Skip to main content

Umbrella menu

  • SfN.org
  • eNeuro
  • The Journal of Neuroscience
  • Neuronline
  • BrainFacts.org

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Latest Articles
    • Issue Archive
    • Editorials
    • Research Highlights
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • BLOG
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SfN.org
  • eNeuro
  • The Journal of Neuroscience
  • Neuronline
  • BrainFacts.org

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
  • My alerts

eNeuro

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Latest Articles
    • Issue Archive
    • Editorials
    • Research Highlights
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • BLOG
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
PreviousNext
Research ArticleMethods/New Tools, Novel Tools and Methods

Differential Changes in the Lateralized Activity of Identified Projection Neurons of Motor Cortex in Hemiparkinsonian Rats

Alain Rios, Shogo Soma, Junichi Yoshida, Satoshi Nonomura, Masanori Kawabata, Yutaka Sakai and Yoshikazu Isomura
eNeuro 24 June 2019, 6 (4) ENEURO.0110-19.2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0110-19.2019
Alain Rios
1Brain Science Institute, Tamagawa University, Tokyo 194-8610, Japan
2Graduate School of Brain Sciences, Tamagawa University, Tokyo 194-8610, Japan
3Physiology and Cell Biology, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo 113-8519, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shogo Soma
4Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology. University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Junichi Yoshida
5Dominick P. Purpura Department of Neuroscience, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY 10461
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Satoshi Nonomura
1Brain Science Institute, Tamagawa University, Tokyo 194-8610, Japan
3Physiology and Cell Biology, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo 113-8519, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Masanori Kawabata
1Brain Science Institute, Tamagawa University, Tokyo 194-8610, Japan
2Graduate School of Brain Sciences, Tamagawa University, Tokyo 194-8610, Japan
3Physiology and Cell Biology, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo 113-8519, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yutaka Sakai
1Brain Science Institute, Tamagawa University, Tokyo 194-8610, Japan
2Graduate School of Brain Sciences, Tamagawa University, Tokyo 194-8610, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yoshikazu Isomura
1Brain Science Institute, Tamagawa University, Tokyo 194-8610, Japan
2Graduate School of Brain Sciences, Tamagawa University, Tokyo 194-8610, Japan
3Physiology and Cell Biology, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo 113-8519, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Behavioral task in hemiparkinsonian rats. A, Schematic of the right–left pedal task (top) and a representative of the pedal trajectory during one correct trial in the right-rewarded block (middle and bottom). Rats push both pedals for at least 1 s and release only one limb (depending on which movement is being rewarded in that block) to receive a reward. B, Experiment design timeline. C, Representatives of task performance at day 2 (top) and day 14 (bottom). Large and small colored vertical bars (red, right choice; blue, left choice) indicate correct and incorrect trials, respectively. The choice rate of the right pedal (purple line) was calculated by averaging the number of right choices obtained from the past 10 trials. D, Representative images of M2, M1, DLS, and SNc showing TH immunostaining difference between the non-lesioned and lesioned hemisphere. E, TH staining optical density values of the lesioned hemisphere normalized to the non-lesioned hemisphere in M2, M1, and DLS (top); number of SNc TH+ cells in the non-lesioned (NL) and lesioned (L) hemisphere (bottom left); difference of total turns in 1 h after apomorphine injection between healthy and hemiparkinsonian rats (bottom right); **p < 0.01, n.s.: not significant, unpaired t test. F, Population averaged M1 LFP power spectra around the onset of contralateral pedal release (±1.5 s) showing the LFP power and peak frequency in the β range (15–35 Hz) in the lesioned hemisphere; **p < 0.01, Wilcoxon rank-sum test. G, Wavelet coherence between M1 and M2 LFP signals around the onset of contralateral pedal release. Coherence was normalized to fall between 0 and 1.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Task performance. A, top, Pedal trajectories of right and left forelimbs during task performance in hemiparkinsonian rat. Middle and bottom, Averaged population EMG activity (±SEM) of both forelimbs aligned to pedal-release onset, during right or left forelimb movements (left and right columns, respectively). B, EMG activity of left forelimb in healthy rat showing left muscles activity change associated with movement execution of the left forelimb. C, Rate of correct responses for each forelimb in hemiparkinsonian rat. In the first 4 d of training, the number of correct trials was higher for the right forelimb than the left forelimb; **p < 0.01, two-way ANOVA with Tukey–Kramer post hoc test. D, Correct rate after block change in hemiparkinsonian rat. Solid lines represent the number of trials needed to correctly change the response after a block change in training day 14. At the end of the training period, this number was similar for both forelimbs. The faint lines represent training day 6. E, The rat chooses the correct pedal based on the reward. Relative to healthy rats, lesioned rats exhibited a higher bias toward the right in the initial 4 d of training; **p < 0.01 compared to the corresponding day of healthy group, two-way ANOVA, Tukey–Kramer post hoc test. F, Rate of correct responses. The healthy rats showed a higher rate of correct responses during days 7–9, choosing the rewarded pedal >75% of the time; **p < 0.01 compared to the corresponding day of healthy group, two-way ANOVA with Tukey–Kramer post hoc test. G, Number of total trials per session.