Optogenetics seminars

Neural responses in the visual system are usually not purely visual but depend on behavioural and internal states such as arousal. This dependence is seen both in primary visual cortex (V1) and in subcortical brain structures receiving direct retinal input. In this talk, I will show that modulation by behavioural state arises as early as in the output of the retina.To measure retinal activity in the awake, intact brain, we imaged the synaptic boutons of retinal axons in the superficial superior colliculus (sSC) of mice. The activity of about half of the boutons depended not only on vision but also on running speed and pupil size, regardless of retinal illumination. Arousal typically reduced the boutons’ visual responses to preferred direction and their selectivity for direction and orientation.Arousal may affect activity in retinal boutons by presynaptic neuromodulation. To test whether the effects of arousal occur already in the retina, we recorded from retinal axons in the optic tract. We found that, in darkness, more than one third of the recorded axons was significantly correlated with running speed. Arousal had similar effects postsynaptically, in sSC neurons, independent of activity in V1, the other main source of visual inputs to colliculus. Optogenetic inactivation of V1 generally decreased activity in collicular neurons but did not diminish the effects of arousal. These results indicate that arousal modulates activity at every stage of the visual system. In the future, we will study the purpose and the underlying mechanisms of behavioural modulation in the early visual system

My lab seeks to understand how the mammalian brain performs the computations that underlie cognitive functions, including decision-making, short-term memory, and spatial navigation, at the level of the building blocks of the nervous system, cell types and neural populations organized into circuits. We have developed methods to measure, manipulate, and analyze neural circuits across various spatial and temporal scales, including technology for virtual reality, optical imaging, optogenetics, intracellular electrophysiology, molecular sensors, and computational modeling. I will present recent work that uses large scale calcium imaging to reveal the functional organization of the mouse posterior cortex for flexible decision-making during spatial navigation in virtual reality. I will also discuss work that uses optogenetics and calcium imaging during a variety of decision-making tasks to highlight how cognitive experience and context greatly alter the cortical circuits necessary for navigation decisions.

Coping with threatening situations requires both identifying stimuli predicting danger and selecting adaptive behavioral responses in order to survive. The dorso medial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) is a critical structure involved in the regulation of threat-related behaviour, yet it is still largely unclear how threat-predicting stimuli and defensive behaviours are associated within prefrontal networks in order to successfully drive adaptive responses. To address these questions, we used a combination of extracellular recordings, neuronal decoding approaches, and optogenetic manipulations to show that threat representations and the initiation of avoidance behaviour are dynamically encoded in the overall population activity of dmPFC neurons. These data indicate that although dmPFC population activity at stimulus onset encodes sustained threat representations and discriminates threat- from non-threat cues, it does not predict action outcome. In contrast, transient dmPFC population activity prior to action initiation reliably predicts avoided from non-avoided trials. Accordingly, optogenetic inhibition of prefrontal activity critically constrained the selection of adaptive defensive responses in a time-dependent manner. These results reveal that the adaptive selection of active fear responses relies on a dynamic process of information linking threats with defensive actions unfolding within prefrontal networks.

Understanding what drives foraging decisions in animals requires careful manipulation of the value of available options while monitoring animal choices. Value-based decision-making tasks, in combination with formal learning models, have provided both an experimental and theoretical framework to study foraging decisions in lab settings. While these approaches were successfully used in the past to understand what drives choices in mammals, very little work has been done on fruit flies. This is even though fruit flies have served as a model organism for many complex behavioural paradigms. To fill this gap we developed a single-animal, trial-based decision-making task, where freely walking flies experienced optogenetic sugar-receptor neuron stimulation. We controlled the value of available options by manipulating the probabilities of optogenetic stimulation. We show that flies integrate a reward history of chosen options and forget value of unchosen options. We further discover that flies assign higher values to rewards experienced early in the behavioural session, consistent with formal reinforcement learning models. Finally, we show that the probabilistic rewards affect walking trajectories of flies, suggesting that accumulated value is controlling the navigation vector of flies in a graded fashion. These findings establish the fruit fly as a model organism to explore the genetic and circuit basis of value-based decisions.

The design of neural circuits, with large numbers of neurons interconnected in vast networks, strongly suggest that they are specifically build to generate emergent functional properties (1). To explore this hypothesis, we have developed two-photon holographic methods to selective image and manipulate the activity of neuronal populations in 3D in vivo (2). Using them we find that groups of synchronous neurons (neuronal ensembles) dominate the evoked and spontaneous activity of mouse primary visual cortex (3). Ensembles can be optogenetically imprinted for several days and some of their neurons trigger the entire ensemble (4). By activating these pattern completion cells in ensembles involved in visual discrimination paradigms, we can bi-directionally alter behavioural choices (5). Our results demonstrate that ensembles are necessary and sufficient for visual perception and are consistent with the possibility that neuronal ensembles are the functional building blocks of cortical circuits. 1. R. Yuste, From the neuron doctrine to neural networks. Nat Rev Neurosci 16, 487-497 (2015). 2. L. Carrillo-Reid, W. Yang, J. E. Kang Miller, D. S. Peterka, R. Yuste, Imaging and Optically Manipulating Neuronal Ensembles. Annu Rev Biophys, 46: 271-293 (2017). 3. J. E. Miller, I. Ayzenshtat, L. Carrillo-Reid, R. Yuste, Visual stimuli recruit intrinsically generated cortical ensembles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111, E4053-4061 (2014). 4. L. Carrillo-Reid, W. Yang, Y. Bando, D. S. Peterka, R. Yuste, Imprinting and recalling cortical ensembles. Science 353, 691-694 (2016). 5. L. Carrillo-Reid, S. Han, W. Yang, A. Akrouh, R. Yuste, (2019). Controlling visually-guided behaviour by holographic recalling of cortical ensembles. Cell 178, 447-457. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.05.045.

Understanding how neural circuits in the brain compute information not only requires determining how individual inhibitory and excitatory elements of circuits are wired together, but also a detailed knowledge of their functional interactions. Recent advances in optogenetic techniques and mouse genetics now offer ways to specifically probe the functional properties of neural circuits with unprecedented specificity. Perhaps one of the most heavily interrogated circuits in the mouse brain is one in the retina that is involved in coding direction (reviewed by Mauss et al., 2017; Vaney et al., 2012). In this circuit, direction is encoded by specialized direction-selective (DS) ganglion cells (DSGCs), which respond robustly to objects moving in a ‘preferred’ direction but not in the opposite or ‘null’ direction (Barlow and Levick, 1965). We now know this computation relies on the coordination of three transmitter systems: glutamate, GABA and acetylcholine (ACh). In this talk, I will discuss the synaptic mechanisms that produce the spatiotemporal patterns of inhibition and excitation that are crucial for shaping directional selectivity. Special emphasis will be placed on the role of ACh, as it is unclear whether it is mediated by synaptic or non-synaptic mechanisms, which is in fact a central issue in the CNS. Barlow, H.B., and Levick, W.R. (1965). The mechanism of directionally selective units in rabbit's retina. J Physiol 178, 477-504. Mauss, A.S., Vlasits, A., Borst, A., and Feller, M. (2017). Visual Circuits for Direction Selectivity. Annu Rev Neurosci 40, 211-230. Vaney, D.I., Sivyer, B., and Taylor, W.R. (2012). Direction selectivity in the retina: symmetry and asymmetry in structure and function. Nat Rev Neurosci 13, 194-208