Traumatic brain injury (TBI) –– defined as a bump, blow or jolt to the head that disrupts normal brain function –– sent 2.5 million people in the U.S. to the emergency room in 2014, according to statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Today, researchers report a self-assembling peptide hydrogel that, when injected into the brains of rats with TBI, increased blood vessel regrowth and neuronal survival.
The researchers will present their results at the American Chemical Society (ACS) Fall 2019 National Meeting & Exposition. ACS, the world’s largest scientific society, is holding the meeting here through Thursday. It features more than 9,500 presentations on a wide range of science topics.
“When we think about traumatic brain injuries, we think of soldiers and athletes,” says Biplab Sarkar, Ph.D., who is presenting the work at the meeting. “But most TBIs actually happen when people fall or are involved in motor vehicle accidents. As the average age of the country continues to rise, the number of fall-related accidents in particular will also increase.”
TBIs encompass two types of injuries. Primary injury results from the initial mechanical damage to neurons and other cells in the brain, as well as blood vessels. Secondary injuries, which can occur seconds after the TBI and last for years, include oxidative stress, inflammation and disruption of the blood-brain barrier. “The secondary injury creates this neurotoxic environment that can lead to long-term cognitive effects,” Sarkar says. For example, TBI survivors can experience impaired motor control and an increased rate of depression, he says. Currently, there is no effective regenerative treatment for TBIs.
Sarkar and Vivek Kumar, Ph.D., the project’s principal investigator, wanted to develop a therapy that could help treat secondary injuries.
We wanted to be able to regrow new blood vessels in the area to restore oxygen exchange, which is reduced in patients with a TBI. Also, we wanted to create an environment where neurons can be supported and even thrive.”
Biplab Sarkar, Ph.D., New Jersey Institute of Technology
The researchers, both at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, had previously developed peptides that can self-assemble into hydrogels when injected into rodents. By incorporating snippets of particular protein sequences into the peptides, the team can give them different functions. For example, Sarkar and Kumar previously developed angiogenic peptide hydrogels that grow new blood vessels when injected under the skin of mice.
To adapt their technology to the brain, Sarkar and Kumar modified the peptide sequences to make the material properties of the hydrogel more closely resemble those of brain tissue, which is softer than most other tissues of the body. They also attached a sequence from a neuroprotective protein called ependymin. The researchers tested the new peptide hydrogel in a rat model of TBI. When injected at the injury site, the peptides self-assembled into a hydrogel that acted as a neuroprotective niche to which neurons could attach.
A week after injecting the hydrogel, the team examined the rats’ brains. They found that in the presence of the hydrogel, survival of the brain cells dramatically improved, resulting in about twice as many neurons at the injury site in treated rats than in control animals with brain injury. In addition, the researchers saw signs of new blood vessel formation. “We saw some indications that the rats in the treated group were more ambulatory than those in the control group, but we need to do more experiments to actually quantify that,” Sarkar says.
According to Kumar, one of the next steps will be to study the behavior of the treated animals to assess their functional recovery from TBI. The researchers are also interested in treating rats with a combination of their previous angiogenic peptide and their new neurogenic version to see if this could enhance recovery. And finally, they plan to find out if the peptide hydrogels work for more diffuse brain injuries, such as concussions. “We’ve seen that we can inject these materials into a defined injury and get good tissue regeneration, but we’re also collaborating with different groups to find out if it could help with the types of injuries we see in soldiers, veterans and even people working at construction sites who experience blast injuries,” Kumar says.
Elizabeth Delacruz can’t crawl or toddle around like most youngsters nearing their second birthday.
A rare metabolic disorder that decimated her mobility has also led to cortical blindness – her brain is unable to process images received from an otherwise healthy set of brown eyes. And multiple times a day Elizabeth suffers seizures that continually reduce her brain function. She can only offer an occasional smile or make soft bubbly sounds to communicate her mood.
“But a few months ago I heard her say, ‘Mama,’ and I started to cry,” said Carmen Mejia, a subtle quaver in her voice as she recalled the joy of hearing her daughter. “That’s the first time she said something.”
Ms. Mejia realizes it may also be the last, unless doctors can find a way to detect and prevent the epileptic seizures stemming from a terminal disease called pyruvate dehydrogenase deficiency (PDHD) – which occurs when mitochondria don’t provide enough energy for the cells.
A UT Southwestern study gives parents like Ms. Mejia renewed hope for their children: By monitoring the brain activity of a specific cell type responsible for seizures, scientists can predict convulsions at least four minutes in advance in both humans and mice. The research further shows that an edible acid called acetate may effectively prevent seizures if they are detected with enough notice.
Although the prediction strategy cannot yet be used clinically – a mobile technology for measuring brain activity would have to be developed – it signifies a potential breakthrough in a field that had only been able to forecast seizures a few seconds ahead.
“Many of the families I meet with are not just bothered by the seizures. The problem is the unpredictability, the not knowing when and where a seizure might occur,” said Dr. Juan Pascual, a pediatric neurologist with UT Southwestern’s O’Donnell Brain Institute who led the study published in Science Translational Medicine. “We’ve found a new approach that may one day solve this issue and hopefully help other scientists track down the root of seizures for many kinds of epilepsy.”
The critical difference between the study and previous efforts was debunking the long-held belief among researchers that most cells in epilepsy patients have malfunctioning mitochondria. In fact, Dr. Pascual’s team spent a decade developing a PDHD mouse model that enabled them to first discover the key metabolic defect in the brain and then determine only a single neuron type was responsible for seizures as the result of the metabolic defect. They honed in on these neurons’ electrical activity with an electroencephalogram (EEG) to detect which brainwave readings signaled an upcoming seizure.
“It’s much more difficult to predict seizures if you don’t know the cell type and what its activity looks like on the EEG,” Dr. Pascual said. “Until this finding, we thought it was a global deficiency in the cells and so we didn’t even know to look for a specific type.”
The study shows how a PDHD mouse model helped scientists trace the seizures to inhibitory neurons near the cortex that normally keep the brain’s electrical activity in check.
