Research Area: Cellular & Molecular Neuroscience

​synapses, vesicles, electrophysiology, protein complexes, signaling, small molecules, disease-linked genes, dendrites, cell death, brain disorders, neurodevelopment

Powered by viruses

by Jennifer Michalowski |

View the interactive version of this story in our Winter 2021 issue of Brain Scan.

Viruses are notoriously adept invaders. The efficiency with which these unseen threats infiltrate tissues, evade immune systems, and occupy the cells of their hosts can be alarming — but it’s exactly why most McGovern neuroscientists keep a stash of viruses in the freezer.

In the hands of neuroscientists, viruses become vital tools for delivering cargo to cells.

With a bit of genetic manipulation, they can instruct neurons to produce proteins that illuminate complex circuitry, report on activity, or place certain cells under scientists’ control. They can even deliver therapies designed to correct genetic defects in patients.

“We rely on the virus to deliver whatever we want,” says McGovern Investigator Guoping Feng. “This is one of the most important technologies in neuroscience.”

Tracing connections

In Ian Wickersham’s lab, researchers are adapting a virus that, in its natural form, is devastating to the mammalian nervous system. Once it gains access to a neuron, the rabies virus spreads to connected cells, killing them within weeks. “That makes it a very dangerous pathogen, but also a very powerful tool for neuroscience,” says Wickersham, a Principal Research Scientist at the Institute.

Taking advantage of its pernicious spread, neuroscientists use a modified version of the rabies virus to introduce a fluorescent protein to infected cells and visualize their connections (above). As a graduate student in Edward Callaway’s lab at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, Wickersham figured out how to limit the virus’s passage through the nervous system, allowing it to access cells that are directly connected to the neuron it initially infects, but go no further. Rabies virus travels across synapses in the opposite direction of neuronal signals, so researchers can deliver it to a single cell or set of cells, then see exactly where those cells’ inputs are coming from.

Labs around the world use Wickersham’s modified rabies virus to trace neuronal anatomy in the brains of mice. While his team tinkers to make the virus even more powerful, his collaborators have deployed it to map a variety of essential connections, offering clues into how the brain controls movement, detects odors, and retrieves memories.

With the newest tracing tool from the Wickersham lab, moving from anatomical studies to experiments that reveal circuit function is seamless, because the lab has further modified their virus so that it cannot kill cells. Researchers can label connected cells, then proceed to monitor their signals or manipulate their activity in the same animals.

Researchers usually conduct these experiments in genetically modified mice to control the subset of cells that activate the tracing system. It’s the same approach used to restrict most virally-delivered tools to specific neurons, which is crucial, Feng says. When introducing a fluorescent protein for imaging, for example, “we don’t want the gene we deliver to be activated everywhere, otherwise the whole brain will be lighting up,” he says.

Selective targets

In Feng’s lab, research scientist Martin Wienisch is working to make it easier to control this aspect of delivery. Rather than relying on the genetic makeup of an entire animal to determine where a virally-transported gene is switched on, instructions can be programmed directly into the virus, borrowing regulatory sequences that cells already know how to interpret.

Wienisch is scouring the genomes of individual neurons to identify short segments of regulatory DNA called enhancers. He’s focused on those that selectively activate gene expression in just one of hundreds of different neuron types, particularly in animal models that are not very amenable to genetic engineering. “In the real brain, many elements interact to drive cell specific expression. But amazingly sometimes a single enhancer is all we need to get the same effect,” he says.

Researchers are already using enhancers to confine viral tools to select groups of cells, but Wienisch, who is collaborating with Fenna Krienen in Steve McCarroll’s lab at Harvard University, aims to create a comprehensive library. The enhancers they identify will be paired with a variety of genetically-encoded tools and packaged into adeno-associated viruses (AAV), the most widely used vectors in neuroscience. The Feng lab plans to use these tools to better understand the striatum, a part of the primate brain involved in motivation and behavioral choices. “Ideally, we would have a set of AAVs with enhancers that would give us selective access to all the different cell types in the striatum,” Wienisch says.

