Researchers Close In On The Most Important Question In Neuroscience With Fly Study

By scrutinizing the twists, turns, wiggles and squirms of 37,780 fruit fly larvae, neuroscientists have created an unprecedented view of how brain cells create behavior. The results, published March 27 in Science, draw direct connections between neurons and specific movements.

"Understanding how neural activity gives rise to behavior is the most important question in neuroscience," says neuroscientist Kay Tye of MIT, who was not involved in the research. The new study provides a way for scientists to start answering that question, she says. "I think this is a really important approach that ‘s going to be very influential."

Scientists led by Marta Zlatic of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute ‘s Janelia Farm Research Campus in Ashburn, Va., took advantage of an existing set of specially mutated flies. In each animal, small groups of neurons, usually between 2 and 15 cells, were engineered to respond to blue light. By activating handfuls of neurons with light and analyzing videos of the resulting behaviors, the researchers systematically explored most of the 10,000 neurons in Drosophila melanogaster larvae’s brain.

Read more

(Figure 1: Fluorescent labeling reveals mossy fibers (red) projecting from the dentate gyrus (green) into the CA2 subregion (orange). Credit: Keigo Kohara, RIKEN–MIT Center for Neural Circuit Genetics)

Novel combination of techniques reveals new details about the neuronal networks for memory

Learning and memory are believed to occur as a result of the strengthening of synaptic connections among neurons in a brain structure called the hippocampus. The hippocampus consists of five subregions, and a circuit formed between four of these is thought to be particularly important for memory formation. Keigo Kohara and colleagues from the RIKEN–MIT Center for Neural Circuit Genetics and RIKEN BioResource Center have now identified a previously unknown circuit involving the fifth subregion.

For a hundred years, memory research has typically focused on the main circuit, which projects from layer II of the entorhinal cortex via the dentate gyrus to subregion CA3 and then CA1. Subregion CA2 lies between CA3 and CA1 but its cells are less elaborate than those of its neighbors and were thought not to receive inputs from the dentate gyrus.

Kohara and his colleagues combined anatomical, genetic and physiological techniques to analyze the connections formed by neurons in the CA2 subregion of the hippocampus in unprecedented detail. First, they identified the CA2 subregion by examining the expression of three genes that encode proteins called RGS14, PCP4 and STEP using a fluorescent marker to label nerve fibers—a technique called fluorescent immunohistochemistry. They were surprised to discover that, contrary to expectations, CA2 neurons receive extensive inputs from cells in the dentate gyrus (Fig.1).

Read more

Shedding a light on pain: A technique developed by Stanford bioengineers could lead to new treatments

The mice in Scott Delp’s lab, unlike their human counterparts, can get pain relief from the glow of a yellow light.

Right now these mice are helping scientists to study pain – how and why it occurs and why some people feel it so intensely without any obvious injury. But Delp, a professor of bioengineering and mechanical engineering, hopes one day the work he does with these mice can also help people who are in chronic, debilitating pain.

"This is an entirely new approach to study a huge public health issue," Delp said. "It’s a completely new tool that is now available to neuroscientists everywhere." He is the senior author of a research paper published Feb. 16 in Nature Biotechnology.

A switch for pain

The mice are modified with gene therapy to have pain-sensing nerves that can be controlled by light. One color of light makes the mice more sensitive to pain. Another reduces pain. The scientists shone a light on the paws of mice through the Plexiglas bottom of the cage.

Graduate students Shrivats Iyer and Kate Montgomery, who led the study, say it opens the door to future experiments to understand the nature of pain and also touch and other sensations that are part of our daily lives but little understood.

"The fact that we can give a mouse an injection and two weeks later shine a light on its paw to change the way it senses pain is very powerful," Iyer said.

For example, increasing or decreasing the sensation of pain in these mice could help scientists understand why pain seems to continue in people after an injury has healed. Does persistent pain change those nerves in some way? If so, how can they be changed back to a state where, in the absence of an injury, they stop sending searing messages of pain to the brain?

Leaders at the National Institutes of Health agree that the work could have important implications for treating pain. “This powerful approach shows great potential for helping the millions who suffer pain from nerve damage,” said Linda Porter, the pain policy adviser at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and a leader of the NIH’s Pain Consortium.

