David Carlson1, Lisa K David2, Neil M Gallagher3, Mai-Anh T Vu4, Matthew Shirley5, Rainbo Hultman2, Joyce Wang2, Caley Burrus2, Colleen A McClung6, Sunil Kumar2, Lawrence Carin7, Stephen D Mague2, Kafui Dzirasa8. 1. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Statistics and Grossman Center for the Statistics of Mind, Columbia University, New York, New York. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 5. Meyerhoff Scholarship Program, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore Maryland. 6. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh Medical School, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 7. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 8. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Center for Neuroengineering, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: kafui.dzirasa@duke.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prefrontal cortex plays a critical role in regulating emotional behaviors, and dysfunction of prefrontal cortex-dependent networks has been broadly implicated in mediating stress-induced behavioral disorders including major depressive disorder. METHODS: Here we acquired multicircuit in vivo activity from eight cortical and limbic brain regions as mice were subjected to the tail suspension test (TST) and an open field test. We used a linear decoder to determine whether cellular responses across each of the cortical and limbic areas signal movement during the TST and open field test. We then performed repeat behavioral testing to identify which brain areas show cellular adaptations that signal the increase in immobility induced by repeat TST exposure. RESULTS: The increase in immobility observed during repeat TST exposure is linked to a selective functional upregulation of cellular activity in infralimbic cortex and medial dorsal thalamus, and to an increase in the spatiotemporal dynamic interaction between these structures. Inducing this spatiotemporal dynamic using closed-loop optogenetic stimulation is sufficient to increase movement in the TST in stress-naive mice, while stimulating above the carrier frequency of this circuit suppressed movement. This demonstrates that the adaptations in infralimbic cortex-medial dorsal thalamus circuitry observed after stress reflect a compensatory mechanism whereby the brain drives neural systems to counterbalance stress effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide evidence that targeting endogenous spatiotemporal dynamics is a potential therapeutic approach for treating stress-induced behavioral disorders, and that dynamics are a critical axis of manipulation for causal optogenetic studies.
BACKGROUND: The prefrontal cortex plays a critical role in regulating emotional behaviors, and dysfunction of prefrontal cortex-dependent networks has been broadly implicated in mediating stress-induced behavioral disorders including major depressive disorder. METHODS: Here we acquired multicircuit in vivo activity from eight cortical and limbic brain regions as mice were subjected to the tail suspension test (TST) and an open field test. We used a linear decoder to determine whether cellular responses across each of the cortical and limbic areas signal movement during the TST and open field test. We then performed repeat behavioral testing to identify which brain areas show cellular adaptations that signal the increase in immobility induced by repeat TST exposure. RESULTS: The increase in immobility observed during repeat TST exposure is linked to a selective functional upregulation of cellular activity in infralimbic cortex and medial dorsal thalamus, and to an increase in the spatiotemporal dynamic interaction between these structures. Inducing this spatiotemporal dynamic using closed-loop optogenetic stimulation is sufficient to increase movement in the TST in stress-naive mice, while stimulating above the carrier frequency of this circuit suppressed movement. This demonstrates that the adaptations in infralimbic cortex-medial dorsal thalamus circuitry observed after stress reflect a compensatory mechanism whereby the brain drives neural systems to counterbalance stress effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide evidence that targeting endogenous spatiotemporal dynamics is a potential therapeutic approach for treating stress-induced behavioral disorders, and that dynamics are a critical axis of manipulation for causal optogenetic studies.
Authors: Helen S Mayberg; Andres M Lozano; Valerie Voon; Heather E McNeely; David Seminowicz; Clement Hamani; Jason M Schwalb; Sidney H Kennedy Journal: Neuron Date: 2005-03-03 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: M M Sidor; S M Spencer; K Dzirasa; P K Parekh; K M Tye; M R Warden; R N Arey; J F Enwright; J P R Jacobsen; S Kumar; E M Remillard; M G Caron; K Deisseroth; C A McClung Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: H S Mayberg; M Liotti; S K Brannan; S McGinnis; R K Mahurin; P A Jerabek; J A Silva; J L Tekell; C C Martin; J L Lancaster; P T Fox Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Michael D Fox; Randy L Buckner; Matthew P White; Michael D Greicius; Alvaro Pascual-Leone Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Rainbo Hultman; Stephen D Mague; Qiang Li; Brittany M Katz; Nadine Michel; Lizhen Lin; Joyce Wang; Lisa K David; Cameron Blount; Rithi Chandy; David Carlson; Kyle Ulrich; Lawrence Carin; David Dunson; Sunil Kumar; Karl Deisseroth; Scott D Moore; Kafui Dzirasa Journal: Neuron Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Kay M Tye; Julie J Mirzabekov; Melissa R Warden; Emily A Ferenczi; Hsing-Chen Tsai; Joel Finkelstein; Sung-Yon Kim; Avishek Adhikari; Kimberly R Thompson; Aaron S Andalman; Lisa A Gunaydin; Ilana B Witten; Karl Deisseroth Journal: Nature Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: D P King; Y Zhao; A M Sangoram; L D Wilsbacher; M Tanaka; M P Antoch; T D Steeves; M H Vitaterna; J M Kornhauser; P L Lowrey; F W Turek; J S Takahashi Journal: Cell Date: 1997-05-16 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Kole Roybal; David Theobold; Ami Graham; Jennifer A DiNieri; Scott J Russo; Vaishnav Krishnan; Sumana Chakravarty; Joseph Peevey; Nathan Oehrlein; Shari Birnbaum; Martha H Vitaterna; Paul Orsulak; Joseph S Takahashi; Eric J Nestler; William A Carlezon; Colleen A McClung Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-03-22 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Stephen D Mague; Austin Talbot; Cameron Blount; Kathryn K Walder-Christensen; Lara J Duffney; Elise Adamson; Alexandra L Bey; Nkemdilim Ndubuizu; Gwenaëlle E Thomas; Dalton N Hughes; Yael Grossman; Rainbo Hultman; Saurabh Sinha; Alexandra M Fink; Neil M Gallagher; Rachel L Fisher; Yong-Hui Jiang; David E Carlson; Kafui Dzirasa Journal: Neuron Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 18.688