Scientists then tested a method of calculating when seizures would occur in mice and humans by reviewing EEG files and looking for decreased activity in energy-deficient neurons. Their calculations enabled them to forecast 98 percent of the convulsions at least four minutes in advance.
Dr. Pascual is hopeful his lab can refine EEG analyses to extend the warning window by several more minutes. Even then, live, clinical predictions won’t be feasible unless scientists develop technology to automatically interpret the brain activity and calculate when a seizure is imminent.
Still, he said, the discovery that a single cell type can be used to forecast seizures is a paradigm-shifting finding that may apply to all mitochondrial diseases and related epilepsies.
Dr. Pascual’s ongoing efforts to extend the prediction time may be a crucial step in utilizing the other intriguing finding from the study: the use of acetate to prevent seizures.
The study showed that delivering acetate into the blood stream of PDHD mice gave their neurons enough energy to normalize their activity and decrease seizures for as long as the acetate was in the brain. However, Dr. Pascual said the acetate would probably need more time – perhaps 10 minutes or more – to take effect in humans if taken by mouth.
Acetate, which naturally occurs in some foods, has been used in patients for decades – including newborns needing intravenous nutrition or patients whose metabolism has shut down. But it had not yet been established as an effective treatment for mitochondrial diseases that underlie epilepsy.
Among the reasons, Dr. Pascual said, is that labs have struggled to create an animal model of such diseases to study its effects; his own lab spent about a decade doing so. Another is the widespread acceptance of the ketogenic diet to reduce the frequency of seizures.
But amid a growing concern about potentially unhealthy side effects of ketogenic diets, Dr. Pascual has been researching alternatives that may refuel the brain more safely and improve cognition.
Elizabeth, among a handful of patients whose EEG data were used in the new study, has been prescribed a ketogenic diet and some vitamins to control the seizures. Her family has seen little improvement. Elizabeth often has more than a dozen seizures a day and her muscles and cognition continue to decline. She can’t hold her head up and her mother wonders how many more seizures her brain can take.
Elizabeth was only a few months old when she was diagnosed with PDHD, which occurs when cells lack certain enzymes to efficiently convert food into energy. Patients who show such early signs often don’t survive beyond a few years.
Ms. Mejia does what she can to comfort her daughter, with the hope that Dr. Pascual’s work can someday change the prognosis for PDHD. Ms. Mejia sings, talks, and offers stuffed animals and other toys to her daughter. Although her little girl can’t see, the objects offer a degree of mental stimulation, she said.
“It’s so hard to see her go through this,” Ms. Mejia said. “Every time she has a seizure, her brain is getting worse. I still hope one day she can get a treatment that could stop all this and make her life better.”
Dr. Pascual is already conducting further research into acetate treatments, with the goal of launching a clinical trial for patients like Elizabeth in the coming years.
His lab is also researching other epilepsy conditions – such as glucose transporter type I (Glut1) deficiency – to determine if inhibitory neurons in other parts of the brain are responsible for seizures. If so, the findings could provide strong evidence for where scientists should look in the brain to detect and prevent misfiring neurons.
“It’s an exciting time, but there is much that needs to happen to make this research helpful to patients,” Dr. Pascual said. “How do we find an automated way of detecting neuron activity when patients are away from the lab? What are the best ways to intervene when we know a seizure is coming? These are big questions the field still needs to answer.”
The brain’s crucial function is to allow organisms to learn and adapt to their surroundings. It does this by literally changing the connections, or synapses, between neurons, strengthening meaningful patterns of neural activity in order to store information. The existence of this process – brain plasticity – has been known for some time.
But actually, there are two different types of brain plasticity at work on synapses. One is “Hebbian plasticity”; it is the one which effectively allows for the recording of information in the synapses, named after pioneering neuroscientist Donald Hebb. The other, more recently discovered, is “homeostatic synaptic plasticity” (HSP), and, like other “homeostatic” processes in the body such as maintaining a constant body temperature, its purpose is to keep things stable. In this case, HSP ensures that the brain doesn’t build up too much activity (as is the case in epilepsy) or become too quiet (as can happen when you lose synapses in Alzheimer’s Disease).
However, little is known about how these two types of plasticity actually interact in the brain. Now, a team of neuroscientists at the Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, in Lisbon, Portugal, has begun to unravel the fundamental processes that happen in the synapse when the two mechanisms overlap. Their results were published in the journal iScience.
“In theory, the two types of plasticity act as opposing forces”, says Anna Hobbiss, first author of the new study, which was led by Inbal Israely. “Hebbian plasticity reacts to activity at the synapses by inciting them to get stronger while HSP reacts to it by making them weaker. We wanted to understand, on a cellular and molecular level, how the synapse deals with these two forces when they are present at the same time.”
In so doing, the authors have surprisingly shown that, contrary to what might be expected, HSP facilitates Hebbian plasticity, and thus influences memory formation and learning. This means that these two types of plasticity “may actually not be such distinct processes, but instead work together at the same synapses”, says Israely.
The team’s goal was to determine the changes in size of minute structures called dendritic spines, which are the “receiving end” of the synapse. The size of these spines changes to reflect the strength of the synaptic connection.
For this, they studied cells from the mouse hippocampus, a part of the brain which is crucial for learning. In their experiments, they blocked activity in the cells by introducing a potent neurotoxin called tetrodotoxin, thus simulating the loss of input to a certain part of the brain (“think about a person suddenly becoming blind, which leads to loss of input from the eyes to the brain”, says Hobbiss).
Forty eight hours later, they mimicked a small recovery of activity at only one synapse by releasing a few molecules of a neurotransmitter called glutamate on single spines of single neurons. This was possible thanks to a very high resolution, state-of-the-art laser technology, called two-photon microscopy, which allowed the scientists to very precisely visualize and target individual dendritic spines.
As this process evolved, the team closely watched what was happening to the spines – and they saw various anatomical changes. First, the silencing of all neural activity made the spines grow in size. “The spines are like little microphones, which, when there is silence, ramp up the ‘volume’ to try and catch even the faintest noise”, Hobbiss explains.