"Now, with a flick of a switch, scientists may be able to rapidly test new pain-relieving medications and, one day, doctors may be able to use light to relieve pain," she said.

Accidental discovery

The researchers took advantage of a technique called optogenetics, which involves light-sensitive proteins called opsins that are inserted into the nerves. Optogenetics was developed by Delp’s colleague Karl Deisseroth, a co-author of the journal article. He has used the technique as a way of activating precise regions of the brain to better understand how the brain functions. Deisseroth is a professor of bioengineering, psychiatry and behavioral sciences.

Delp, who has an interest in muscles and movement, saw the potential for using optogenetics not just for studying the brain – interesting though those studies may be – but also for studying the many nerves outside the brain. These are the nerves that control movement, pain, touch and other sensations throughout our body, and that are involved in diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease.

A few years ago Stanford Bio-X, which encourages interdisciplinary projects such as this one, supported Delp and Deisseroth in their efforts to use optogenetics to control the nerves that excite muscles. In the process of doing that work, Delp said, his student at the time, Michael Llewellyn, occasionally found that he had placed the opsins into nerves that signal pain rather than those that control muscle.

That accident sparked a new line of research. Delp said, “We thought, ‘Wow, we’re getting pain neurons; that could be really important.’” He suggested that Montgomery and Iyer focus on those pain nerves that had been a byproduct of the muscle work.

A faster approach

A key component of the work was a new approach to quickly incorporate opsins into the nerves of mice. The researchers started with a virus that had been engineered to contain the DNA that produces the opsin. Then they injected those modified viruses directly into mouse nerves. Weeks later, only the nerves that control pain had incorporated the opsin proteins and would fire, or be less likely to fire, in response to different colors of light.

The speed of the viral approach makes it very flexible, both for this pain work and for future studies. Researchers are developing newer forms of opsins with different properties, such as responding to different colors of light. “Because we used a viral approach we could, in the future, quickly turn around and use newer opsins,” said Montgomery, who is a Stanford Bio-X fellow.

This entire project, which spans bioengineering, neuroscience and psychiatry, is one Delp says could never have happened without the environment at Stanford that supports collaboration across departments. The pain portion of the research came out of support from NeuroVentures, which was a project incubated within Bio-X to support the intersection of neuroscience and engineering or other disciplines. That project was so successful it has spun off into the Stanford Neurosciences Institute, of which Delp is now a deputy director.

Delp said that many challenges must be met before results of these experiments – either new drugs based on what they learn, or optogenetics directly – could become available to people but that he always has that as a goal.

"Developing a new therapy from the ground up would be incredibly rewarding," he said. "Most people don’t get to do that in their careers."

Delp and Deisseroth have started a company called Circuit Therapeutics to develop therapies based on optogenetics.

Optogenetic toolkit goes multicolor

Optogenetics is a technique that allows scientists to control neurons’ electrical activity with light by engineering them to express light-sensitive proteins. Within the past decade, it has become a very powerful tool for discovering the functions of different types of cells in the brain.

Most of these light-sensitive proteins, known as opsins, respond to light in the blue-green range. Now, a team led by MIT has discovered an opsin that is sensitive to red light, which allows researchers to independently control the activity of two populations of neurons at once, enabling much more complex studies of brain function.

“If you want to see how two different sets of cells interact, or how two populations of the same cell compete against each other, you need to be able to activate those populations independently,” says Ed Boyden, an associate professor of biological engineering and brain and cognitive sciences at MIT and a senior author of the new study.

The new opsin is one of about 60 light-sensitive proteins found in a screen of 120 species of algae. The study, which appears in the Feb. 9 online edition of Nature Methods, also yielded the fastest opsin, enabling researchers to study neuron activity patterns with millisecond timescale precision.

Boyden and Gane Ka-Shu Wong, a professor of medicine and biological sciences at the University of Alberta, are the paper’s senior authors, and the lead author is MIT postdoc Nathan Klapoetke. Researchers from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Janelia Farm Research Campus, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Cologne, and the Beijing Genomics Institute also contributed to the study.

