4.7 Article

Subtype-specific plasticity of inhibitory circuits in motor cortex during motor learning

期刊

NATURE NEUROSCIENCE
卷 18, 期 8, 页码 1109-+

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nn.4049

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Science and Technology Agency (PRESTO)
  2. Pew Charitable Trusts
  3. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  4. David & Lucile Packard Foundation
  5. Human Frontier Science Program
  6. McKnight Foundation
  7. US National Institutes of Health [R01 NS091010A]
  8. University of California San Diego Center for Brain Activity Mapping
  9. New York Stem Cell Foundation (NYSCF)
  10. Neuroplasticity of Aging Training Grant [AG000216]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motor skill learning induces long-lasting reorganization of dendritic spines, principal sites of excitatory synapses, in the motor cortex. However, mechanisms that regulate these excitatory synaptic changes remain poorly understood. Here, using in vivo two-photon imaging in awake mice, we found that learning-induced spine reorganization of layer (L) 2/3 excitatory neurons occurs in the distal branches of their apical dendrites in L1 but not in the perisomatic dendrites. This compartment-specific spine reorganization coincided with subtype-specific plasticity of local inhibitory circuits. Somatostatin-expressing inhibitory neurons (SOM-INs), which mainly inhibit distal dendrites of excitatory neurons, showed a decrease in axonal boutons immediately after the training began, whereas parvalbumin-expressing inhibitory neurons (PV-INs), which mainly inhibit perisomatic regions of excitatory neurons, exhibited a gradual increase in axonal boutons during training. Optogenetic enhancement and suppression of SOM-IN activity during training destabilized and hyperstabilized spines, respectively, and both manipulations impaired the learning of stereotyped movements. Our results identify SOM inhibition of distal dendrites as a key regulator of learning-related changes in excitatory synapses and the acquisition of motor skills.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据