The scientists then activated individual spines with pulses of glutamate and watched them for two hours. One of the things they thought could happen was that the size of the spines would not grow further, since they had already turned up their ‘volume’ as far is it would go. But the opposite happened: the spines grew even more, with the smaller spines showing the biggest growth.
Finally, the authors also saw growth in neighboring spines, even though the experiment only targeted one spine. “We found that after a lack of activity, other spines in the vicinity also grew, further enhancing the cell’s sensitivity to restored neural transmission”, says Hobbiss. “The cells become more sensitive, more susceptible to encode information. It is as though the ‘gain’ has been turned up”, she adds.
“The fact that neighboring spines grew together with an active spine signifies that homeostatic plasticity changes one of the hallmark features of information storage, which is that plasticity is limited to the site of information entry”, Israely explains. “So, in this sense, the different plasticity mechanisms which are at work in the neuron can cooperate to change which and how many inputs respond to a stimulus. I think this is an exciting finding of our study.”
Taken together, these results show that homeostatic plasticity can actually rev up Hebbian plasticity, the type required for storing information. “Our work adds a piece to the puzzle of how the brain performs one of its fundamental tasks: being able to encode information while still keeping a stable level of activity”, concludes Hobbiss.
The misregulation of homeostatic plasticity – the stabilizing one – has started to be implicated in human health, specifically neurodevelopmental disorders such as Fragile X syndrome and Rett syndrome as well as neurodegenerative ones such as Alzheimer’s Disease. “Perhaps this balance is what allows us to be able to learn new information while retaining stability of that knowledge over a lifetime”, says Israely.
Even in adult brains, new neurons are generated throughout a lifetime. In a publication in the scientific journal PNAS, a research group led by Goethe University describes plastic changes of adult-born neurons in the hippocampus, a critical region for learning: frequent nerve signals enlarge the spines on neuronal dendrites, which in turn enables contact with the existing neural network.
Practice makes perfect, and constant repetition promotes the ability to remember. Researchers have been aware for some time that repeated electrical stimulation strengthens neuron connections (synapses) in the brain. It is similar to the way a frequently used trail gradually widens into a path. Conversely, if rarely used, synapses can also be removed – for example, when the vocabulary of a foreign language is forgotten after leaving school because it is no longer practiced. Researchers designate the ability to change interconnections permanently and as needed as the plasticity of the brain.
Plasticity is especially important in the hippocampus, a primary region associated with long-term memory, in which new neurons are formed throughout life. The research groups led by Dr Stephan Schwarzacher (Goethe University), Professor Peter Jedlicka (Goethe University and Justus Liebig University in Gieβen) and Dr Hermann Cuntz (FIAS, Frankfurt) therefore studied the long-term plasticity of synapses in new-born hippocampal granule cells. Synaptic interconnections between neurons are predominantly anchored on small thorny protrusions on the dendrites called spines. The dendrites of most neurons are covered with these spines, similar to the thorns on a rose stem.
In their recently published work, the scientists were able to demonstrate for the first time that synaptic plasticity in new-born neurons is connected to long-term structural changes in the dendritic spines: repeated electrical stimulation strengthens the synapses by enlarging their spines. A particularly surprising observation was that the overall size and number of spines did not change: when the stimulation strengthened a group of synapses, and their dendritic spines enlarged, a different group of synapses that were not being stimulated simultaneously became weaker and their dendritic spines shrank.
“This observation was only technically possible because our students Tassilo Jungenitz and Marcel Beining succeeded for the first time in examining plastic changes in stimulated and non-stimulated dendritic spines within individual new-born cells using 2-photon microscopy and viral labeling,” says Stephan Schwarzacher from the Institute for Anatomy at the University Hospital Frankfurt. Peter Jedlicka adds: “The enlargement of stimulated synapses and the shrinking of non-stimulated synapses was at equilibrium. Our computer models predict that this is important for maintaining neuron activity and ensuring their survival.”
The scientists now want to study the impenetrable, spiny forest of new-born neuron dendrites in detail. They hope to better understand how the equilibrated changes in dendritic spines and their synapses contribute the efficient storing of information and consequently to learning processes in the hippocampus.
The procedure facilitates reorganization of connections between neurons which could be useful for therapies
Date: June 5, 2018
Source: Ruhr-University Bochum
Researchers have gained new insights on the question of how transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) effects functional interconnectivity of neurons. For visualization, they employed fluorescent dyes which provide information on the activity of neurons by light. Using this technique, they showed in an animal model that TMS predisposes neuronal connections in the visual cortex of the brain for processes of reorganization.
Researchers of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum have gained new insights on the question of how transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) effects functional interconnectivity of neurons. For visualisation, they employed fluorescent dyes which provide information on the activity of neurons by light. Using this technique, they showed in an animal model that TMS predisposes neuronal connections in the visual cortex of the brain for processes of reorganisation.
TMS is being used as a treatment for a number of brain diseases such as depression, Alzheimer’s disease and schizophrenia, but there has been little research on how exactly TMS works. The team of associate professor Dr Dirk Jancke of the Optical Imaging Lab in Bochum describes its new discoveries in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS).
Examining the effects on cortical maps in the visual cortex
The researchers have investigated how TMS affects the organisation of so-called orientation maps in the visual part of the brain. Those maps are partly genetically determined and partly shaped by the interaction with our surroundings. In the visual cortex, for example, neurons respond to contrast edges of certain orientations, which typically constitute boundaries of objects. Neurons that preferably respond to edges of a specific orientation are closely grouped while clusters of neurons with other orientation preferences are gradually located further away, altogether forming a systematic map across all orientations.
The team employed high frequency TMS and compared the behaviour of neurons to visual stimuli with a specific angular orientation before and after the procedure. The result: After the magnetic stimulation the neurons responded more variable, that is, their preference for a particular orientation was less pronounced than before the TMS. “You could say that after the TMS the neurons were somewhat undecided and hence, potentially open to new tasks,” explains Dirk Jancke. “Therefore, we reasoned that the treatment provides us with a time window for the induction of plastic processes during which neurons can change their functional preference.”
