Notch and Presenilin Regulate Cellular Expansion and Cytokine Secretion but Cannot Instruct Th1/Th2 Fate Acquisition

Recent reports suggested that Delta1, 4 and Jagged1, 2 possessed the ability to instruct CD4+ T cell into selection of Th1 or Th2 fates, respectively, although the underlying mechanism endowing the cleaved Notch receptor with memory of ligand involved in its activation remains elusive. To examine this, we prepared artificial antigen-presenting cells expressing either DLL1 or Jag1. Although both ligands were efficient in inducing Notch2 cleavage and activation in CD4+ T or reporter cells, the presence of Lunatic Fringe in CD4+ T cells inhibited Jag1 activation of Notch1 receptor. Neither ligand could induce Th1 or Th2 fate choice independently of cytokines or redirect cytokine-driven Th1 or Th2 development. Instead, we find that Notch ligands only augment cytokine production during T cell differentiation in the presence of polarizing IL-12 and IL-4. Moreover, the differentiation choices of naïve CD4+ T cells lacking γ-secretase, RBP-J, or both in response to polarizing cytokines revealed that neither presenilin proteins nor RBP-J were required for cytokine-induced Th1/Th2 fate selection. However, presenilins facilitate cellular proliferation and cytokine secretion in an RBP-J (and thus, Notch) independent manner. The controversies surrounding the role of Notch and presenilins in Th1/Th2 polarization may reflect their role as genetic modifiers of T-helper cells differentiation

Notch and Presenilin Regulate Cellular Expansion and Cytokine Secretion but Cannot Instruct Th1/Th2 Fate Acquisition

Recent reports suggested that Delta1, 4 and Jagged1, 2 possessed the ability to instruct CD4+ T cell into selection of Th1 or Th2 fates, respectively, although the underlying mechanism endowing the cleaved Notch receptor with memory of ligand involved in its activation remains elusive. To examine this, we prepared artificial antigen-presenting cells expressing either DLL1 or Jag1. Although both ligands were efficient in inducing Notch2 cleavage and activation in CD4+ T or reporter cells, the presence of Lunatic Fringe in CD4+ T cells inhibited Jag1 activation of Notch1 receptor. Neither ligand could induce Th1 or Th2 fate choice independently of cytokines or redirect cytokine-driven Th1 or Th2 development. Instead, we find that Notch ligands only augment cytokine production during T cell differentiation in the presence of polarizing IL-12 and IL-4. Moreover, the differentiation choices of naïve CD4+ T cells lacking γ-secretase, RBP-J, or both in response to polarizing cytokines revealed that neither presenilin proteins nor RBP-J were required for cytokine-induced Th1/Th2 fate selection. However, presenilins facilitate cellular proliferation and cytokine secretion in an RBP-J (and thus, Notch) independent manner. The controversies surrounding the role of Notch and presenilins in Th1/Th2 polarization may reflect their role as genetic modifiers of T-helper cells differentiation

Modulating proactive cognitive control by reward:Differential anticipatory effects of performance contingent and non-contingent rewards

The present study investigated the influences of two different forms of reward presentation in modulating cognitive control. In three experiments, participants performed a flanker task for which one-third of trials were precued for a chance of obtaining a reward (reward trials). In Experiment 1, a reward was provided if participants made the correct response on reward trials, but a penalty was given if they made an incorrect response on these trials. The anticipation of this performance-contingent reward increased response speed and reduced the flanker effect, but had little influence on the sequential modulation of the flanker effect after incompatible trials. In Experiment 2, participants obtained a reward randomly on two-thirds of the precued reward trials and were given a penalty on the remaining one-third, regardless of their performance. The anticipation of this non-contingent reward had little influence on the overall response speed or flanker effect, but reduced the sequential modulation of the flanker effect after incompatible trials. Experiment 3 also used performance non-contingent rewards, but participants were randomly penalized more often than they were rewarded; non-contingent penalty had little influence on the sequential modulation of the flanker effect. None of the three experiments showed a reliable influence of the actual acquisition of rewards on task performance. These results indicate anticipatory effects of performance-contingent and non-contingent rewards on cognitive control with little evidence of aftereffects

The effect of cingulate lesions on social behaviour and emotion.

Functional and structural neuroimaging of the human cingulate cortex has identified this region with emotion and social cognition and suggested that cingulate pathology may be associated with emotional and social behavioural disturbances. The importance of the cingulate cortex for emotion and social behaviour, however, has not been clear from lesion studies. Bilateral lesions in the cingulate cortex were made in three macaques and their social interactions were compared with those of controls. Subsequently, cingulate lesions were made in the three controls and their behaviour was compared before and after surgery. Cingulate lesions were associated with decreases in social interactions, time spent in proximity with other individuals, and vocalisations but an increase in manipulation of an inanimate object. The results are consistent with a cingulate role in social behaviour and emotion

The anterior cingulate and reward-guided selection of actions.

