The Spinobulbar System in Lamprey

Locomotor networks in the spinal cord are controlled by descending systems which in turn receive feedback signals from ascending systems about the state of the locomotor networks. In lamprey, the ascending system consists of spinobulbar neurons which convey spinal network signals to the two descending systems, the reticulospinal and vestibulospinal neurons. Previous studies showed that spinobulbar neurons consist of both ipsilaterally and contralaterally projecting cells distributed at all rostrocaudal levels of the spinal cord, though most numerous near the obex. The axons of spinobulbar neurons ascend in the ventrolateral spinal cord and brainstem to the caudal mesencephalon and within the dendritic arbors of reticulospinal and vestibulospinal neurons. Compared to mammals, the ascending system in lampreys is more direct, consisting of excitatory and inhibitory monosynaptic inputs from spinobulbar neurons to reticulospinal neurons. The spinobulbar neurons are rhythmically active during fictive locomotion, representing a wide range of timing relationships with nearby ventral root bursts including those in phase, out of phase, and active during burst transitions between opposite ventral roots. The spinobulbar neurons are not simply relay cells because they can have mutual synaptic interactions with their reticulospinal neuron targets and they can have synaptic outputs to other spinal neurons. Spinobulbar neurons not only receive locomotor inputs but also receive direct inputs from primary mechanosensory neurons. Due to the relative simplicity of the lamprey nervous system and motor control system, the spinobulbar neurons and their interactions with reticulospinal neurons may be advantageous for investigating the general organization of ascending systems in the vertebrate

Reticulospinal Neurons Receive Direct Spinobulbar Inputs During Locomotor Activity in Lamprey

Reticulospinal neurons of the lamprey brain stem receive rhythmic input from the spinal cord during locomotor activity. The goal of the present study was to determine whether such spinal input has a direct component to reticulospinal neurons or depends on brain stem interneurons. To answer this question, an in vitro lamprey brain stem-spinal cord preparation was used with a diffusion barrier placed caudal to the obex, separating the experimental chamber into two baths. Locomotor activity was induced in the spinal cord by perfusion of D-glutamate or N-methyl-DL-aspartate into the spinal cord bath. The brain stem bath was first perfused with normal Ringer solution followed by a high-Ca2+, -Mg2+ solution, which reduced polysynaptic transmission. The amplitudes of membrane potential oscillations of reticulospinal neurons in the posterior and middle rhombencephalic reticular nuclei (PRRN and MRRN, respectively) recorded with sharp intracellular microelectrodes did not significantly change from normal to high-divalent solution. This finding suggests a large part of the spinal input creating the oscillations is direct to the reticulospinal neurons. Application of strychnine to the high-Ca2+, -Mg2+ solution decreased membrane potential oscillation amplitude, and injection of Cl- reversed presumed inhibitory postsynaptic potentials, indicating a role for direct spinal inhibitory inputs. Although reduced, the persistence of oscillations in strychnine suggests that spinal excitatory inputs also contribute to the oscillations. Thus it was concluded that both excitatory and inhibitory spinal neurons provide direct rhythmic inputs to reticulospinal cells of the PRRN and MRRN during locomotor activity. These inputs provide reticulospinal cells with information regarding the activity of the spinal locomotor networks

Membrane Potential Oscillations in Reticulospinal and Spinobulbar Neurons During Locomotor Activity

Feedback from the spinal locomotor networks provides rhythmic modulation of the membrane potential of reticulospinal (RS) neurons during locomotor activity. To further understand the origins of this rhythmic activity, the timings of the oscillations in spinobulbar (SB) neurons of the spinal cord and in RS neurons of the posterior and middle rhombencephalic reticular nuclei were measured using intracellular microelectrode recordings in the isolated brain stem-spinal cord preparation of the lamprey. A diffusion barrier constructed just caudal to the obex allowed induction of locomotor activity in the spinal cord by bath application of an excitatory amino acid to the spinal bath. All of the ipsilaterally projecting SB neurons recorded had oscillatory membrane potentials with peak depolarizations in phase with the ipsilateral ventral root bursts, whereas the contralaterally projecting SB neurons were about evenly divided between those in phase with the ipsilateral ventral root bursts and those in phase with the contralateral bursts. In the brain stem under these conditions, 75% of RS neurons had peak depolarizations in phase with the ipsilateral ventral root bursts while the remainder had peak depolarizations during the contralateral bursts. Addition of a high-Ca2+, Mg2+ solution to the brain stem bath to reduce polysynaptic activity had little or no effect on oscillation timing in RS neurons, suggesting that direct inputs from SB neurons make a major contribution to RS neuron oscillations under these conditions. Under normal conditions when the brain is participating in the generation of locomotor activity, these spinal inputs will be integrated with other inputs to RS neurons