A short visual training remodels the maps
The team then looked into the impact of a passive visual training after TMS treatment. 20-minutes of exposure to images of a specific angular orientation led to enlargement of those areas of the brain representing the trained orientation. “Thus, the map in the visual cortex has incorporated the bias in information content of the preceding visual stimulation by changing its layout within a short time,” says Jancke. “Such a procedure — that is a targeted sensory or motor training after TMS to modify the brain’s connectivity pattern — might be a useful approach to therapeutic interventions as well as for specific forms of sensory-motor training,” explains Dirk Jancke.
Transcranial magnetic stimulation is a non-invasive painless procedure: A solenoid is being positioned above the head and the brain area in question can be activated or inhibited by means of magnetic waves. So far little is known about the impact of the procedure on a cellular network level, because the strong magnetic field of the TMS superimposes signals that are used by researchers in order to monitor the neuronal effects of the TMS. The magnetic pulse interferes in particular with electrical measurement techniques, such as EEG. In addition, other procedures used in human participants, e.g. functional magnetic resonance imaging, are too slow or their spatial resolution is too low.
Dirk Jancke’s team used voltage dependent fluorescent dyes, embedded in the membranes of the neurons, in order to measure the brain’s activity after the TMS with high spatiotemporal resolution. As soon as a neuron’s activity is modulated, the dye molecules change emission intensity. Light signals therefore provide information about immediate changes in activity of groups of neurons.
Vladislav Kozyrev, Robert Staadt, Ulf T. Eysel, Dirk Jancke. TMS-induced neuronal plasticity enables targeted remodeling of visual cortical maps. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2018; 201802798 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1802798115
NEURON NURSERY Roughly the same number of new nerve cells (dots) exist in the hippocampus of people in their 20s (three hippocampi shown, top row) as in people in their 70s (bottom). Blue marks the dentate gyrus, where new nerve cells are born. M. BOLDRINI/COLUMBIA UNIV.
Your brain might make new nerve cells well into old age.
The finding contradicts a study published in March, which suggested that neurogenesis in the hippocampus stops in childhood (SN Online: 3/8/18). But the new research fits with a larger pile of evidence showing that adult human brains can, to some extent, make new neurons. While those studies indicate that the process tapers off over time, the new study proposes almost no decline at all.
Understanding how healthy brains change over time is important for researchers untangling the ways that conditions like depression, stress and memory loss affect older brains.
When it comes to studying neurogenesis in humans, “the devil is in the details,” says Jonas Frisén, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm who was not involved in the new research. Small differences in methodology — such as the way brains are preserved or how neurons are counted — can have a big impact on the results, which could explain the conflicting findings. The new paper “is the most rigorous study yet,” he says.
Researchers studied hippocampi from the autopsied brains of 17 men and 11 women ranging in age from 14 to 79. In contrast to past studies that have often relied on donations from patients without a detailed medical history, the researchers knew that none of the donors had a history of psychiatric illness or chronic illness. And none of the brains tested positive for drugs or alcohol, says Maura Boldrini, a psychiatrist at Columbia University. Boldrini and her colleagues also had access to whole hippocampi, rather than just a few slices, allowing the team to make more accurate estimates of the number of neurons, she says.
To look for signs of neurogenesis, the researchers hunted for specific proteins produced by neurons at particular stages of development. Proteins such as GFAP and SOX2, for example, are made in abundance by stem cells that eventually turn into neurons, while newborn neurons make more of proteins such as Ki-67. In all of the brains, the researchers found evidence of newborn neurons in the dentate gyrus, the part of the hippocampus where neurons are born.
Although the number of neural stem cells was a bit lower in people in their 70s compared with people in their 20s, the older brains still had thousands of these cells. The number of young neurons in intermediate to advanced stages of development was the same across people of all ages.
Still, the healthy older brains did show some signs of decline. Researchers found less evidence for the formation of new blood vessels and fewer protein markers that signal neuroplasticity, or the brain’s ability to make new connections between neurons. But it’s too soon to say what these findings mean for brain function, Boldrini says. Studies on autopsied brains can look at structure but not activity.
Not all neuroscientists are convinced by the findings. “We don’t think that what they are identifying as young neurons actually are,” says Arturo Alvarez-Buylla of the University of California, San Francisco, who coauthored the recent paper that found no signs of neurogenesis in adult brains. In his study, some of the cells his team initially flagged as young neurons turned out to be mature cells upon further investigation.
But others say the new findings are sound. “They use very sophisticated methodology,” Frisén says, and control for factors that Alvarez-Buylla’s study didn’t, such as the type of preservative used on the brains.
A technique based on genetic bar codes can easily map the connections of individual brain cells in unprecedented numbers. Unexpected complexity in the visual system is only the first secret it has revealed.
A new technology for tracing the precise pathways of neural connections in the brain works with numbers of cells that were unimaginable until recently.
Sitting at the desk in his lower-campus office at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the neuroscientist Tony Zador turned his computer monitor toward me to show off a complicated matrix-style graph. Imagine something that looks like a spreadsheet but instead of numbers it’s filled with colors of varying hues and gradations. Casually, he said: “When I tell people I figured out the connectivity of tens of thousands of neurons and show them this, they just go ‘huh?’ But when I show this to people …” He clicked a button onscreen and a transparent 3-D model of the brain popped up, spinning on its axis, filled with nodes and lines too numerous to count. “They go ‘What the _____!’”
What Zador showed me was a map of 50,000 neurons in the cerebral cortex of a mouse. It indicated where the cell bodies of every neuron sat and where they sent their long axon branches. A neural map of this size and detail has never been made before. Forgoing the traditional method of brain mapping that involves marking neurons with fluorescence, Zador had taken an unusual approach that drew on the long tradition of molecular biology research at Cold Spring Harbor, on Long Island. He used bits of genomic information to imbue a unique RNA sequence or “bar code” into each individual neuron. He then dissected the brain into cubes like a sheet cake and fed the pieces into a DNA sequencer. The result: a 3-D rendering of 50,000 neurons in the mouse cortex (with as many more to be added soon) mapped with single cell resolution.