Enhancers will also be useful for delivering potential gene therapies to patients, Wienisch says. For many years, the Feng lab has been studying how a missing copy of a gene called Shank3 impairs neurons’ ability to communicate, leading to autism and intellectual disability. Now, they are investigating whether they can overcome these deficits by delivering a functional copy of Shank3 to the brain cells that need it. Widespread activation of the therapeutic gene might do more harm than good, but incorporating the right enhancer could ensure it is delivered to the appropriate cells at the right dose, Wienisch says.

Like most gene therapies in development, the therapeutic Shank3, which is currently being tested in animal models, is packaged into an AAV. AAVs safely and efficiently infect human cells, and by selecting the right type, therapies can be directed to specific cells. But AAVs are small viruses, capable of carrying only small genes. Xian Gao, a postdoctoral researcher in the Feng lab, has pared Shank3 down to its most essential components, creating a “minigene” that can be packaged inside the virus, but some things are difficult to fit inside an AAV. Therapies that aim to correct mutations using the CRISPR gene editing system, for example, often exceed the carrying capacity of an AAV.

Expanding options

“There’s been a lot of really phenomenal advances in our gene editing toolkit,” says Victoria Madigan, a postdoctoral researcher in McGovern Investigator Feng Zhang’s lab, where researchers are developing enzymes to more precisely modify DNA. “One of the main limitations of employing these enzymes clinically has been their delivery.”

To open up new options for gene therapy, Zhang and Madigan are working with a group of viruses called densoviruses. Densoviruses and AAVs belong to the same family, but about 50 percent more DNA can be packed inside the outer shell of some densoviruses.

A molecular model of Galleria mellonella densovirus. Image: Victoria Madigan / Zhang Lab

They are an esoteric group of viruses, Madigan says, infecting only insects and crustaceans and perhaps best known for certain members’ ability to devastate shrimp farms. While densoviruses haven’t received a lot of attention from scientists, their similarities to AAV have given the team clues about how to alter their outer capsids to enable them to enter human cells, and even direct them to particular cell types. The fact that they don’t naturally infect people also makes densoviruses promising candidates for clinical use, Madigan says, because patients’ immune systems are unlikely to be primed to reject them. AAV infections, in contrast, are so common that patients are often excluded from clinical trials for AAV-based therapies due to the presence of neutralizing antibodies against the vector.

Ultimately, densoviruses could enable major advances in gene therapy, making it possible to safely deliver sophisticated gene editing systems to patients’ cells, Madigan says — and that’s good reason for scientists to continue exploring the vast diversity in the viral world. “There’s something to be said for looking into viruses that are understudied as new tools,” she says. “There’s a lot of interesting stuff out there — a lot of diversity and thousands of years of evolution.”

New clues to brain changes in Huntington’s disease

by Jill Crittenden |

Huntington’s disease is a fatal inherited disorder that strikes most often in middle age with mood disturbances, uncontrollable limb movements, and cognitive decline. Years before symptom onset, brain imaging shows degeneration of the striatum, a brain region important for the rapid selection of behavioral actions. As the striatal neurons degenerate, their “identity” proteins, the building blocks that give particular cell types their unique function, are gradually turned off.

A new study from the lab of Institute Professor Ann Graybiel has found a surprising exception to this rule. The researchers discovered that in mouse models of Huntington’s disease, the cell identity protein MOR1, named as the Mu type Opioid Receptor, actually becomes more abundant as the striatal neurons degenerate.

“This is one of the most striking immunohistochemical change that I have ever seen in the literature of Huntington’s disease model animals,” says Ryoma Morigaki, a research scientist in the Graybiel laboratory and lead author of the report, who worked with Tomoko Yoshida and others in the Graybiel lab.

Immunohistochemical stainings using anti-mu-opioid receptor antibody. Wild type mouse striatum (left) and Q175 Huntington’s disease model mouse striatum (right) at 19 months old. Image: Ryoma Morigaki

More opioid receptors

MOR1 is a receptor on the surface of neurons that binds to opioids that are produced by the body or those taken for pain relief, such as morphine. The natural opioid in the brain is a small molecule called enkephalin, and it is normally produced by the same striatal neurons that degenerate in the earliest stages of Huntington’s disease.

The research team speculates that the striatum increases the quantity of MOR1 receptors in Huntington’s disease models to compensate for plummeting levels of enkephalin, but they also believe this upregulation may play a role in the perception of reward.

