Changes in neural selectivity caused by PV cell activation reflect behavioral performance in easy but not difficult discriminations.
<p><b>A)</b> Optogenetic stimulation timings for entire and early window conditions aligned to stimulus onset (STIM ON) or offset (STIM OFF) (top), schematic of optogenetic method combined with 2-photon imaging (middle), schematic of laser activating only ChrimsonR-expressing PV ce...
Wedi'i Gadw mewn:
| Prif Awdur: | |
|---|---|
| Awduron Eraill: | , , , |
| Cyhoeddwyd: |
2025
|
| Pynciau: | |
| Tagiau: |
Ychwanegu Tag
Dim Tagiau, Byddwch y cyntaf i dagio'r cofnod hwn!
|
| Crynodeb: | <p><b>A)</b> Optogenetic stimulation timings for entire and early window conditions aligned to stimulus onset (STIM ON) or offset (STIM OFF) (top), schematic of optogenetic method combined with 2-photon imaging (middle), schematic of laser activating only ChrimsonR-expressing PV cells while GCaMP7s reports the activity of all neurons (bottom). <b>B)</b> Example frames of in-vivo imaging plane showing GCaMP7s-expressing neurons when illuminated with 920 nm wavelength (left), and ChrimsonR-tdTomato-expressing neurons when illuminated with 1,040 nm wavelength (right). Arrow shows example PV cell. Scale bar, 50 µm. <b>C)</b> Average response of two example neurons to optogenetic laser illumination during the entire stimulus duration (0–2 s). The activity to the visual stimulus of the identified Pyr cell is suppressed, whereas the PV cell is increased. Shading, SEM. <b>D)</b> Median laser-induced changes in absolute selectivity for entire (left panel, <i>N</i> = 1,156 cells, 6 mice) and early (right panel, <i>N</i> = 754 cells, 6 mice) time window conditions, for easy task, significant at all laser levels (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, <i>p</i> < 0.002). Error bars, SEM. Laser levels in D–G) are calibrated for each mouse to cause moderate suppression in Pyr cell activity (see Methods) and range from 0.02 to 0.37 mW. <b>E)</b> is same as D) showing entire (left panel, <i>N</i> = 542 cells, 3 mice) and early (right panel, <i>N</i> = 561 cells, 3 mice) time window conditions but for difficult task (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, ‘entire’ laser level 1 = −0.03 ± 0.01, <i>p</i> = 0.017; ‘early’ laser level 2 = 0.01 ± 0.01, <i>p</i> = 0.037, all other laser levels n.s.). <b>F)</b> Stimulus selectivity index of the same cells as in D) in the no laser condition (0 mW, off) and across laser levels for easy task. Cells were ordered by their selectivity at each laser level. <b>G)</b> is same as F) but for difficult task. Color bar range indicates selectivity with positive values for cells preferring the rewarded ‘go’ stimulus and negative values for cells preferring the unrewarded ‘no-go’ stimulus. <b>H)</b> Histograms of data in F) to quantify the shift towards go or no-go preference in the easy task. Entire: Median ± SEM, laser off = 0.16 ± 0.02, laser on = 0.18 ± 0.02, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, <i>p</i> < 0.002; averaged across laser levels. <b>I)</b> Histograms of data in G) to quantify the shift towards go or no-go preference in the difficult task. Entire: Median ± SEM, laser off = 0.15 ± 0.02, laser on = 0.12 ± 0.01, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, <i>p</i> = 0.931; averaged across laser levels. Early: Median ± SEM, laser off = 0.15 ± 0.01, laser on = 0.10 ± 0.01, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, <i>p</i> < 0.002; averaged across laser levels.</p> |
|---|