Study Appears to Overturn Prevailing View of How the Brain is Wired

A series of studies conducted by Randy Bruno, PhD, and Christine Constantinople, PhD, of Columbia University’s Department of Neuroscience, topples convention by showing that sensory information travels to two places at once: not only to the brain’s mid-layer (where most axons lead), but also directly to its deeper layers. The study appears in the June 28, 2013, edition of the journal Science.

For decades, scientists have thought that sensory information is relayed from the skin, eyes, and ears to the thalamus and then processed in the six-layered cerebral cortex in serial fashion: first in the middle layer (layer 4), then in the upper layers (2 and 3), and finally in the deeper layers (5 and 6.) This model of signals moving through a layered “column” was largely based on anatomy, following the direction of axons—the wires of the nervous system.

“Our findings challenge dogma,” said Dr. Bruno, assistant professor of neuroscience and a faculty member at Columbia’s new Mortimer B. Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute and the Kavli Institute for Brain Science. “They open up a different way of thinking about how the cerebral cortex does what it does, which includes not only processing sight, sound, and touch but higher functions such as speech, decision-making, and abstract thought.”

The researchers used the well-understood sensory system of rat whiskers, which operate much like human fingers, providing tactile information about shape and texture. The system is ideal for studying the flow of sensory signals, said Dr. Bruno, because past research has mapped each whisker to a specific barrel-shaped cluster of neurons in the brain. “The wiring of these circuits is similar to those that process senses in other mammals, including humans,” said Dr. Bruno.

The study relied on a sensitive technique that allows researchers to monitor how signals move across synapses from one neuron to the next in a live animal. Using a glass micropipette with a tip only 1 micron wide (one-thousandth of a millimeter) filled with fluid that conducts nerve signals, the researchers recorded nerve impulses resulting from whisker stimulation in 176 neurons in the cortex and 76 neurons in the thalamus. The recordings showed that signals are relayed from the thalamus to layers 4 and 5 at the same time.  Although 80 percent of the thalamic axons went to layer 4, there was surprisingly robust signaling to the deeper layer.

To confirm that the deeper layer receives sensory information directly, the researchers used the local anesthetic lidocaine to block all signals from layer 4. Activity in the deeper layer remained unchanged.

“This was very surprising,” said Dr. Constantinople, currently a postdoctoral researcher at Princeton University’s Neuroscience Institute. “We expected activity in the lower layers to be turned off or very much diminished when we blocked layer 4. This raises a whole new set of questions about what the layers actually do.”

The study suggests that upper and lower layers of the cerebral cortex form separate circuits and play separate roles in processing sensory information. Researchers think that the deeper layers are evolutionarily older—they are found in reptiles, for example, while the upper and middle layers, appear in more evolved species and are thickest in humans.

One possibility, suggests Dr. Bruno, is that basic sensory processing is done in the lower layers: for example, visually tracking a tennis ball to coordinate the movement needed to make contact. Processing that involves integrating context or experience or that involves learning might be done in the upper layers. For example, watching where an opponent is hitting the ball and planning where to place the return shot.

“At this point, we still don’t know what, behaviorally, the different layers do,” said Dr. Bruno, whose lab is now focused on finding those answers.

Nobel-prize-winning neurobiologist Bert Sakmann, MD, PhD, of the Max Planck Institute in Germany, describes the study as “very convincing” and a game-changer. “For decades, the field has assumed, based largely on anatomy, that the work of the cortex begins in layer 4. Dr. Bruno has produced a technical masterpiece that firmly establishes two separate input streams to the cortex,” said Dr. Sakmann. “The prevailing view that the cortex is a collection of monolithic columns, handing off information to progressively higher modules, is an idea that will have to go.”2006-06-16 TC axon – high contrast MS1 repeat3-1

“Bruno’s work goes a long way toward overturning the conventional wisdom and provides new insight into the functional segregation of sensory input to the mammalian cerebral cortex, the region of the brain that processes our thoughts, decisions, and actions,” said Thomas Jessell, PhD, Claire Tow Professor of Motor Neuron Disorders in Neuroscience and a co-director of the Mortimer B. Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute and the Kavli Institute for Brain Science. “Developing a more refined understanding of cortical processing will take the combined efforts of anatomists, cell and molecular biologists, and animal behaviorists. The Zuckerman Institute, with its multidisciplinary faculty and broad mission, is ideally suited to building on Bruno’s fascinating work.”