Previous work suggests that MOR1 has distinct signaling mechanisms related to its function in pain perception and its function in drug-seeking. These distinct mechanisms might be related to the fact that MOR1 is produced as multiple “isoforms,” slight variations of a protein that can be read out from the same gene. The MOR1 isoform that is found in the striatum is thought to be more important for drug-seeking behaviors than for pain perception. This in turn means that MOR1 might play a role in a key striatal function, which is to learn what actions are most likely to lead to reward.

“It is now recognized that mood disturbances can pre-date the overt motor abnormalities of Huntington’s patients by many years. These can even be the most disturbing symptoms for patients and their families. The finding that this receptor for opioids becomes so elevated in mood-related sites of the striatum, at least in a mouse model of the disorder, may give a hint to the underlying circuit dysfunction leading to these problems,” says Ann Graybiel.

Clues for treatment

MOR1 is used as a standard to identify subsets of neurons that are located within small clusters of neurons in the striatum that were previously discovered by Ann Graybiel and named striosomes.

“The most exciting point for me is the involvement of striatal compartments [striosomes] in the pathogenesis of Huntington’s disease,” says Morigaki, who has now moved to the University of Fukoshima in Japan and is a practicing neurosurgeon who treats movement disorders.

MOR1-positive striosomal neurons are of high interest in part because they have direct connections to the same dopamine-producing neurons that are thought to degenerate in Parkinson’s disease. Whereas Parkinson’s disease is characterized by a loss of dopamine and loss of movement, Huntington’s disease is characterized by ups and downs in dopamine and excessive movements. In fact, the only drugs that are FDA-approved to treat Huntington’s disease are drugs that minimize dopamine release, thereby working to dampen the abnormal movements. But these treatments come with potentially severe side-effects such as depression and suicide.

This latest discovery might provide mechanistic clues to dopamine fluctuations in Huntington’s disease and provide avenues for more specific treatments.

This research was funded by the CHDI Foundation (A-5552), Broderick Fund for Phytocannabinoid Research at MIT, NIH/NIMH R01 MH060379, the Saks Kavanaugh Foundation, JSPS KAKENHI Grants #16KK0182, 17K10899 and 20K17932 , Dr. Tenley Albright, Kathleen Huber, and Dr. Stephan and Mrs. Anne Kott.

A large-scale tool to investigate the function of autism spectrum disorder genes

by Harvard University |

Scientists at Harvard University, the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and MIT have developed a technology to investigate the function of many different genes in many different cell types at once, in a living organism. They applied the large-scale method to study dozens of genes that are associated with autism spectrum disorder, identifying how specific cell types in the developing mouse brain are impacted by mutations.

The “Perturb-Seq” method, published in the journal Science, is an efficient way to identify potential biological mechanisms underlying autism spectrum disorder, which is an important first step toward developing treatments for the complex disease. The method is also broadly applicable to other organs, enabling scientists to better understand a wide range of disease and normal processes.

“For many years, genetic studies have identified a multitude of risk genes that are associated with the development of autism spectrum disorder. The challenge in the field has been to make the connection between knowing what the genes are, to understanding how the genes actually affect cells and ultimately behavior,” said co-senior author Paola Arlotta, the Golub Family Professor of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology at Harvard. “We applied the Perturb-Seq technology to an intact developing organism for the first time, showing the potential of measuring gene function at scale to better understand a complex disorder.”

The study was also led by co-senior authors Aviv Regev, who was a core member of the Broad Institute during the study and is currently Executive Vice President of Genentech Research and Early Development, and Feng Zhang, a core member of the Broad Institute and an investigator at MIT’s McGovern Institute.

To investigate gene function at a large scale, the researchers combined two powerful genomic technologies. They used CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing to make precise changes, or perturbations, in 35 different genes linked to autism spectrum disorder risk. Then, they analyzed changes in the developing mouse brain using single-cell RNA sequencing, which allowed them to see how gene expression changed in over 40,000 individual cells.

By looking at the level of individual cells, the researchers could compare how the risk genes affected different cell types in the cortex — the part of the brain responsible for complex functions including cognition and sensation. They analyzed networks of risk genes together to find common effects.