Spinobulbar Neurons in Lamprey: Cellular Properties and Synaptic Interactions

An in vitro preparation of the nervous system of the lamprey, a lower vertebrate, was used to characterize the properties of spinal neurons with axons projecting to the brain stem [i.e., spinobulbar (SB) neurons)]. To identify SB neurons, extracellular electrodes on each side of the spinal cord near the obex recorded the axonal spikes of neurons impaled with sharp intracellular microelectrodes in the rostral spinal cord. The ascending spinal neurons (n = 144) included those with ipsilateral (iSB) (63/144), contralateral (cSB) (77/144), or bilateral (bSB) (4/144) axonal projections to the brain stem. Intracellular injection of biocytin revealed that the SB neurons had small- to medium-size somata and most had dendrites confined to the ipsilateral side of the cord, although about half of the cSB neurons also had contralateral dendrites. Most SB neurons had multiple axonal branches including descending axons. Electrophysiologically, the SB neurons were similar to other lamprey spinal neurons, firing spikes throughout long depolarizing pulses with some spike-frequency adaptation. Paired intracellular recordings between SB and reticulospinal (RS) neurons revealed that SB neurons made either excitatory or inhibitory synapses on RS neurons and the SB neurons received excitatory input from RS neurons. Mutual excitation and feedback inhibition between pairs of RS and SB neurons were observed. The SB neurons also received excitatory inputs from primary mechanosensory neurons (dorsal cells), and these same SB neurons were rhythmically active during fictive swimming, indicating that SB neurons convey both sensory and locomotor network information to the brain stem

Comparing the transcriptomes of embryos from domesticated and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) stocks and examining factors that influence heritability of gene expression

Background  Due to selective breeding, domesticated and wild Atlantic salmon are genetically diverged, which raises concerns about farmed escapees having the potential to alter the genetic composition of wild populations and thereby disrupting local adaptation. Documenting transcriptional differences between wild and domesticated stocks under controlled conditions is one way to explore the consequences of domestication and selection. We compared the transcriptomes of wild and domesticated Atlantic salmon embryos, by using a custom 44k oligonucleotide microarray to identify perturbed gene pathways between the two stocks, and to document the inheritance patterns of differentially-expressed genes by examining gene expression in their reciprocal hybrids.  Results  Data from 24 array interrogations were analysed: four reciprocal cross types (W♀×W♂, D♀×W♂; W♀×D♂, D♀×D♂)×six biological replicates. A common set of 31,491 features on the microarrays passed quality control, of which about 62% were assigned a KEGG Orthology number. A total of 6037 distinct genes were identified for gene-set enrichment/pathway analysis. The most highly enriched functional groups that were perturbed between the two stocks were cellular signalling and immune system, ribosome and RNA transport, and focal adhesion and gap junction pathways, relating to cell communication and cell adhesion molecules. Most transcripts that were differentially expressed between the stocks were governed by additive gene interaction (33 to 42%). Maternal dominance and over-dominance were also prevalent modes of inheritance, with no convincing evidence for a stock effect.  Conclusions  Our data indicate that even at this relatively early developmental stage, transcriptional differences exist between the two stocks and affect pathways that are relevant to wild versus domesticated environments. Many of the identified differentially perturbed pathways are involved in organogenesis, which is expected to be an active process at the eyed egg stage. The dominant effects are more largely due to the maternal line than to the origin of the stock. This finding is particularly relevant in the context of potential introgression between farmed and wild fish, since female escapees tend to have a higher spawning success rate compared to males

How is model-related uncertainty quantified and reported in different disciplines?

How do we know how much we know? Quantifying uncertainty associated with our modelling work is the only way we can answer how much we know about any phenomenon. With quantitative science now highly influential in the public sphere and the results from models translating into action, we must support our conclusions with sufficient rigour to produce useful, reproducible results. Incomplete consideration of model-based uncertainties can lead to false conclusions with real world impacts. Despite these potentially damaging consequences, uncertainty consideration is incomplete both within and across scientific fields. We take a unique interdisciplinary approach and conduct a systematic audit of model-related uncertainty quantification from seven scientific fields, spanning the biological, physical, and social sciences. Our results show no single field is achieving complete consideration of model uncertainties, but together we can fill the gaps. We propose opportunities to improve the quantification of uncertainty through use of a source framework for uncertainty consideration, model type specific guidelines, improved presentation, and shared best practice. We also identify shared outstanding challenges (uncertainty in input data, balancing trade-offs, error propagation, and defining how much uncertainty is required). Finally, we make nine concrete recommendations for current practice (following good practice guidelines and an uncertainty checklist, presenting uncertainty numerically, and propagating model-related uncertainty into conclusions), future research priorities (uncertainty in input data, quantifying uncertainty in complex models, and the importance of missing uncertainty in different contexts), and general research standards across the sciences (transparency about study limitations and dedicated uncertainty sections of manuscripts).Comment: 40 Pages (including supporting information), 3 Figures, 2 Boxes, 1 Tabl