This work, Zador’s magnum opus, is still being refined for publication. But in a paper recently published byNature, he and his colleagues showed that the technique, called MAPseq (Multiplexed Analysis of Projections by Sequencing), can be used to find new cell types and projection patterns never before observed. The paper also demonstrated that this new high-throughput mapping method is strongly competitive in accuracy with the fluorescent technique, which is the current gold standard but works best with small numbers of neurons.
Tony Zador, a neurophysiologist at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, realized that genome sequencing techniques could scale up to tame the astronomical numbers of neurons and interconnections in the brain.
The project was born from Zador’s frustration during his “day job” as a neurophysiologist, as he wryly referred to it. He studies auditory decision-making in rodents: how their brain hears sounds, processes the audio information and determines a behavioral output or action. Electrophysiological recordings and the other traditional tools for addressing such questions left the mathematically inclined scientist unsatisfied. The problem, according to Zador, is that we don’t understand enough about the circuitry of the neurons, which is the reason he pursues his “second job” creating tools for imaging the brain.
The current state of the art for brain mapping is embodied by the Allen Brain Atlas, which was compiled from work in many laboratories over several years at a cost upward of $25 million. The Allen Atlas is what’s known as a bulk connectivity atlas because it traces known subpopulations of neurons and their projections as groups. It has been highly useful for researchers, but it cannot distinguish subtle differences within the groups or neuron subpopulations.
If we ever want to know how a mouse hears a high-pitched trill, processes that the sound means a refreshing drink reward is available and lays down new memories to recall the treat later, we will need to start with a map or wiring diagram for the brain. In Zador’s view, lack of knowledge about that kind of neural circuitry is partly to blame for why more progress has not been made in the treatment of psychiatric disorders, and why artificial intelligence is still not all that intelligent.
Justus Kebschull, a Stanford University neuroscientist, an author of the new Nature paper and a former graduate student in Zador’s lab, remarked that doing neuroscience without knowing about the circuitry is like “trying to understand how a computer works by looking at it from the outside, sticking an electrode in and probing what we can find. … Without ever knowing the hard drive is connected to the processor and the USB pod provides input to the whole system, it’s difficult to understand what’s happening.”
Inspiration for MAPseq struck Zador when he learned of another brain mapping technique called Brainbow. Hailing from the lab of Jeff Lichtman at Harvard University, this method was remarkable in that it genetically labeled up to 200 individual neurons simultaneously using different combinations of fluorescent dyes. The results were a tantalizing, multicolored tableau of neon-colored neurons that displayed, in detail, the complex intermingling of axons and neuron cell bodies. The groundbreaking work gave hope that mapping the connectome — the complete plan of neural connections in the brain — was soon to be a reality. Unfortunately, a limitation of the technique in practice is that through a microscope, experimenters could resolve only about five to 10 distinct colors, which was not enough to penetrate the tangle of neurons in the cortex and map many neurons at once.
That’s when the lightbulb went on in Zador’s head. He realized that the challenge of the connectome’s huge complexity might be tamed if researchers could harness the increasing speed and dwindling costs of high-throughput genomic sequencing techniques. “It’s what mathematicians call reducing it to a previously solved problem,” he explained.
Video: Tony Zador explains the new MAPseq technology and its potential for unlocking the secrets hidden in details of the brain’s connectivity.
In MAPseq, researchers inject an animal with genetically modified viruses that carry a variety of known RNA sequences, or “bar codes.” For a week or more, the viruses multiply inside the animal, filling each neuron with some distinctive combination of those bar codes. When the researchers then cut the brain into sections, the RNA bar codes can help them track individual neurons from slide to slide.
Zador’s insight led to the new Nature paper, in which his lab and a team at University College London led by the neuroscientist Thomas Mrsic-Flogel used MAPseq to trace the projections of almost 600 neurons in the mouse visual system. (Editor’s note: Zador and Mrsic-Flogel both receive funding from the Simons Foundation, which publishes Quanta.)
Six hundred neurons is a modest start compared with the tens of millions in the brain of a mouse. But it was ample for the specific purpose the researchers had in mind: They were looking to discern whether there is a structure to the brain’s wiring pattern that might be informative about its function. A currently popular theory is that in the visual cortex, an individual neuron gathers a specific bit of information from the eye — about the edge of an object in the field of view, or a type of movement or spatial orientation, for example. The neuron then sends a signal to a single corresponding area in the brain that specializes in processing that type of information.
These images offer an example of how MAPseq can determine the wiring of multitudes of neurons. The small colored dots in the first image represent the positions of the cell bodies of 50,000 neurons in the cortex of a mouse. In the second image, the axon projections from just two of those neurons to endpoints elsewhere in the brain are shown. In the third image, the pathways from many more of the neurons are superimposed.
To test this theory, the team first mapped a handful of neurons in mice in the traditional way by inserting a genetically encoded fluorescent dye into the individual cells. Then, with a microscope, they traced how the cells stretched from the primary visual cortex (the brain area that receives input from the eyes) to their endpoints elsewhere in the brain. They found that the neurons’ axons branched out and sent information to many areas simultaneously, overturning the one-to-one mapping theory.
Next, they asked if there were any patterns to these projections. They used MAPseq to trace the projections of 591 neurons as they branched out and innervated multiple targets. What the team observed was that the distribution of axons was structured: Some neurons always sent axons to areas A, B and C but never to D and E, for example.
These results suggest the visual system contains a dizzying level of cross-connectivity and that the pattern of those connections is more complicated than a one-to-one mapping. “Higher visual areas don’t just get information that is specifically tailored to them,” Kebschull said. Instead, they share many of the same inputs, “so their computations might be tied to each other.”
Nevertheless, the fact that certain cells do project to specific areas also means that within the visual cortex there are specialized cells that have not yet been identified. Kebschull said this map is like a blueprint that will enable later researchers to understand what these cells are doing. “MAPseq allows you to map out the hardware. … Once we know the hardware we can start to look at the software, or how the computations happen,” he said.