Macaques were taught a reward-conditional response selection task; they learned to associate each of two different actions to each of two different rewards and to select actions that were appropriate for particular rewards. They were also taught a visual discrimination learning task. Cingulate lesions significantly impaired selection of responses associated with different rewards but did not interfere with visual discrimination learning or performance. The results suggest that 1) the cingulate cortex is concerned with action reward associations and not limited to just detecting when actions lead to errors and 2) that the cingulate cortex's function is limited to action reinforcer associations and it is not concerned with stimulus reward associations

The effect of cingulate cortex lesions on task switching and working memory.

Anatomic interconnections between the prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices suggest that these areas may have similar functions. Here we report the effect of anterior cingulate removal on task switching, error monitoring, and working memory. Neuroimaging studies have implicated the cingulate cortex in all these processes. Six macaques were taught task switching (TS) and delayed alternation (DA) paradigms. TS required switching between two conditional response tasks with mutually incompatible response selection rules. DA required alternation between two identically covered food-well positions. In the first set of experiments, anterior cingulate lesions did not consistently impair TS or DA performance. One animal performed worst on both TS and DA and in this animal the cingulate sulcus lesion was most complete. In the second set of experiments, we confirmed that larger anterior cingulate lesions, which included the sulcus, consistently impaired TS but only led to a mild and equivocal impairment of DA. The TS error pattern, however, did not suggest an impairment of TS per se. The consequence of a cingulate lesion is, therefore, distinct to that of a prefrontal lesion. TS error distribution analyses provided some support for a cingulate role in monitoring responses for errors and subsequent correction but the pattern of reaction time change in TS was also indicative of a failure to sustain attention to the task and the responses being made

Role of the human medial frontal cortex in task switching: a combined fMRI and TMS study.

We used event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain activity when subjects were performing identical tasks in the context of either a task-set switch or a continuation of earlier performance. The context, i.e., switching or staying with the current task, influenced medial frontal cortical activation; the medial frontal cortex is transiently activated at the time that subjects switch from one way of performing a task to another. Two types of task-set-switching paradigms were investigated. In the response-switching (RS) paradigm, subjects switched between different rules for response selection and had to choose between competing responses. In the visual-switching (VS) paradigm, subjects switched between different rules for stimulus selection and had to choose between competing visual stimuli. The type of conflict, sensory (VS) or motor (RS), involved in switching was critical in determining medial frontal activation. Switching in the RS paradigm was associated with clear blood-oxygenation-level-dependent signal increases ("activations") in three medial frontal areas: the rostral cingulate zone, the caudal cingulate zone, and the presupplementary motor area (pre-SMA). Switching in the VS task was associated with definite activation in just one medial frontal area, a region on the border between the pre-SMA and the SMA. Subsequent to the fMRI session, we used MRI-guided frameless stereotaxic procedures and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to test the importance of the medial frontal activations for task switching. Applying rTMS over the pre-SMA disrupted subsequent RS performance but only when it was applied in the context of a switch. This result shows, first, that the pre-SMA is essential for task switching and second that its essential role is transient and limited to just the time of behavioral switching. The results are consistent with a role for the pre-SMA in selecting between response sets at a superordinate level rather than in selecting individual responses. The effect of the rTMS was not simply due to the tactile and auditory artifacts associated with each pulse; rTMS over several control regions did not selectively disrupt switching. Applying rTMS over the SMA/pre-SMA area activated in the VS paradigm did not disrupt switching. This result, first, confirms the limited importance of the medial frontal cortex for sensory attentional switching. Second, the VS rTMS results suggest that just because an area is activated in two paradigms does not mean that it plays the same essential role in both cases

Interference with performance of a response selection task that has no working memory component: an rTMS comparison of the dorsolateral prefrontal and medial frontal cortex.

It has been suggested that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is involved in free selection (FS), the process by which subjects themselves decide what action to perform. Evidence for this proposal has been provided by imaging studies showing activation of the DLPFC when subjects randomly generate responses. However, these response selection tasks have a hidden working memory element and it has been widely reported that the DLPFC is activated when subjects perform tasks which involve working memory. The primary aim of this experiment was to establish if the DLPFC is genuinely involved in response selection. We used repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to investigate whether temporary interference of the DLPFC could disrupt performance of a response selection task that had no working memory component. Subjects performed tasks in which they made bimanual sequences of eight nonrepeating finger movements. In the FS task, subjects chose their movements at random while a computer monitor displayed these moves. This visual feedback obviated the need for subjects to maintain their previous moves "on-line." No selection was required for the two control tasks as responses were cued by the visual display. The attentional demands of the control tasks varied. In the high load (HL) version, subjects had to maintain their attention throughout the sequence, but this requirement was absent in the low load (LL) task. rTMS over the DLPFC slowed response times on the FS task and at the end of the sequence on the HL task, but had no effect on the LL task. rTMS over the medial frontal cortex (MFC) slowed response times on the FS task but had no effect on the HL task. This suggests that a response selection task without a working memory load will depend on the DLPFC and the MFC. The difference appears to be that the DLPFC is important when selecting between competing responses or when concentrating if there is a high attentional demand, but that the MFC is only important during the response selection task