Optogenetics seminars

Visual restoration is certainly the greatest challenge for brain-machine interfaces with the high pixel number and high refreshing rate. In the recent year, we brought retinal prostheses and optogenetic therapy up to successful clinical trials. Concerning visual restoration at the cortical level, prostheses have shown efficacy for limited periods of time and limited pixel numbers. We are investigating the potential of sonogenetics to develop a non-contact brain machine interface allowing long-lasting activation of the visual cortex. The presentation will introduce our genetic-based brain machine interfaces for visual restoration at the retinal and cortical levels.

Tracking heading within an environment is a fundamental requirement for flexible, goal-directed navigation. In insects, a head-direction representation that guides the animal’s movements is maintained in a conserved brain region called the central complex. Two-photon calcium imaging of genetically targeted neural populations in the central complex of tethered fruit flies behaving in virtual reality (VR) environments has shown that the head-direction representation is updated based on self-motion cues and external sensory information, such as visual features and wind direction. Thus far, the head direction representation has mainly been studied in VR settings that only give flies control of the angular rotation of simple sensory cues. How the fly’s head direction circuitry enables the animal to navigate in dynamic, immersive and naturalistic environments is largely unexplored. I have developed a novel setup that permits imaging in complex VR environments that also accommodate flies’ translational movements. I have previously demonstrated that flies perform visually-guided navigation in such an immersive VR setting, and also that they learn to associate aversive optogenetically-generated heat stimuli with specific visual landmarks. A stable head direction representation is likely necessary to support such behaviors, but the underlying neural mechanisms are unclear. Based on a connectomic analysis of the central complex, I identified likely circuit mechanisms for prioritizing and combining different sensory cues to generate a stable head direction representation in complex, multimodal environments. I am now testing these predictions using calcium imaging in genetically targeted cell types in flies performing 2D navigation in immersive VR.

Team work makes sensory streams work: our senses work together, learn from each other, and stand in for one another, the result of which is perception and understanding. Learned associations between stimuli in different sensory modalities can shape the way we perceive these stimuli (Mcgurk and Macdonald, 1976). During audio-visual associative learning, auditory cortex is thought to underlie multi-modal plasticity in visual cortex (McIntosh et al., 1998; Mishra et al., 2007; Zangenehpour and Zatorre, 2010). However, it is not well understood how processing in visual cortex is altered by an auditory stimulus that is predictive of a visual stimulus and what the mechanisms are that mediate such experience-dependent, audio-visual associations in sensory cortex. Here we describe a neural mechanism by which an auditory input can shape visual representations of behaviorally relevant stimuli through direct interactions between auditory and visual cortices. We show that the association of an auditory stimulus with a visual stimulus in a behaviorally relevant context leads to an experience-dependent suppression of visual responses in primary visual cortex (V1). Auditory cortex axons carry a mixture of auditory and retinotopically-matched visual input to V1, and optogenetic stimulation of these axons selectively suppresses V1 neurons responsive to the associated visual stimulus after, but not before, learning. Our results suggest that cross-modal associations can be stored in long-range cortical connections and that with learning these cross-modal connections function to suppress the responses to predictable input.

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

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