“We found that both neurons and glia — the non-neuronal cells in the brain — are directly affected by different sets of these risk genes,” said Xin Jin, lead author of the study and a Junior Fellow of the Harvard Society of Fellows. “Genes and molecules don’t generate cognition per se — they need to impact specific cell types in the brain to do so. We are interested in understanding how these different cell types can contribute to the disorder.”

To get a sense of the model’s potential relevance to the disorder in humans, the researchers compared their results to data from post-mortem human brains. In general, they found that in the post-mortem human brains with autism spectrum disorder, some of the key genes with altered expression were also affected in the Perturb-seq data.

“We now have a really rich dataset that allows us to draw insights, and we’re still learning a lot about it every day,” Jin said. “As we move forward with studying disease mechanisms in more depth, we can focus on the cell types that may be really important.”

“The field has been limited by the sheer time and effort that it takes to make one model at a time to test the function of single genes. Now, we have shown the potential of studying gene function in a developing organism in a scalable way, which is an exciting first step to understanding the mechanisms that lead to autism spectrum disorder and other complex psychiatric conditions, and to eventually develop treatments for these devastating conditions,” said Arlotta, who is also an institute member of the Broad Institute and part of the Broad’s Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research. “Our work also paves the way for Perturb-Seq to be applied to organs beyond the brain, to enable scientists to better understand the development or function of different tissue types, as well as pathological conditions.”

“Through genome sequencing efforts, a very large number of genes have been identified that, when mutated, are associated with human diseases. Traditionally, understanding the role of these genes would involve in-depth studies of each gene individually. By developing Perturb-seq for in vivo applications, we can start to screen all of these genes in animal models in a much more efficient manner, enabling us to understand mechanistically how mutations in these genes can lead to disease,” said Zhang, who is also the James and Patricia Poitras Professor of Neuroscience at MIT and a professor of brain and cognitive sciences and biological engineering at MIT.

This study was funded by the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation’s NARSAD Young Investigator Grant, Harvard University’s William F. Milton Fund, the Klarman Cell Observatory, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, a Center for Cell Circuits grant from the National Human Genome Research Institute’s Centers of Excellence in Genomic Science, the New York Stem Cell Foundation, the Mathers Foundation, the Poitras Center for Psychiatric Disorders Research at MIT, the Hock E. Tan and K. Lisa Yang Center for Autism Research at MIT, and J. and P. Poitras.

Imaging method reveals a “symphony of cellular activities”

Anne Trafton |

Within a single cell, thousands of molecules, such as proteins, ions, and other signaling molecules, work together to perform all kinds of functions — absorbing nutrients, storing memories, and differentiating into specific tissues, among many others.

Deciphering these molecules, and all of their interactions, is a monumental task. Over the past 20 years, scientists have developed fluorescent reporters they can use to read out the dynamics of individual molecules within cells. However, typically only one or two such signals can be observed at a time, because a microscope cannot distinguish between many fluorescent colors.

MIT researchers have now developed a way to image up to five different molecule types at a time, by measuring each signal from random, distinct locations throughout a cell.

This approach could allow scientists to learn much more about the complex signaling networks that control most cell functions, says Edward Boyden, the Y. Eva Tan Professor in Neurotechnology and a professor of biological engineering, media arts and sciences, and brain and cognitive sciences at MIT.

“There are thousands of molecules encoded by the genome, and they’re interacting in ways that we don’t understand. Only by watching them at the same time can we understand their relationships,” says Boyden, who is also a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research and Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research.

In a new study, Boyden and his colleagues used this technique to identify two populations of neurons that respond to calcium signals in different ways, which may influence how they encode long-term memories, the researchers say.

Boyden is the senior author of the study, which appears today in Cell. The paper’s lead authors are MIT postdoc Changyang Linghu and graduate student Shannon Johnson.

Fluorescent clusters

Shannon Johnson is a graduate fellow in the fellow in the Yang-Tan Center for Molecular Therapeutics.

To make molecular activity visible within a cell, scientists typically create reporters by fusing a protein that senses a target molecule to a protein that glows. “This is similar to how a smoke detector will sense smoke and then flash a light,” says Johnson, who is also a fellow in the Yang-Tan Center for Molecular Therapeutics. The most commonly used glowing protein is green fluorescent protein (GFP), which is based on a molecule originally found in a fluorescent jellyfish.