Read more

Worry on the Brain

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, over 18 percent of American adults suffer from anxiety disorders, characterized as excessive worry or tension that often leads to other physical symptoms. Previous studies of anxiety in the brain have focused on the amygdala, an area known to play a role in fear. But a team of researchers led by biologists at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) had a hunch that understanding a different brain area, the lateral septum (LS), could provide more clues into how the brain processes anxiety. Their instincts paid off—using mouse models, the team has found a neural circuit that connects the LS with other brain structures in a manner that directly influences anxiety.

"Our study has identified a new neural circuit that plays a causal role in promoting anxiety states," says David Anderson, the Seymour Benzer Professor of Biology at Caltech, and corresponding author of the study. "Part of the reason we lack more effective and specific drugs for anxiety is that we don’t know enough about how the brain processes anxiety. This study opens up a new line of investigation into the brain circuitry that controls anxiety."

The team’s findings are described in the January 30 version of the journal Cell.

Led by Todd Anthony, a senior research fellow at Caltech, the researchers decided to investigate the so-called septohippocampal axis because previous studies had implicated this circuit in anxiety, and had also shown that neurons in a structure located within this axis—the LS—lit up, or were activated, when anxious behavior was induced by stress in mouse models. But does the fact that the LS is active in response to stressors mean that this structure promotes anxiety, or does it mean that this structure acts to limit anxiety responses following stress? The prevailing view in the field was that the nerve pathways that connect the LS with different brain regions function as a brake on anxiety, to dampen a response to stressors. But the team’s experiments showed that the exact opposite was true in their system.

In the new study, the team used optogenetics—a technique that uses light to control neural activity—to artificially activate a set of specific, genetically identified neurons in the LS of mice. During this activation, the mice became more anxious. Moreover, the researchers found that even a brief, transient activation of those neurons could produce a state of anxiety lasting for at least half an hour. This indicates that not only are these cells involved in the initial activation of an anxious state, but also that an anxious state persists even after the neurons are no longer being activated.

"The counterintuitive feature of these neurons is that even though activating them causes more anxiety, the neurons are actually inhibitory neurons, meaning that we would expect them to shut off other neurons in the brain," says Anderson, who is also an investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI).

So, if these neurons are shutting off other neurons in the brain, then how can they increase anxiety? The team hypothesized that the process might involve a double-inhibitory mechanism: two negatives make a positive. When they took a closer look at exactly where the LS neurons were making connections in the brain, they saw that they were inhibiting other neurons in a nearby area called the hypothalamus. Importantly, most of those hypothalamic neurons were, themselves, inhibitory neurons. Moreover, those hypothalamic inhibitory neurons, in turn, connected with a third brain structure called the paraventricular nucleus, or PVN. The PVN is well known to control the release of hormones like cortisol in response to stress and has been implicated in anxiety.

This anatomical circuit seemed to provide a potential double-inhibitory pathway through which activation of the inhibitory LS neurons could lead to an increase in stress and anxiety. The team reasoned that if this hypothesis were true, then artificial activation of LS neurons would be expected to cause an increase in stress hormone levels, as if the animal were stressed. Indeed, optogenetic activation of the LS neurons increased the level of circulating stress hormones, consistent with the idea that the PVN was being activated. Moreover, inhibition of LS projections to the hypothalamus actually reduced the rise in cortisol when the animals were exposed to stress. Together these results strongly supported the double-negative hypothesis.

"The most surprising part of these findings is that the outputs from the LS, which were believed primarily to act as a brake on anxiety, actually increase anxiety," says Anderson.

Knowing the sign—positive or negative—of the effect of these cells on anxiety, he says, is a critical first step to understanding what kind of drug one might want to develop to manipulate these cells or their molecular constituents. If the cells had been found to inhibit anxiety, as originally thought, then one would want to find drugs that activate these LS neurons, to reduce anxiety. However, since the group found that these neurons instead promote anxiety, then to reduce anxiety a drug would have to inhibit these neurons.

"We are still probably a decade away from translating this very basic research into any kind of therapy for humans, but we hope that the information that this type of study yields about the brain will put the field and medicine in a much better position to develop new, rational therapies for psychiatric disorders," says Anderson. "There have been very few new psychiatric drugs developed in the last 40 to 50 years, and that’s because we know so little about the brain circuitry that controls the emotions that go wrong in a psychiatric disorder like depression or anxiety."