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Different types of functional activity neurons in M1 and M2. A, Spiking properties of RS and FS neurons of M1 and M2. Ongoing spike rate (left); CV of ISI, showing the cumulative distribution in the insets (middle); peak activity timing of preferred activity (right); n.s.: not significant, Kruskal–Wallis test (H, healthy; NL, non-lesioned hemisphere; L, lesioned hemisphere). B, Examples of neurons with different functional activities recorded from the lesioned hemisphere, showing the raster plot and PETH around the onset of pedal release for a Go-type and a Hold-type neuron during contralateral (red) and ipsilateral (blue) movements. C, D, Task-related activity in RS (top) and FS (bottom) neurons in M1 and M2. Color map shows the normalized Gaussian-filtered PETH of the preferred response (σ = 12.5 ms, in 0.05-ms bins) for a single neuron (aligned with pedal release onset). Task-related neurons were sorted by peak activity time (early to late). Hold-type (gray) and Go-type (white) activities are indicated on the right side of each panel. E, F, Proportion of Hold-type (black) and Go-type (white) for RS and FS neurons; **p < 0.01, n.s.: not significant, χ2 test.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Forelimb selectivity of neuronal activity. Go-type neurons activity during contralateral and ipsilateral movements in RS and FS neurons in M1 (A) and M2 (B). The plots show the averaged PETHs of all Go-type activity during contralateral (red) and ipsilateral (blue) choice trials. Solid lines represent means, shaded areas represent ±SD. H, healthy; L, lesioned; NL, non-lesioned. The insets show the difference between the average peak values during contralateral and ipsilateral movements. Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Laterality preference of Go-type activity in unidentified neurons in M1 and M2. A, Cumulative distributions of laterality indices for RS and FS neurons in M1 and M2. A laterality index near +1 indicates preferred activity during contralateral movements, and an index near –1 indicates a preference for ipsilateral movements. Each line represents the lateralized activity of the indicated neuron population under healthy (gray), non-lesioned (cyan), and lesioned (magenta) conditions. B, Proportion of neurons (in percentage) selective for contralateral (red), ipsilateral (blue), or bilateral movement (green); **p < 0.01, n.s.: not significant, χ2 test.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Identification and laterality preference of IT and PT neurons. A, Schematic of the localization of recording probes and optical fiber for performance of Multi-Linc in M1 and M2 (contralateral cortex stimulation for the identification of IT neurons; ipsilateral pons stimulation for PT neurons). B, Example identification of a PT neuron using the collision test. Black traces represent antidromic spikes after optical stimulation (cyan area). Red traces show the absence of the antidromic spike after optical stimulation triggered by a spontaneous spike, confirming a successful collision test. C, Cumulative distributions of laterality indices for IT and PT neurons in M1 and M2. A laterality index near +1 indicates preferred activity during contralateral movements, and an index near –1 indicates a preference for ipsilateral movements. Each line indicates the lateralized activity of each neuron population under healthy (gray), non-lesioned (cyan), and lesioned (magenta) conditions. D, Proportion of neurons (in percentage) selective for contralateral (red), ipsilateral (blue), or bilateral movement (green); *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, n.s.: not significant, χ2 test.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Disrupted lateralized activity of motor cortex. The present model represents the degree of ipsilateral or contralateral control depicted as the arrow thickness. A, Normal contralateral lateralized activity of motor cortex. B, Classic rate model of PD and hypothetical compensation from the contralateral hemisphere. C, Our results indicate a decrease in the contralateral preferred control in the dopamine-depleted hemisphere. The empty arrows represent a reduced action selectivity (e.g., flexion or extension) in the parkinsonian state. D, Projection neurons and putative interneurons on the lesioned side exhibited a reduction in contralateral preference which can coexist with a decrease in the action selectivity. The non-lesioned hemisphere exhibited an increased contralateral preference in FS neurons and a tendency toward an increase in the contralateral preference in projection neurons, acting as a possible compensatory mechanism, exerting a higher control over the abnormal activity of the dopamine depleted hemisphere.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 6 (4)
eNeuro
Vol. 6, Issue 4
July/August 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Differential Changes in the Lateralized Activity of Identified Projection Neurons of Motor Cortex in Hemiparkinsonian Rats
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Differential Changes in the Lateralized Activity of Identified Projection Neurons of Motor Cortex in Hemiparkinsonian Rats
Alain Rios, Shogo Soma, Junichi Yoshida, Satoshi Nonomura, Masanori Kawabata, Yutaka Sakai, Yoshikazu Isomura
eNeuro 24 June 2019, 6 (4) ENEURO.0110-19.2019; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0110-19.2019

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Differential Changes in the Lateralized Activity of Identified Projection Neurons of Motor Cortex in Hemiparkinsonian Rats
Alain Rios, Shogo Soma, Junichi Yoshida, Satoshi Nonomura, Masanori Kawabata, Yutaka Sakai, Yoshikazu Isomura
eNeuro 24 June 2019, 6 (4) ENEURO.0110-19.2019; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0110-19.2019
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • continuous activity monitoring
  • home cage
  • motion detector
  • physical activity

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Methods/New Tools

  • P2X-GCaMPs as versatile tools for imaging extracellular ATP signaling
  • Up-regulation of Supplementary Motor Area activation with fMRI Neurofeedback during Motor Imagery
  • Molecular diversity of glutamatergic and GABAergic synapses from multiplexed fluorescence imaging
Show more Methods/New Tools

Novel Tools and Methods

  • P2X-GCaMPs as versatile tools for imaging extracellular ATP signaling
  • Up-regulation of Supplementary Motor Area activation with fMRI Neurofeedback during Motor Imagery
  • Molecular diversity of glutamatergic and GABAergic synapses from multiplexed fluorescence imaging
Show more Novel Tools and Methods

Subjects

  • Novel Tools and Methods
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2021 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.