Newly understood circuits add finesse to nerve signals

An unusual kind of circuit fine-tunes the brain’s control over movement and incoming sensory information, and without relying on conventional nerve pathways, according to a study published this week in the journal Neuron.

Researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) discovered new details of a mechanism operating in the cerebellum, the brain region that processes nerve signals coming in from the spinal cord and cortex.

“Our results explain a second layer of nerve signal transmission that depends, not on whether a nerve cell is wired into a defined signaling pathway circuit, but instead on how close it is to the pathway,” said Jacques Wadiche, Ph.D., assistant professor in the Department of Neurobiology within the UAB School of Medicine, investigator in the Evelyn McKnight Brain Institute at UAB and senior study author. “It has become clear that this kind of nerve circuit is intimately linked with autism and certain movement disorders, and we hope the mechanisms detailed here contribute to the design of new treatments.”

Beyond nerve pathways

Nerve cells are known to occur in defined pathways that transmit messages in one direction. This pathway-specific view of nerve signaling has been reinforced by high-tech imaging studies yielding detailed connectivity maps. Along these lines, the Obama Administration will soon ask Congress for $100 million in research funding to further improve such maps.

Within nerve pathways, each nerve cell sends an electric pulse down an extension of itself called an axon until it reaches a synapse, a gap between itself and the next cell in line. When it reaches an axon’s end, the pulse triggers the release of chemicals called neurotransmitters that float across the gap, where they either cause the downstream nerve cell to “fire” and pass on the message, or stop the message. In this way, each synapse between nerve cells in a pathway “decides” whether or not a message continues on.

In recent years, studies have found that neurotransmitters also spill into tissue surrounding axons in a type signaling not restricted to synaptic connections. With the term itself implying a mess, “spillover” was thought to degrade the capacity of nerve cells to precisely pass on signals.

The current study adds to recent evidence arguing that spillover may instead enhance message transmission, with the results revolving around three nerve cell types in the cerebellum: climbing fibers, Purkinje cells and interneurons.

Climbing fibers, which carry information from the brainstem into the cerebellum, play key roles in motor timing and sensory processing. Within these fibers, nerve cells release the excitatory neurotransmitter glutamate into synapses that then strive to pass messages deeper into the cerebellum. Purkinje cells are paired with climbing fibers and intent on inhibiting their signals.

When excited by glutamate from climbing fibers at one end, Purkinje cells release another neurotransmitter called GABA at their downstream synapse to stop the message. An excitatory signal triggers an inhibitory one as a counter-balance, a form of feedback critical to the function of the central nervous system. Lack of inhibition, for instance, causes circuits to seize, seizures and the death of Purkinje cells, the latter of which has been linked by post mortem studies to a higher incidence of autism spectrum disorders.

Previously, researchers thought that incoming signals from climbing fibers caused a single, strong response in the cerebellum: the activation of Purkinje cells that released GABA. The current study argues that such signals also trigger the firing of interneurons, nearby inhibitory middlemen that connect sets of nerve cells.

Interneurons within, and outside of, the glutamate spill zone around climbing fibers may have different effects on the other interneurons and Purkinje cells they connect to, according to the current finding. The interactions either inhibit or excite many Purkinje cells surrounding an active climbing fiber and refine its messages in a feedback system more sophisticated than once thought.

Glutamate has its effect by fitting into AMPA and NMDA receptor proteins, like a key into a lock, on the surfaces of nerve cells it signals to. The consensus has been that glutamate receptors occur only within synapses. Finding them on nerve cells outside of synapse-defined pathways represents “a fundamental shift in understanding,” said Wadiche, and may result in longer-lasting inhibition within key signaling pathways.