MAPseq’s competitive edge in speed and cost for such investigations is considerable: According to Zador, the technique should be able to scale up to handle 100,000 neurons within a week or two for only $10,000 — far faster than traditional mapping would be, at a fraction of the cost.
Such advantages will make it more feasible to map and compare the neural pathways of large numbers of brains. Studies of conditions such as schizophreniaand autism that are thought to arise from differences in brain wiring have often frustrated researchers because the available tools don’t capture enough details of the neural interconnections. It’s conceivable that researchers will be able to map mouse models of these conditions and compare them with more typical brains, sparking new rounds of research. “A lot of psychiatric disorders are caused by problems at the circuit level,” said Hongkui Zeng, executive director of the structured science division at the Allen Institute for Brain Science. “Connectivity information will tell you where to look.”
High-throughput mapping also allows scientists to gather lots of neurological data and look for patterns that reflect general principles of how the brain works. “What Tony is doing is looking at the brain in an unbiased way,” said Sreekanth Chalasani, a molecular neurobiologist at the Salk Institute. “Just as the human genome map has provided a scaffolding to test hypotheses and look for patterns in [gene] sequence and function, Tony’s method could do the same” for brain architecture.
The detailed map of the human genome didn’t immediately explain all the mysteries of how biology works, but it did provide a biomolecular parts list and open the way for a flood of transformative research. Similarly, in its present state of development, MAPseq cannot provide any information about the function or location of the cells it is tagging or show which cells are talking to one another. Yet Zador plans to add this functionality soon. He is also collaborating with scientists studying various parts the brain, such as the neural circuits that underlie fear conditioning.
“I think there are insights to be derived from connectivity. But just like genomes themselves aren’t interesting, it’s what they enable that is transformative. And that’s why I’m excited,” Zador said. “I’m hopeful it’s going to provide the scaffolding for the next generation of work in the field.”
Deep in the hippocampus, are new neurons born throughout life? Just when scientists were about to reach some consensus that the answer was yes, two recent studies disagree. In the April 5 Cell Stem Cell, Maura Boldrini and colleagues at Columbia University, New York, report that adult neurogenesis not only exists, but remains steady into old age. The researchers counted newborn neurons in samples from people aged 14–79 years, and came up with similar numbers. In the March 7 Nature, researchers led by Arturo Alvarez-Buylla at the University of California, San Francisco, reported that while neural progenitors abounded in postmortem hippocampi from prenatal or early childhood brains, they fell off the map by age 7. What gives? In older people, some of the cells that expressed markers of budding neurons turned out to be glia, the authors claim.
Neural progenitor cells proliferate in human hippocampus throughout adulthood, says a new study.
It blames waning angiogenesis, not faulty neurogenesis, for lost neuroplasticity in old age.
In contrast, another paper claims brain neurogenesis fizzles during childhood.
It claims some cells bearing neural progenitor markers are actually glia.
Who is right? Researchers who spoke with Alzforum stood squarely behind Boldrini because she used stereology, a gold standard quantitation method, to estimate numbers of neural progenitors throughout the entire dentate gyrus of postmortem brain. Alvarez-Buylla’s team estimated cell numbers using only three to five slices from each postmortem sample. “It would be very difficult to rule out neurogenesis by this method,” said Orly Lazarov of the University of Illinois in Chicago, who pointed out that because the study relied on small numbers of individuals per age group, the data could be misleading.
Others, including Jonas Frisén of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, pointed to a long list of previous papers supporting the existence of neurogenesis in the adult human brain. “An analogy is that 10 people go into the woods to search for blueberries,” he wrote, “Nine come back with blueberries and one does not. Are there blueberries in that forest?”
Still, others acknowledged that some of those “blueberries” might have been glia. “To me, it boils down to a single question: are these proliferating cells truly neural progenitors, or not?” asked Costantino Iadecola of Weill Cornell Medical College in New York.
Numerous studies in rodents support the idea that neural progenitors in the mammalian brain continue to trickle out fresh neurons into adulthood, though factors such as aging and disease dampen the flow (Altman and Das, 1965; Sep 2001 news; Feb 2002 news; Kempermann et al., 2003; Mar 2010 news). Tracking neurogenesis in humans has been trickier, but a seminal study two decades ago set the stage: Five terminal cancer patients received an injection of bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU), a dye that incorporates into DNA during cell division. Postmortem analyses revealed evidence of dividing neurons in the dentate gyri of all of the patients (Eriksson et al., 1998). Since then, carbon-14 tracing and immunohistochemistry studies have supported the idea that new neurons arise in the adult human brain (Knoth et al., 2010; Jun 2013 news; Feb 2014 news).
Boldrini and colleagues set out to determine if age affects adult neurogenesis. They acquired hippocampal samples from 11 women and 17 men, aged 14–79, who were cognitively normal, had suffered no brain trauma, had had no microvascular pathology in the brain, and had clean toxicology reports at the time of death. The researchers collected 50-micron thick sections every 2 mm along the entirety of the hippocampus, and used both immunofluorescence and immunocytochemistry to label various cell-surface markers associated with five different stages of neural development (see image below). Finally, they estimated cell numbers throughout the dentate gyrus using stereology, whereby a computer algorithm calculates total cell numbers in a region by combining data from multiple sections. They reported the number of neural progenitors in the anterior, mid-, and posterior dentate gyrus.
The earliest neural progenitors known, called quiescent radial-like type I neural progenitors (QNPs), express GFAP, a marker shared with astrocytes; nestin, an intermediate filament protein that marks neural stem cells; and the transcription factor Sox2, which is required for the maintenance of multipotent stem cells. The researchers found that numbers of these cells decreased with age in the anterior-mid dentate gyrus. This is in keeping with the prevailing view that people are born with a finite number of these QNPs, Boldrini said.
QNPs give rise to type II intermediate neural progenitors. INPs are proliferating cells that express Ki67, a marker of actively dividing cells. Neuroblasts, or type III INPs, also proliferate, but lose expression of GFAP and Sox2. Based on expression of Ki67, nestin, and Sox2, the researchers determined that numbers of type II and III INPs remained steady, on the order of thousands of cells, in all three regions of the dentate gyrus throughout life. These neural progenitors were found in the subgranular zone (SGZ), which is proposed to be the predominant neurogenic niche in the region, as well as the granule cell layer (GCL, see image below). The findings pointed to a stable supply of neural progenitors in the dentate gyrus throughout adult life.
