The circadian release of endogenous glucocorticoids is essential in preparing and synchronizing the body’s daily physiological needs. Disruption in the rhythmic activity of glucocorticoids has been observed in individuals with a variety of cancer types, and blunting of this rhythm has been shown to predict cancer mortality and declines in quality of life. This suggests that a disrupted glucocorticoid rhythm is potentially a shared phenotype across cancers. However, where this phenomenon is driven by the cancer itself, and the causal mechanisms that link glucocorticoid rhythm dysfunction and cancer outcomes remain preliminary at best. The regulation of daily glucocorticoid activity has been well-characterized and is maintained, in part, by the coordinated response of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, consisting of the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) and corticotropin-releasing hormone-expressing neurons of the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus (PVNCRH). Consequently, we set out to examine if cancer-induced glucocorticoid dysfunction is regulated by disruptions within these hypothalamic nuclei. In comparison to their tumor-free baseline, mammary tumor-bearing mice exhibited a blunting of glucocorticoid rhythms across multiple timepoints throughout the day, as measured by the overall levels and the slope of fecal corticosterone rhythms, during tumor progression. We further examined how peripheral tumors shape hypothalamic activity within the brain. Serial two-photon tomography for whole-brain cFos imaging suggests a disrupted activation of the PVN in mice with tumors. Additionally, we found GFP labeled CRH+ neurons within the PVN after injection of pseudorabies virus expressing GFP into the tumor, pointing to the PVN as a primary target disrupted by mammary tumors. Preliminary in vivo fiber photometry data show that PVNCRH neurons exhibit enhanced calcium activity during tumor progression, as compared to baseline (no tumor) activity. Taken together, this suggests that there may be an overactive HPA response during tumor progression, which in turn, may result in a subsequent negative feedback on glucocorticoid rhythms. Current studies are examining whether tumor progression modulates SCN calcium activity, how the transcriptional profile of PVNCRH neurons is changed, and test if manipulation of the neurocircuitry surrounding glucocorticoid rhythmicity alters tumor characteristics.

The taste system detects 5 major categories of ethologically relevant stimuli (sweet, bitter, umami, sour and salt) and accordingly elicits acceptance or avoidance responses. While these taste responses are innate, the taste system retains a remarkable flexibility in response to changing external and internal contexts. Taste chemicals are first recognized by dedicated taste receptor cells (TRCs) and then transmitted to the cortex via a multi-station relay. I reasoned that if I could identify taste neural substrates along this pathway, it would provide an entry to decipher how taste signals are encoded to drive innate response and modulated to facilitate adaptive response. Given the innate nature of taste responses, these neural substrates should be genetically identifiable. I therefore exploited single-cell RNA sequencing to isolate molecular markers defining taste qualities in the taste ganglion and the nucleus of the solitary tract (NST) in the brainstem, the two stations transmitting taste signals from TRCs to the brain. How taste information propagates from the ganglion to the brain is highly debated (i.e., does taste information travel in labeled-lines?). Leveraging these genetic handles, I demonstrated one-to-one correspondence between ganglion and NST neurons coding for the same taste. Importantly, inactivating one ‘line’ did not affect responses to any other taste stimuli. These results clearly showed that taste information is transmitted to the brain via labeled lines. But are these labeled lines aptly adapted to the internal state and external environment? I studied the modulation of taste signals by conflicting taste qualities in the concurrence of sweet and bitter to understand how adaptive taste responses emerge from hardwired taste circuits. Using functional imaging, anatomical tracing and circuit mapping, I found that bitter signals suppress sweet signals in the NST via top-down modulation by taste cortex and amygdala of NST taste signals. While the bitter cortical field provides direct feedback onto the NST to amplify incoming bitter signals, it exerts negative feedback via amygdala onto the incoming sweet signal in the NST. By manipulating this feedback circuit, I showed that this top-down control is functionally required for bitter evoked suppression of sweet taste. These results illustrate how the taste system uses dedicated feedback lines to finely regulate innate behavioral responses and may have implications for the context-dependent modulation of hardwired circuits in general.

Resonance is defined as a maximal amplification of the response of a system to periodic inputs in a limited, intermediate input frequency band. Resonance may serve to optimize inter-neuronal communication, and has been observed at multiple levels of neuronal organization including membrane potential fluctuations, single neuron spiking, postsynaptic potentials, and neuronal networks. However, it is unknown how resonance observed at one level of neuronal organization (e.g., network) depends on the properties of the constituting building blocks, and whether, and if yes how, it affects the resonant and oscillatory properties upstream. One difficulty is the absence of a conceptual framework that facilitates the interrogation of resonant neuronal circuits and organizes the mechanistic investigation of network resonance in terms of the circuit components, across levels of organization. We address these issues by discussing a number of representative case studies. The dynamic mechanisms responsible for the generation of resonance involve disparate processes, including negative feedback effects, history-dependence, spiking discretization combined with subthreshold passive dynamics, combinations of these, and resonance inheritance from lower levels of organization. The band-pass filters associated with the observed resonances are generated by primarily nonlinear interactions of low- and high-pass filters. We identify these filters (and interactions) and we argue that these are the constitutive building blocks of a resonance framework. Finally, we discuss alternative frameworks and we show that different types of models (e.g., spiking neural networks and rate models) can show the same type of resonance by qualitative different mechanisms.

