticity of Aging Training Grant (AG000216). T.K. is a NYSCF-Robertson Investigator.
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Integrated supplementary information
Low magnification images of the representative images for the L1 distal dendrites of L2/3 excitatory neurons in Fig. 2b (a), the L2/3 perisomatic dendrites of L2/3 excitatory neurons in Fig. 2b (b), the L1 distal dendrites in 'Control' in Fig. 7b (c), the L1 distal dendrites in 'ChR2' in Fig. 7b (d), the L1 distal dendrites in 'eNpHR' in Fig. 7b (e), and the L1 distal dendrites in Fig. 6b (red, tdTomato; green, Gephyrin-GFP) (f). The smaller panels are the same as those in the main figures.
Supplementary Figure 2 Dendritic spines and SOM-IN axonal boutons are stable in the hindlimb area during learning.
(a) Mean fractions of successful trials in sessions 7-11, showing that animals used for hindlimb area imaging learned the task similarly to the animals used for forelimb area imaging. (b) Mean of pairwise correlation of rewarded movements in sessions 7-11 in forelimb and hindlimb animals, indicating equivalent levels of learning. (c) Mean normalized density (top) and daily dynamics (bottom) of dendritic spines in distal dendrites in the hindlimb area during learning (n = 5 mice, 166 spines). (d) Mean normalized axonal bouton density (top) and daily dynamics (bottom) of SOM-INs in the hindlimb area during learning (n = 4 mice, 273 boutons). Both spine and bouton densities are stable during learning and do not show learning-related reorganization (spines, P = 0.52; SOM boutons, P = 0.07, 1-way ANOVA). Error bars indicate SEM.
(a) Representative images showing GFP expression in PV or SOM-Cre mouse (left, green) was confined to neurons immunoreactive for PV or SOM (middle, red), respectively. Right panels show merge of two channels. (b) Fractions of GFP cells that co-localized with PV (top, 29/32 cells, n = 3 sections from 3 PV-Cre animals) and SOM (bottom, 45/49 cells, n = 3 sections from 3 SOM-Cre animals).
(a) Two-photon image of in vivo targeted cell-attached recording from a SOM-IN in the motor cortex expressing ChR2-tdTomato (red) and a targeting patch pipette (green). (b) Representative traces showing that blue light stimulation (3 Hz, 10 ms/pulse) reliably triggers action potentials in a SOM-IN for the duration of 10 min. (c) Latency to spike from light onset (colors represent cells recorded in different animals, n = 15 cells from 5 mice, Median ± SD). (d) SOM-INs expressing ChR2-tdTomato were imaged on Days 1, 5, and 11 while blue light stimulation was delivered every day for 11 days (3 Hz, 10 ms/pulse, 30 min/day). Arrows indicate tracked cells. (e) Most of SOM-INs were identified throughout the course of the experiment (77/80 neurons remained on Day 11, n = 4 imaging areas in 3 mice), indicating that optogenetic stimulation for 11 sessions does not kill ChR2-expressing SOM-INs. Grey, individual imaging area; black, mean. Error bars indicate SEM.
(a) Length of individual dendritic branches analyzed in ‘No Training’ (n = 23 branches from 5 mice, data from Supplementary Fig. 6), ‘Control’ (n = 29 branches from 5 mice, data from Fig. 7), and ‘ChR2’ (n = 35 branches from 5 mice, data from Fig. 7). Branches analyzed in all 3 groups have similar length (P = 0.06, 1-way ANOVA). Box plot represents the median (dark line), quartiles (25% - 75% quantiles, white box), and data range (dashed lines). (b) Frequency of spine changes on separate dendritic branches. ‘Control’ and ‘ChR2’ groups showed more branches with spine changes (P<0.001, chi square test with Bonferroni correction) and more changes within each branch compared to ‘No Training’ (P<0.01, 1-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey's test).