The researchers next asked whether those progenitors would fulfill their destiny and give rise to immature neurons and, ultimately, bona fide granule neurons. On the way to becoming fully fledged neurons, type III INPs start to express doublecortin (DCX), a microtubule-associated protein involved in neural migration. They also produce polysialylated neural cell adhesion molecule (PSA-NCAM), a glycoprotein they need for plasticity. Together, DCX and PSA-NCAM mark young neurons, which continue to express both proteins until they differentiate into mature neurons, whereupon they suppress DCX. The researchers found that the tissue donors had similar numbers of cells co-expressing DCX and PSA-NCAM, regardless of their age, suggesting neurogenesis continued unabated throughout life. Numbers of NeuN+ mature neurons also held steady, indicating that neuronal loss in the dentate gyrus is not a characteristic of healthy aging, either.
The researchers calculated that each dentate gyrus had between 10,000 and 15,000 young neurons (i.e., type III INPs and immature neurons). While the functional significance of these cell numbers is unclear, Boldrini speculated that this ongoing level of neurogenesis influences neural circuitry and cognition. For this reason, boosting neurogenesis could be a therapeutic strategy for neurodegenerative disease, she said.
However, while older adults appear to generate as many new neurons as younger people, those new cells may be less plastic, judging by a decline in PSA-NCAM+/DCX– cells in the anterior dentate gyrus. Curiously, using endothelial markers and stereology to measure the numbers, length, bifurcations, and total volume of capillaries, the scientists also found an age-dependent decline in angiogenesis in the same regions. The researchers proposed that a decline in angiogenesis may trigger loss of neuroplasticity without necessarily affecting neurogenesis, for example by starving new neurons of essential growth factors or nutrients.
Others were not convinced, noting that reliance on a single marker—PSA-NCAM—made the plasticity results no more than an interesting correlation. Still, Lazarov and Iadecola said the connection between age-related decline in angiogenesis and neuroplasticity was plausible. Iadecola was surprised that loss of angiogenesis did not appear to affect neurogenesis, but he noted that the donors had no obvious vascular pathology in their brains. Perhaps in people with more severe vascular problems, neurogenesis would be affected, he said.
In Grown-Up Brain, Nary a Newborn Neuron
In the Nature paper, first author Shawn Sorrells and colleagues used many of the same markers—Sox2, GFAP, DCX, and PSA-NCAM—to assess neurogenesis in postmortem samples across the lifespan. This included 11 samples from prenatal donors, the youngest of whom was only at 14 weeks gestation. They also analyzed seven samples from infants who died during their first year of life, one from a 7-year-old, one from a 13-year-old, and 17 samples from adults up to 77 years of age at the time of death. The samples came from multiple sources, and were not limited to healthy donors, or all postmortem. They included hippocampal tissue from surgical resection in 22 people with epilepsy, who ranged from three months to 64 years old.
For the postmortem samples, the researchers used three to five coronal sections to assess cell numbers. Rather than using stereology to estimate the total number of cells in the dentate gyrus, the researchers counted cells in individual sections. Three researchers independently counted each section while blinded to the age of the donor. They identified key structural landmarks, most notably the cell-dense GCL, to infer the relative locations of the cells.
In prenatal samples, the scientists found abundant proliferating Ki67+ cells that expressed the progenitor markers Sox1 and Sox2. Numbers of these cells plummeted during the first year of life, and were near zero in samples from people 7 or older. Notably, these proliferating cells never coalesced beneath the GCL to form a distinctive layer in the SGZ, a structural niche that supports neurogenesis in rodent models. The researchers confirmed the absence of this layer by electron microscopy on a subset of their samples, ranging in age from 22 gestational weeks to 48 years of age.
DCX+/PSA-NCAM+ cells, representing intermediate neural progenitors and immature neurons, clustered throughout the GCL at birth to a density of about 1,600 cells per mm2. In prenatal and infant samples, these cells had a smooth, elongated morphology characteristic of young neurons. By 13 years of age, sections only contained around two young neurons per mm2, or roughly one or two cells per section. Likewise, the investigators found no evidence of young neurons in samples from epilepsy patients older than 11. As for adults, none of the surgical or postmortem samples contained DCX+/PSA-NCAM+ cells, however the researchers did find cells that expressed PSA-NCAM without DCX. Unlike the elongated young neurons in infant samples, these cells had a more mature neuronal morphology with distinct axons and dendrites, and expressed NeuN, suggesting they were highly plastic neurons. The researchers also identified DCX+ cells in some older childhood and adult samples, but these cells co-expressed glial markers, and under the gaze of electron microscopy, had glial morphology.
The researchers also looked for evidence of neurogenesis in rhesus macaques. By staining with similar neuronal markers, they found that unlike in the human brain, proliferating neural progenitors did gather in the SGZ before birth. However, the number of these young neurons decreased eightfold between birth and 1.5 years of age, and were sparse in 7-year-old animals. Similarly, labeling dividing cells with BrdU revealed a steep drop-off in dividing neurons between 1.5 and 7 years of age.
The researchers concluded that neurogenesis is robust only in the earliest stages of development, and that DCX+ cells in late childhood and adult samples were actually glia. In an email to Alzforum, Sorrells and Alvarez-Buylla speculated that the cells identified as young neurons in the Boldrini study were also likely non-neuronal. “Identifying new neurons is technically challenging—in our own recent study we made similar observations to what Boldrini et al. report, but after extensive additional analysis of the shape and appearance of the cells in question, including electron microscopy and gene expression, we determined that these cells were not in fact young neurons or neural progenitors but different types of cells altogether,” they wrote.
However, Boldrini asserted that in her study, the cells stained for both DCX and PSA-NCAM did not co-localize with cells that appeared to be glia based on the pattern of Nissl staining, and were present in the thousands. Boldrini added that the immature neurons took on a pyramidal shape, characteristic of neurons, not glia.