The team will continue to map out this area of the brain in greater detail to understand more about its role in controlling stress-induced anxiety.

"There is no shortage of new questions that have been raised by these findings," Anderson says. "It may seem like all that we’ve done here is dissect a tiny little piece of brain circuitry, but it’s a foothold onto a very big mountain. You have to start climbing someplace."

Stimulating brain cells stops binge drinking, animal study finds

Researchers at the University at Buffalo have found a way to change alcohol drinking behavior in rodents, using the emerging technique of optogenetics, which uses light to stimulate neurons.

Their work could lead to powerful new ways to treat alcoholism, other addictions, and neurological and mental illnesses; it also helps explain the underlying neurochemical basis of drug addiction.

The findings, published in November in Frontiers in Neuroscience, are the first to demonstrate a causal relationship between the release of dopamine in the brain and drinking behaviors of animals. Research like this, which makes it possible to map the neuronal circuits responsible for specific behaviors, is a major focus of President Obama’s Brain Research for Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies initiative, known as BRAIN.

In the experiments, rats were trained to drink alcohol in a way that mimics human binge-drinking behavior.

First author Caroline E. Bass, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacology and toxicology in the UB School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences explains:  “By stimulating certain dopamine neurons in a precise pattern, resulting in low but prolonged levels of dopamine release, we could prevent the rats from binging. The rats just flat out stopped drinking,” she says.

Bass’s co-authors are at Wake Forest University, where she worked previously.

Interestingly, the rodents continued to avoid alcohol even after the stimulation of neurons ended, she adds.

“For decades, we have observed that particular brain regions light up or become more active in an alcoholic when he or she drinks or looks at pictures of people drinking, for example, but we didn’t know if those changes in brain activity actually governed the alcoholic’s behavior,” says Bass.

The researchers activated the dopamine neurons through a type of deep brain stimulation, but unlike techniques now used to treat certain neurological disorders, such as severe tremors in Parkinson’s disease patients, this new technique, called optogenetics, uses light instead of electricity to stimulate neurons.

“Electrical stimulation doesn’t discriminate,” Bass explains. “It hits all the neurons, but the brain has many different kinds of neurons, with different neurotransmitters and different functions. Optogenetics allows you to stimulate only one type of neuron at a time.”

Bass specializes in using viral vectors to study the brain in substance abuse. In this study, she used a virus to introduce a gene encoding a light-responsive protein into the animals’ brains. That protein then activated a specific subpopulation of dopamine neurons in the brain’s reward system.

“I created a virus that will make this protein only in dopaminergic neurons,” Bass says.

The neuronal pathways affected in this research are involved in many neurological disorders, she says. For that reason, the results have application not only in understanding and treating alcohol-drinking behaviors in humans, but also in many devastating mental illnesses and neurological diseases that have a dopamine component.

Bass notes that this ability to target genes to dopamine neurons could potentially lead to the use of gene therapy in the brain to mitigate many of these disorders.

“We can target dopamine neurons in a part of the brain called the nigrostriatal pathway, which is what degenerates in Parkinson’s disease,” she says. “If we could infuse a viral vector into that part of the brain, we could target potentially therapeutic genes to the dopamine neurons involved in Parkinson’s. And by infusing the virus into other areas of the brain, we could potentially deliver therapeutic genes to treat other neurological diseases and mental illnesses, including schizophrenia and depression.”

Researchers Study Alcohol Addiction Using Optogenetics

Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center researchers are gaining a better understanding of the neurochemical basis of addiction with a new technology called optogenetics.

In neuroscience research, optogenetics is a newly developed technology that allows researchers to control the activity of specific populations of brain cells, or neurons, using light. And it’s all thanks to understanding how tiny green algae, that give pond scum its distinctive color, detect and use light to grow.

The technology enables researchers like Evgeny A. Budygin, Ph.D., assistant professor of neurobiology and anatomy at Wake Forest Baptist, to address critical questions regarding the role of dopamine in alcohol drinking-related behaviors, using a rodent model.

"With this technique, we’ve basically taken control of specific populations of dopamine cells, using light to make them respond - almost like flipping a light switch," said Budygin. "These data provide us with concrete direction about what kind of patterns of dopamine cell activation might be most effective to target alcohol drinking."