Our brains must generate and maintain stable activity patterns over decades of life, despite the dramatic changes in circuit connectivity and function induced by learning and experience-dependent plasticity. How do our brains acheive this balance between opposing need for plasticity and stability? Over the past two decades, we and others have uncovered a family of “homeostatic” negative feedback mechanisms that are theorized to stabilize overall brain activity while allowing specific connections to be reconfigured by experience. Here I discuss recent work in which we demonstrate that individual neocortical neurons in freely behaving animals indeed have a homeostatic activity set-point, to which they return in the face of perturbations. Intriguingly, this firing rate homeostasis is gated by sleep/wake states in a manner that depends on the direction of homeostatic regulation: upward-firing rate homeostasis occurs selectively during periods of active wake, while downward-firing rate homeostasis occurs selectively during periods of sleep, suggesting that an important function of sleep is to temporally segregate bidirectional plasticity. Finally, we show that firing rate homeostasis is compromised in an animal model of autism spectrum disorder. Together our findings suggest that loss of homeostatic plasticity in some neurological disorders may render central circuits unable to compensate for the normal perturbations induced by development and learning.

Neural systems are remarkably robust against various perturbations, a phenomenon that still requires a clear explanation. Here, we graphically illustrate how neural networks can become robust. We study spiking networks that generate low-dimensional representations, and we show that the neurons’ subthreshold voltages are confined to a convex region in a lower-dimensional voltage subspace, which we call a ‘bounding box.’ Any changes in network parameters (such as number of neurons, dimensionality of inputs, firing thresholds, synaptic weights, or transmission delays) can all be understood as deformations of this bounding box. Using these insights, we show that functionality is preserved as long as perturbations do not destroy the integrity of the bounding box. We suggest that the principles underlying robustness in these networks—low-dimensional representations, heterogeneity of tuning, and precise negative feedback—may be key to understanding the robustness of neural systems at the circuit level.

Ever since Bliss and Lømo discovered the phenomenon of long-term potentiation (LTP) in rabbit dentate gyrus in the 1960s, Hebb’s rule—neurons that fire together wire together—gained popularity to explain learning and memory. Accumulating evidence, however, suggests that neural activity is homeostatically regulated. Homeostatic mechanisms are mostly interpreted to stabilize network dynamics. However, recent theoretical work has shown that linking the activity of a neuron to its connectivity within the network provides a robust alternative implementation of Hebb’s rule, although entirely based on negative feedback. In this setting, both natural and artificial stimulation of neurons can robustly trigger network rewiring. We used computational models of plastic networks to simulate the complex temporal dynamics of network rewiring in response to external stimuli. In parallel, we performed optogenetic stimulation experiments in the mouse anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and subsequently analyzed the temporal profile of morphological changes in the stimulated tissue. Our results suggest that the new theoretical framework combining neural activity homeostasis and structural plasticity provides a consistent explanation of our experimental observations.

How does a circuit of neurons process sensory information? And how are transformations of neural signals altered by changes in synaptic strength? We investigate these questions in the context of the visual system and the lateral line of fish. A distinguishing feature of our approach is the imaging of activity across populations of synapses – the fundamental elements of signal transfer within all brain circuits. A guiding hypothesis is that the plasticity of neurotransmission plays a major part in controlling the input-output relation of sensory circuits, regulating the tuning and sensitivity of neurons to allow adaptation or sensitization to particular features of the input. Sensory systems continuously adjust their input-output relation according to the recent history of the stimulus. A common alteration is a decrease in the gain of the response to a constant feature of the input, termed adaptation. For instance, in the retina, many of the ganglion cells (RGCs) providing the output produce their strongest responses just after the temporal contrast of the stimulus increases, but the response declines if this input is maintained. The advantage of adaptation is that it prevents saturation of the response to strong stimuli and allows for continued signaling of future increases in stimulus strength. But adaptation comes at a cost: a reduced sensitivity to a future decrease in stimulus strength. The retina compensates for this loss of information through an intriguing strategy: while some RGCs adapt following a strong stimulus, a second population gradually becomes sensitized. We found that the underlying circuit mechanisms involve two opposing forms of synaptic plasticity in bipolar cells: synaptic depression causes adaptation and facilitation causes sensitization. Facilitation is in turn caused by depression in inhibitory synapses providing negative feedback. These opposing forms of plasticity can cause simultaneous increases and decreases in contrast-sensitivity of different RGCs, which suggests a general framework for understanding the function of sensory circuits: plasticity of both excitatory and inhibitory synapses control dynamic changes in tuning and gain.

Collective behaviour operates without central control, through interactions among individuals. The collective behaviour of ant colonies is based on simple olfactory interactions. Ant species differ enormously in the algorithms that regulate collective behaviour, reflecting diversity in ecology. I will contrast two species in very different ecological situations. Harvester ant colonies in the desert, where water is scarce but conditions are stable, regulate foraging to conserve water. Response to positive feedback from olfactory interactions depends on the risk of water loss, mediated by dopamine neurophysiology. For arboreal turtle ants in the tropical forest, life is easy but unpredictable, and a highly modular system uses negative feedback to sustain activity. In all natural systems, from ant colonies to brains, collective behaviour evolves in relation with changing conditions. Similar dynamics in environmental conditions may lead to the evolution of similar processes to regulate collective behaviour.