“Typically a biologist can see one or two colors at the same time on a microscope, and many of the reporters out there are green, because they’re based on the green fluorescent protein,” Boyden says. “What has been lacking until now is the ability to see more than a couple of these signals at once.”

“Just like listening to the sound of a single instrument from an orchestra is far from enough to fully appreciate a symphony,” Linghu says, “by enabling observations of multiple cellular signals at the same time, our technology will help us understand the ‘symphony’ of cellular activities.”

To boost the number of signals they could see, the researchers set out to identify signals by location instead of by color. They modified existing reporters to cause them to accumulate in clusters at different locations within a cell. They did this by adding two small peptides to each reporter, which helped the reporters form distinct clusters within cells.

“It’s like having reporter X be tethered to a LEGO brick, and reporter Z tethered to a K’NEX piece — only LEGO bricks will snap to other LEGO bricks, causing only reporter X to be clustered with more of reporter X,” Johnson says.

Changyang Linghu is the J. Douglas Tan Postdoctoral Fellow in the Hock E. Tan and K. Lisa Yang Center for Autism Research.

With this technique, each cell ends up with hundreds of clusters of fluorescent reporters. After measuring the activity of each cluster under a microscope, based on the changing fluorescence, the researchers can identify which molecule was being measured in each cluster by preserving the cell and staining for peptide tags that are unique to each reporter.  The peptide tags are invisible in the live cell, but they can be stained and seen after the live imaging is done. This allows the researchers to distinguish signals for different molecules even though they may all be fluorescing the same color in the live cell.

Using this approach, the researchers showed that they could see five different molecular signals in a single cell. To demonstrate the potential usefulness of this strategy, they measured the activities of three molecules in parallel — calcium, cyclic AMP, and protein kinase A (PKA). These molecules form a signaling network that is involved with many different cellular functions throughout the body. In neurons, it plays an important role in translating a short-term input (from upstream neurons) into long-term changes such as strengthening the connections between neurons — a process that is necessary for learning and forming new memories.

Applying this imaging technique to pyramidal neurons in the hippocampus, the researchers identified two novel subpopulations with different calcium signaling dynamics. One population showed slow calcium responses. In the other population, neurons had faster calcium responses. The latter population had larger PKA responses. The researchers believe this heightened response may help sustain long-lasting changes in the neurons.

Imaging signaling networks

The researchers now plan to try this approach in living animals so they can study how signaling network activities relate to behavior, and also to expand it to other types of cells, such as immune cells. This technique could also be useful for comparing signaling network patterns between cells from healthy and diseased tissue.

In this paper, the researchers showed they could record five different molecular signals at once, and by modifying their existing strategy, they believe they could get up to 16. With additional work, that number could reach into the hundreds, they say.

“That really might help crack open some of these tough questions about how the parts of a cell work together,” Boyden says. “One might imagine an era when we can watch everything going on in a living cell, or at least the part involved with learning, or with disease, or with the treatment of a disease.”

The research was funded by the Friends of the McGovern Institute Fellowship; the J. Douglas Tan Fellowship; Lisa Yang; the Yang-Tan Center for Molecular Therapeutics; John Doerr; the Open Philanthropy Project; the HHMI-Simons Faculty Scholars Program; the Human Frontier Science Program; the U.S. Army Research Laboratory; the MIT Media Lab; the Picower Institute Innovation Fund; the National Institutes of Health, including an NIH Director’s Pioneer Award; and the National Science Foundation.

Study helps explain why motivation to learn declines with age

Anne Trafton |

As people age, they often lose their motivation to learn new things or engage in everyday activities. In a study of mice, MIT neuroscientists have now identified a brain circuit that is critical for maintaining this kind of motivation.

This circuit is particularly important for learning to make decisions that require evaluating the cost and reward that come with a particular action. The researchers showed that they could boost older mice’s motivation to engage in this type of learning by reactivating this circuit, and they could also decrease motivation by suppressing the circuit.

“As we age, it’s harder to have a get-up-and-go attitude toward things,” says Ann Graybiel, an Institute Professor at MIT and member of the McGovern Institute for Brain Research. “This get-up-and-go, or engagement, is important for our social well-being and for learning — it’s tough to learn if you aren’t attending and engaged.”