The latest study from Budygin and his team published online in last month’s journal Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. Co-author Jeffrey L. Weiner, Ph.D., professor of physiology and pharmacology at Wake Forest Baptist, said one of the biggest challenges in neuroscience has been to control the activity of brain cells in the same way that the brain actually controls them. With optogenetics, neuroscientists can turn specific neurons on or off at will, proving that those neurons actually govern specific behaviors.

"We have known for many years what areas of the brain are involved in the development of addiction and which neurotransmitters are essential for this process," Weiner said. "We need to know the causal relationship between neurochemical changes in the brain and addictive behaviors, and optogenetics is making that possible now."

The researchers used cutting-edge molecular techniques to express the light-responsive channelrhodopsin protein in a specific population of dopamine cells in the brain-reward system of rodents. They then implanted tiny optical fibers into this brain region and were able to control the activity of these dopamine cells by flashing a blue laser on them.

"You can place an electrode in the brain and apply an electrical current to mimic the way brain cells get excited, but when you do that you’re activating all the cells in that area," Weiner said. "With optogenetics, we were able to selectively control a specific population of dopamine cells in a part of the brain-reward system. Using this technique, we discovered distinct patterns of dopamine cell activation that seemed to be able to disrupt the alcohol-drinking behavior of the rats."

Weiner said there is translational value from the study because “it gives us better insight into how we might want to use something like deep-brain stimulation to treat alcoholism. Doctors are starting to use deep-brain stimulation to treat everything from anxiety to depression, and while it works, there is little scientific understanding behind it, he said.

Budygin agreed and said this kind of project wouldn’t be possible without cross campus collaboration between neurobiology and anatomy, physiology and pharmacology and physics. “Now we are taking the first steps in this direction,” he said. “It was impossible before the optogenetic era.”

Optogenetics as good as electrical stimulation

Neuroscientists are eagerly, but not always successfully, looking for proof that optogenetics – a celebrated technique that uses pulses of visible light to genetically alter brain cells to be excited or silenced – can be as successful in complex and large brains as it has been in rodent models.

A new study in the journal Current Biology may be the most definitive demonstration yet that the technique can work in nonhuman primates as well as, or even a little better than, the tried-and-true method of perturbing brain circuits with small bursts of electrical current. Brown University researchers directly compared the two techniques to test how well they could influence the visual decision-making behavior of two primates.

“For most of my colleagues in neuroscience to say ‘I’ll be able to incorporate [optogenetics] into my daily work with nonhuman primates,’ you have to get beyond ‘It does seem to sort of work’,” said study senior author David Sheinberg, professor of neuroscience professor affiliated with the Brown Institute for Brain Science. “In our comparison, one of the nice things is that in some ways we found quite analogous effects between electrical and optical [stimulation] but in the optical case it seemed more focused.”

Ultimately if it consistently proves safe and effective in the large, complex brains of primates, optogenetics could eventually be used in humans where it could provide a variety of potential diagnostic and therapeutic benefits.

Evidence in sight

With that in mind, Sheinberg, lead author Ji Dai and second author Daniel Brooks designed their experiments to determine whether and how much optical or electrical stimulation in a particular area of the brain called the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) would affect each subject’s decision making when presented with a choice between a target and a similar-looking, distracting character.

“This is an area of the brain involved in registering the location of salient objects in the visual world,” said Sheinberg who added that the experimental task was more cognitively sophisticated than those tested in optogenetics experiments in nonhuman primates before.

The main task for the subjects was to fixate on a central point in middle of the screen and then to look toward the letter “T” when it appeared around the edge of the screen. In some trials, they had to decide quickly between the T and a similar looking “+” or “†” character presented on opposite ends of the screen. They were rewarded if they glanced toward the T.

Before beginning those trials, the researchers had carefully placed a very thin combination sensor of an optical fiber and an electrode amid a small population of cells in the LIP of each subject. Then they mapped where on the screen an object should be in order for them to detect a response in those cells. They called that area the receptive field. With this information, they could then look to see what difference either optical or electrical stimulation of those cells would have on the subject’s inclination to look when the T or the distracting character appeared at various locations in visual space.