Sorrells and Alvarez-Buylla further drew attention to the lack of a defined layer of proliferating cells in the SGZ in their study, adding that Boldrini’s samples also appeared to lack a distinct layer of cells there. In rodents, neural progenitors gather and proliferate in the SGZ. On this issue, Boldrini thinks that perhaps in humans neurogenesis occurs in a more scattered fashion. She said that for this reason, taking stock of cells throughout the entire dentate gyrus is crucial to capture these sparse cells.—Jessica Shugart
As a translational neuroscientist, this work immediately piqued my interest. It has direct implications for the research my lab does: We transplant young neurons into damaged brain areas in mice in an attempt to treat epileptic seizures and the damage they’ve caused. Like many labs, part of our work is based on a foundational belief that the hippocampus is a brain region where new neurons are born throughout life.
If the new study is right, and human brains for the most part don’t add new neurons after infancy, researchers like me need to reconsider the validity of the animal models we use to understand various brain conditions – in my case temporal lobe epilepsy. And I suspect other labs that focus on conditions including drug addiction, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder are thinking about what the UCSF study means for their investigations, too.
Neurogenesis – the production of new neurons – was previously thought to only occur during embryonic life, a time of extremely rapid brain growth and expansion, and the rodent findings were met with considerable skepticism. Then researchers discovered that new neurons are also born throughout life in the songbird brain, a species scientists use as a model for studying vocal learning. It started to look like neurogenesis plays a key role in learning and neuroplasticity – at least in some brain regions in a few animal species.
Even so, neuroscientists were skeptical that many nerve cells could be renewed in the adult brain; evidence was scant that dividing cells in mammalian brains produced new neurons, as opposed to other cell types. It wasn’t until researchers extracted neural stem cells from adult mouse brains and grew them in cell culture that scientists showed these precursor cells could divide and differentiate into new neurons. Now it is generally well accepted that neurogenesis takes place in two areas of the adult rodent brain: the olfactory bulbs, which process smell information, and the hippocampus, a region characterized by neuroplasticity that is required for forming new declarative memories.
Adult neural stem cells cluster together in what scientists call niches – hotbeds for cultivating the birth and growth of new neurons, recognizable by their distinctive architecture. Despite the mounting evidence for regional growth of new neurons, these studies underscored the point that the adult brain harbors only a few stem cell niches and their capacity to produce neurons is limited to just a few types of cells.
With this knowledge, and new tools for labeling proliferating cells and identifying maturing neurons, scientists began to look for postnatal neurogenesis in primate and human brains.
What’s happening in adult human brains?
Many neuroscientists believe that by understanding the process of adult neurogenesis we’ll gain insights into the causes of some human neurological disorders. Then the next logical step would be trying to develop new treatments harnessing neurogenesis for conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease or trauma-induced epilepsy. And stimulating resident stem cells in the brain to generate new neurons is an exciting prospect for treating neurodegenerative diseases.
However, obtaining rigorous proof for adult neurogenesis in the human and primate brain has been technically challenging – both due to the limited experimental approaches and the larger sizes of the brains, compared to reptiles, songbirds and rodents.
But even when scientists saw evidence for new neurons in the brain, they tended to be scarce. Some neurogenesis experts were skeptical that evidence based on incorporating BrdU into DNA was a reliable method for proving that new cells were actually being born through cell division, rather than just serving as a marker for other normal cell functions.
Further questions about how long human brains retain the capacity for neurogenesis arose in 2011, with a study that compared numbers of newborn neurons migrating in the olfactory bulbs of infants versus older individuals up to 84 years of age. Strikingly, in the first six months of life, the baby brains contained lots of chains of young neurons migrating into the frontal lobes, regions that guide executive function, long-range planning and social interactions. These areas of the human cortex are hugely increased in size and complexity compared to rodents and other species. But between 6 to 18 months of age, the migrating chains dwindled to a thin stream. Then, a very different pattern emerged: Where the migrating chains of neurons had been in the infant brain, a cell-free gap appeared, suggesting that neural stem cells become depleted during the first six months of life.
Now the largest and most comprehensive study conducted to date presents even stronger evidence that robust neurogenesis doesn’t continue throughout adulthood in the human hippocampus – or if it does persist, it is extremely rare. This work is controversial and not universally accepted. Critics have been quick to cast doubt on the results, but the finding isn’t totally out of the blue.
So where does this leave the field of neuroscience? If the UCSF scientists are correct, what does that mean for ongoing research in labs around the world?
Because lots of studies of neurological diseases are done in mice and rats, many scientists are invested in the possibility that adult neurogenesis persists in the human brain, just as it does in rodents. If it doesn’t, how valid is it to think that the mechanisms of learning and neuroplasticity in our model animals are comparable to those in the human brain? How relevant are our models of neurological disorders for understanding how changes in the hippocampus contribute to disorders such as the type of epilepsy I study?
In my lab, we transplant embryonic mouse or human neurons into the adult hippocampus in mice, after damage caused by epileptic seizures. We aim to repair this damage and suppress seizures by seeding the mouse hippocampus with neural stem cells that will mature and form new connections. In temporal lobe epilepsy, studies in adult rodents suggest that naturally occurring hippocampal neurogenesis is problematic. It seems that the newborn hippocampal neurons become highly excitable and contribute to seizures. We’re trying to inhibit these newborn hyperexcitable neurons with the transplants. But if humans don’t generate new hippocampal neurons, then maybe we’re developing a treatment in mice for a problem that has a different mechanism in people.
Perhaps our species has evolved separate mechanisms for neuroplasticity, distinct from those used by species such as rats and mice. One possibility is that there are other sites in the human brain where neurogenesis occurs – its a big structure and more exploration will be necessary. If it turns out to be true that the human brain has a diminished capacity for neurogenesis after birth, the finding will have important implications for how neuroscientists like me think about tackling brain disorders.
Perhaps most importantly, this work underscores how crucial it is to learn how to increase the longevity of the neurons we do have, born early in life, and how we might replace or repair neurons that become damaged.