Graybiel is the senior author of the study, which appears today in Cell. The paper’s lead authors are Alexander Friedman, a former MIT research scientist who is now an assistant professor at the University of Texas at El Paso, and Emily Hueske, an MIT research scientist.

Evaluating cost and benefit

The striatum is part of the basal ganglia — a collection of brain centers linked to habit formation, control of voluntary movement, emotion, and addiction. For several decades, Graybiel’s lab has been studying clusters of cells called striosomes, which are distributed throughout the striatum. Graybiel discovered striosomes many years ago, but their function had remained mysterious, in part because they are so small and deep within the brain that it is difficult to image them with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

In recent years, Friedman, Graybiel, and colleagues including MIT research fellow Ken-ichi Amemori have discovered that striosomes play an important role in a type of decision-making known as approach-avoidance conflict. These decisions involve choosing whether to take the good with the bad — or to avoid both — when given options that have both positive and negative elements. An example of this kind of decision is having to choose whether to take a job that pays more but forces a move away from family and friends. Such decisions often provoke great anxiety.

In a related study, Graybiel’s lab found that striosomes connect to cells of the substantia nigra, one of the brain’s major dopamine-producing centers. These studies led the researchers to hypothesize that striosomes may be acting as a gatekeeper that absorbs sensory and emotional information coming from the cortex and integrates it to produce a decision on how to act. These actions can then be invigorated by the dopamine-producing cells.

The researchers later discovered that chronic stress has a major impact on this circuit and on this kind of emotional decision-making. In a 2017 study performed in rats and mice, they showed that stressed animals were far more likely to choose high-risk, high-payoff options, but that they could block this effect by manipulating the circuit.

In the new Cell study, the researchers set out to investigate what happens in striosomes as mice learn how to make these kinds of decisions. To do that, they measured and analyzed the activity of striosomes as mice learned to choose between positive and negative outcomes.

During the experiments, the mice heard two different tones, one of which was accompanied by a reward (sugar water), and another that was paired with a mildly aversive stimulus (bright light). The mice gradually learned that if they licked a spout more when they heard the first tone, they would get more of the sugar water, and if they licked less during the second, the light would not be as bright.

Learning to perform this kind of task requires assigning value to each cost and each reward. The researchers found that as the mice learned the task, striosomes showed higher activity than other parts of the striatum, and that this activity correlated with the mice’s behavioral responses to both of the tones. This suggests that striosomes could be critical for assigning subjective value to a particular outcome.

“In order to survive, in order to do whatever you are doing, you constantly need to be able to learn. You need to learn what is good for you, and what is bad for you,” Friedman says.

“A person, or this case a mouse, may value a reward so highly that the risk of experiencing a possible cost is overwhelmed, while another may wish to avoid the cost to the exclusion of all rewards. And these may result in reward-driven learning in some and cost-driven learning in others,” Hueske says.

The researchers found that inhibitory neurons that relay signals from the prefrontal cortex help striosomes to enhance their signal-to-noise ratio, which helps to generate the strong signals that are seen when the mice evaluate a high-cost or high-reward option.

Loss of motivation

Next, the researchers found that in older mice (between 13 and 21 months, roughly equivalent to people in their 60s and older), the mice’s engagement in learning this type of cost-benefit analysis went down. At the same time, their striosomal activity declined compared to that of younger mice. The researchers found a similar loss of motivation in a mouse model of Huntington’s disease, a neurodegenerative disorder that affects the striatum and its striosomes.

When the researchers used genetically targeted drugs to boost activity in the striosomes, they found that the mice became more engaged in performance of the task. Conversely, suppressing striosomal activity led to disengagement.

In addition to normal age-related decline, many mental health disorders can skew the ability to evaluate the costs and rewards of an action, from anxiety and depression to conditions such as PTSD. For example, a depressed person may undervalue potentially rewarding experiences, while someone suffering from addiction may overvalue drugs but undervalue things like their job or their family.

The researchers are now working on possible drug treatments that could stimulate this circuit, and they suggest that training patients to enhance activity in this circuit through biofeedback could offer another potential way to improve their cost-benefit evaluations.

“If you could pinpoint a mechanism which is underlying the subjective evaluation of reward and cost, and use a modern technique that could manipulate it, either psychiatrically or with biofeedback, patients may be able to activate their circuits correctly,” Friedman says.