They found that stimulating with either method increased both subjects’ accuracy in choosing the target when it appeared in their receptive field. They also found the primates became less accurate when the distracting character appeared in their receptive field. Generally accuracy was unchanged when neither character was in the receptive field.

In other words, the stimulation of a particular group of LIP cells significantly biased the subjects to look at objects that appeared in the receptive field associated with those cells. Either stimulation method could therefore make the subjects more accurate or effectively distract them from making the right choice.

The magnitude of the difference made by either stimulation method compared to no stimulation were small, but statistically significant. When the T was in the receptive field, one research subject became 10 percentage points more accurate (80 percent vs. 70 percent) when optically stimulated and eight points more accurate when electrically stimulated. The subject was five points less accurate (73 percent vs. 78 percent) with optical stimulation and six percentage points less accurate with electrical stimulation when the distracting character was in the receptive field.

The other subject showed similar differences. In all, the two primates made thousands of choices over scores of sessions between the T and the distracting character with either kind of stimulation or none. Compared head-to-head in a statistical analysis, electrical and optical stimulation showed essentially similar effects in biasing the decisions.

Optical advantages

Although the two methods performed at parity on the main measure of accuracy, the optogenetic method had a couple of advantages, Sheinberg said.

Electrical stimulation appeared to be less precise in the cells it reached, a possibility suggested by a reduction in electrically stimulated subjects’ reaction time when the T appeared outside the receptive field. Optogenetic stimulation, Sheinberg said, did not produce such unintended effects.

Electrical stimulation also makes simultaneous electrical recording very difficult, Sheinberg said. That makes it hard to understand what neurons do when they are stimulated. Optogenetics, he said, allows for easier simultaneous electrical recording of neural activity.

Sheinberg said he is encouraged about using optogenetics to investigate even more sophisticated questions of cognition.

“Our goal is to be able to now expand this and use it again as a daily tool to probe circuits in more complicated paradigms,” Sheinberg said.

He plans a new study in which his group will look at memory of visual cues in the LIP.

Multibeam femtosecond optical transfection for the ultimate brain interface

The robotic brain surgeon, featured in the 2013 movie “Enders Game” is no fictional brain-fixing machine. The open-source surgical platform, known as Raven II, has already starred in several brain procedures to date. It is not too hard now to imagine machines like this eventually installing brain controlled interfaces (BCIs). What is missing from this futuristic vision, is what happens at the business end, where the bots meet the brain. This unfolding drama, which began with crude electrode array stimulation, now parlays a combination of optical technologies that permits both transfection of neurons with interface machinery, and their subsequent control. A huge advance in automating the transfection part, and reducing the time it takes by orders of magnitude, has been reported today in Nature’s Scientific Reports by a Scottish group from the University of Saint Andrews. Their new technology delivers DNA plasmids containing optical indicators and ion channels to individual neurons using arrays of femtosecond laser beams—and they can do this as fast as they can reach out and touch the neuron profiles on the screen in front of them.

Femtosecond laser pulses, by concentrating optical power into a short interval, combine exacting control with a minimum use of power. By implication, there is also a minimum of damage to surrounding tissue due to errant or otherwise prolonged irradiation. One difficulty with femtosecond lasers has been that an exotic system of free-space beam delivery optics is often called for. This is because the short pulses are significantly transformed by passage through standard fiber optics. As the authors now show, off-the-shelf instruments, like two-photon scanning or uncaging microscopes can be readily modified to perform fast, automated laser persuasion of cell membranes to allow DNA to slip inside.

In order to deliver various molecular constructs to single cells, protocols including manual injection, modified patch-clamping, lipofection, and electroporation have been developed. Unfortunately, these methods do not scale well if you want to hotwire a bunch of cells in a short time. Transfecting neighboring cells with different reporters or channels, or alternatively the same cell but sequentially with different elements, would be off the table with these methods. Trying to transfect neurons in the brain rather than large egg cells, and using naked DNA rather vector-based DNA, or RNA, involves additional considerations.