“A 2007 study published in Nature Neuroscience found that many climbing fibers signal to interneurons in the outer layer of the cerebellum outside nerve pathways and exclusively through glutamate spillover,” said Luke Coddington, a graduate student in Wadiche’s lab and study author. “Our team built on that observation to show how spillover affects the function of interneurons, Purkinje cells, and ultimately, the entire cerebellum. Spillover-mediated signaling recruits local microcircuits to extend the reach and finesse of climbing fiber signaling.”

In Some Dystonia Cases, Deep Brain Therapy Benefits May Linger After Device Turned Off

Two patients freed from severe to disabling effects of dystonia through deep brain stimulation therapy continued to have symptom relief for months after their devices accidentally were fully or partly turned off, according to a report published online Feb. 11 in the journal Movement Disorders.

“Current thought is that symptoms will worsen within hours or days of device shut-off, but these two young men continued to have clinical benefit despite interruption of DBS therapy for several months. To our knowledge, these two cases represent the longest duration of retained benefit in primary generalized dystonia. Moreover, when these patients’ symptoms did return, severity was far milder than it was before DBS,” said senior author Michele Tagliati, MD, director of the Movement Disorders Program at Cedars-Sinai’s Department of Neurology.

Dystonia causes muscles to contract, with the affected body part twisting involuntarily and symptoms ranging from mild to crippling. If drugs – which often have undesirable side effects, especially at higher doses – fail to give relief, neurosurgeons and neurologists may work together to supplement medications with deep brain stimulation, aimed at modulating abnormal nerve signals. Electrical leads are implanted in the brain – one on each side – and an electrical pulse generator is placed near the collarbone. The device is then programmed with a remote, hand-held controller. Tagliati is an expert in device programming, which fine-tunes stimulation for individual patients.

Few studies have looked at the consequences of interrupted DBS therapy, although one found “fairly rapid worsening of dystonia in 14 patients after interruption of stimulation for 48 hours, with symptom severity at times becoming worse than the pre-operative baseline.” In another study of 10 patients with generalized dystonia, however, symptoms did not return in four patients when stimulation was discontinued for 48 hours.

Findings from the 10-patient study correlate well with these two cases, Tagliati said.

“It appears that several factors – age, duration of disease, length of time the patient has received DBS treatment and stimulation parameters – determine which patients may retain symptom relief after prolonged DBS interruption. Our two patients were young, 20 years old. They both began DBS therapy a relatively short time after disease onset; one at four years and the other at seven years. One had received continuous stimulation for five years and the other for 18 months before stimulation was interrupted,” Tagliati said.

“We can’t say for certain why these factors make the difference,” he added, “But we theorize that a younger brain with shorter exposure to the negative effects of dystonia may be more responsive to therapy and have greater ‘plasticity’ to adapt back to normal. Both of our patients received DBS therapy at a lower energy than most patients experience, suggesting the possibility that low-frequency stimulation over an extended time may help retrain the brain’s low-frequency electrical activity.”

Both instances of device shut-off were accidental and were discovered during doctor visits after mild symptoms returned. The patient who had undergone five years of DBS therapy had only one stimulator turned off for about three months; the one stimulating the left side of his brain remained active. In the other patient, the left device had been off for about seven months and the right one for two months, Tagliati said.

Tagliati was senior author of a 2011 Journal of Neurology article on a study showing that for patients suffering from dystonia, deep brain therapy tends to get better, quicker results when started earlier rather than later.

“We knew from earlier work that younger patients with shorter disease duration had better clinical outcomes in the short term. In our 2011 article, we reported that they fare best in the long term, as well. That study uniquely showed that age and disease duration play complementary roles in predicting long-term clinical outcomes. The good news for older patients is that while they may not see the rapid gains of younger patients, their symptoms may gradually improve over several years,” Tagliati said.