(a) Mean normalized spine density (top) and daily dynamics (bottom) of mice expressing ChR2 in SOM-INs. ‘(-) Training / (-) Stimulation) mice were water restricted and handled but not trained (n = 5 mice, 191 spines). ‘(+) Training / (-) Stimulation) mice were trained without blue light stimulation (n = 5 mice, 316 spines), ‘(+) Training / (+) Stimulation) mice received both training and blue light stimulation (n = 5 mice, 255 spines, same data as Fig. 7), and ‘(-) Training / (+) Stimulation) mice received blue light stimulation without training (n = 5 mice, 180 spines). ChR2 expression alone does not block learning-related spine density increase (P<0.001, ‘(+) Training / (-) Stimulation), 1-way ANOVA; P<0.001, ‘(+) Training / (-) Stimulation) vs. ‘(+) Training / (+) Stimulation); P=0.19, ‘(+) Training / (-) Stimulation) vs. (Control, data in Fig. 7), 2-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey's test). SOM-IN activation alone does not affect spine density (P = 0.24, ‘(-) Training / (+) Stimulation) vs. ‘(-) Training / (-) Stimulation), 2-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey's test). (b) Mean normalized spine density (top) and daily dynamics (bottom) of mice expressing ChR2 in PV-INs. ‘(+) Training / (+) Stimulation), n = 5 mice, 198 spines. ‘(-) Training / (+) Stimulation), n = 5 mice, 277 spines. Mild activation of PV-INs during learning with the same stimulation protocol as SOM-INs (3 Hz, 10 ms/pulse) does not block learning-related spine density increase (P<0.001, ‘PV-ChR2 (+) Training / (+) Stimulation), 1-way ANOVA; P<0.001, (PV-ChR2 (+) Training / (+) Stimulation) vs. (SOM-ChR2 (+) Training / (+) Stimulation); P=0.08, (PV-ChR2 ‘(+) Training / (+) Stimulation)( vs. (Control, data in Fig. 7), 2-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey's test). (c) Mean normalized spine density (top) and daily dynamics (bottom) of mice expressing eNpHR in SOM-INs. ‘(+) Training / (+) Stimulation), n = 6 mice, 397 spines, same data as Fig. 7. ‘(-) Training / (+) Stimulation), n = 4 mice, 192 spines. Inactivating SOM-INs without training does not increase spine density (P = 0.97, ‘SOM-eNpHR (-) Training / (+) Stimulation), 1-way ANOVA; P = 0.77, ‘SOM-eNpHR (-) Training / (+) Stimulation) vs. ‘SOM-ChR2 (-) Training / (-) Stimulation), 2-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey's test). (d) Training consistently induced spine formation in the first 3 sessions in all trained groups. ***P<0.001, 1-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey's test compared to ‘SOM-ChR2 (-) Training / (-) Stimulation). (e) Behavioral performance showing that ‘SOM-ChR2 (+) Training / (-) Stimulation) and ‘PV-ChR2 (+) Training / (+) Stimulation) animals learned the task, achieving rewards in most trials and developing stereotyped movement. Left, mean fractions of successful trials in sessions 7-11. P = 0.63, 1-way ANOVA. Right, mean of pairwise correlation of rewarded movements in sessions 7-11. P = 0.14, 1-way ANOVA. The (Control) group is the same data as in Fig. 8. Error bars indicate SEM.
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, S., Kim, A., Peters, A. et al. Subtype-specific plasticity of inhibitory circuits in motor cortex during motor learning. Nat Neurosci 18, 1109–1115 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4049
Nature Neuroscience (2022)
Morphine coordinates SST and PV interneurons in the prelimbic cortex to disinhibit pyramidal neurons and enhance reward
Molecular Psychiatry (2021)
Nature Communications (2021)
Delayed motor learning in a 16p11.2 deletion mouse model of autism is rescued by locus coeruleus activation
Nature Neuroscience (2021)
Scientific Reports (2021)