Using their custom-developed touchscreen, and image-guided femtobeam, the researchers were able to target up to 100 cells per minute. At a maximum recommended beam power of 77 milliWatts, they could also target a 4x4 array of points (on a 4um grid) to deliver 12-200 femtosecond pulses over 60 ms metapulse intervals. Depending on the specifics of the protocol, transfection yields from 50-100 percent could be obtained. These numbers were for dividing cells in which the nuclear membrane is transiently dispersed and therefore doesn’t present an additional barier to the DNA. For neurons, the researchers added a nuclear membrane-targeted peptide (Nupherin), that binds with the plasmid DNA and enhances transport. In further experiments with these neurons, they successfully activated the transfected channel rhodopsin protein using blue light, and recorded subsequently evoked spikes via patch clamp.

To really squeeze the technique into greater productivity, the researchers hope to implement spatial light modulators for precise and independent control of multiple beams. For an vivo or behaving scenario, the researchers point to fairly recent work where fiber based femotosecond transfection has been made to work in CHO-K1 cells at efficiencies of 74 percent. Using a compact, endoscope-like system with 6000 individual cores, this “nanosurgical instrument” was also used for simultaneous microfluidic delivery of drug to localized areas under direct imaging.

I asked lead author Maciej Antokowiak whether he thought there would be significant distortion in migrating to fiber-based delivery. He said that at 200fs, pulse stretching is much less of a concern than for the shorter 12-20 fs pulses. He also mentioned that in the high repetition regime (76MHz) femtosecond transfection appears to involve cumulative biochemical changes in the cell membrane.

Astounding reports of so-called glowing memories have also been trickling in this week along with the larger wake from the recent Society for Neuroscience meeting. This kind of selective optical interrogation of complete circuits in the brain will take mere connectomics into full-blown activity maps, and then, to control. As it has become apparent through omni-labelling techniques like Brainbow I and II, total label of the synaptic jungle is hardly better than no label. The ability to pick and choose multiple combinatorial activators or other modifiers, by finger or algorithm, as a prelude to thought itself, will be the quickest path to workable BCIs and our subsequent understanding of the brain.

Neuron ‘claws’ in the brain enable flies to distinguish one scent from another

Think of the smell of an orange, a lemon, and a grapefruit. Each has strong acidic notes mixed with sweetness. And yet each fresh, bright scent is distinguishable from its relatives. These fruits smell similar because they share many chemical compounds. How, then does the brain tell them apart? How does the brain remember a complex and often overlapping chemical signature as a particular scent? 

Researchers at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) are using the fruit fly to discover how the brain integrates multiple signals to identify one unique smell. It’s work that has a broader implication for how flies – and ultimately, people – learn. In work published today in Nature Neuroscience, a team led by Associate Professor Glenn Turner describes how a group of neurons in the fruit fly brain recognize multiple individual chemicals in combination in order to define, or remember, a single scent.

The olfactory system of a fruit fly begins at the equivalent of our nose, where a series of neurons sense and respond to very specific chemicals. These neurons pass their signal on to a group of cells called projection neurons. Then the signal undergoes a transformation as it is passed to a body of neurons in the fly brain called Kenyon cells.

Kenyon cells have multiple, extremely large protrusions that grasp the projection neurons with a claw-like structure. Each Kenyon cell claw is wrapped tightly around only one projection neuron, meaning that it receives a signal from just one type of input. In addition to their unique structure, Kenyon cells are also remarkable for their selectivity.  Because they’re selective, they aren’t often activated. Yet little is known about what in fact makes them decide to fire a signal.

Turner and colleague Eyal Gruntman, who is lead author on their new paper, used cutting-edge microscopy to explore the chemical response profile for multiple claws on one Kenyon cell. They found that each claw, even on a single Kenyon cell, responded to different odor molecules. Additional experiments using light to stimulate individual neurons (a technique called optogenetics) revealed that single Kenyon cells were only activated when several of their claws were simultaneously stimulated, explaining why they so rarely fire. Taken together, this work explains how individual Kenyon cells can integrate multiple signals in the brain to “remember” the particular chemical mixture as a single, distinct odor.

Turner will next try to determine “what controls which claws are connected, and how strong those connections are.” This will provide insight into how the brain learns to assign a specific mix of chemicals as defining a particular scent. But beyond simple odor detection, the research has more general implications for learning. For Turner, the question driving his work forward is: what in the brain changes when you learn something?