The research was funded by the CHDI Foundation, the Saks Kavanaugh Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Nancy Lurie Marks Family Foundation, the Bachmann-Strauss Dystonia and Parkinson’s Foundation, the William N. and Bernice E. Bumpus Foundation, the Simons Center for the Social Brain, the Kristin R. Pressman and Jessica J. Pourian ’13 Fund, Michael Stiefel, and Robert Buxton.

RNA “ticker tape” records gene activity over time

by Sarah C.P. Williams |

As cells grow, divide, and respond to their environment,  their gene expression changes; one gene may be transcribed into more RNA at one time point and less at another time when it’s no longer needed. Now, researchers at the McGovern Institute, Harvard, and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard have developed a way to determine when specific RNA molecules are produced in cells.  The method, described today in Nature Biotechnology, allows scientists to more easily study how a cell’s gene expression fluctuates over time.

“Biology is very dynamic but most of the tools we use in biology are static; you get a fixed snapshot of what’s happening in a cell at a given moment,” said Fei Chen, a core institute member at the Broad, an assistant professor at Harvard University, and a co-senior author of the new work. “This will now allow us to record what’s happening over hours or days.”

To find out the level of RNA a cell is transcribing, researchers typically extract genetic material from the cell—destroying the cell in the process—and use RNA sequencing technology to determine which genes are being transcribed into RNA, and how much. Although researchers can sample cells at various times, they can’t easily measure gene expression at multiple time points.

To create a more precise timestamp, the team added strings of repetitive DNA bases to genes of interest in cultured human cells. These strings caused the cell to add repetitive regions of adenosine molecules—one of four building blocks of RNA — to the ends of RNA when the RNA was transcribed from these genes. The researchers also introduced an engineered version of an enzyme called adenosine deaminase acting on RNA (ADAR2cd), which slowly changed the adenosine molecules to a related molecule, inosine, at a predictable rate in the RNA. By measuring the ratio of inosines to adenosines in the timestamped section of any given RNA molecule, the researchers could elucidate when it was first produced, while keeping cells intact.

“It was pretty surprising to see how well this worked as a timestamp,” said Sam Rodriques, a co-first author of the new paper and former MIT graduate student who is now founding the Applied Biotechnology Laboratory at the Crick Institute in London. “And the more molecules you look at, the better your temporal resolution.”

Using their method, the researchers could estimate the age of a single timestamped RNA molecule to within 2.7 hours. But when they looked simultaneously at four RNA molecules, they could estimate the age of the molecules to within 1.5 hours. Looking at 200 molecules at once allowed the scientists to correctly sort RNA molecules into groups based on their age, or order them along a timeline with 86 percent accuracy.

“Extremely interesting biology, such as immune responses and development, occurs over a timescale of hours,” said co-first author of the paper Linlin Chen of the Broad. “Now we have the opportunity to better probe what’s happening on this timescale.”

The researchers found that the approach, with some small tweaks, worked well on various cell types — neurons, fibroblasts and embryonic kidney cells. They’re planning to now use the method to study how levels of gene activity related to learning and memory change in the hours after a neuron fires.

The current system allows researchers to record changes in gene expression over half a day. The team is now expanding the time range over which they can record gene activity, making the method more precise, and adding the ability to track several different genes at a time.

“Gene expression is constantly changing in response to the environment,” said co-senior author Edward Boyden of MIT, the McGovern Institute for Brain Research, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. “Tools like this will help us eavesdrop on how cells evolve over time, and help us pinpoint new targets for treating diseases.”

Support for the research was provided by the National Institutes of Health, the Schmidt Fellows Program at Broad Institute, the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, John Doerr, the Open Philanthropy Project, the HHMI-Simons Faculty Scholars Program, the U. S. Army Research Laboratory and the U. S. Army Research Office, the MIT Media Lab, Lisa Yang, the Hertz Graduate Fellowship and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program.

New neuron type discovered only in primate brains

by Stephanie M. McPherson |

Neuropsychiatric illnesses like schizophrenia and autism are a complex interplay of brain chemicals, environment, and genetics that requires careful study to understand the root causes. Scientists have traditionally relied on samples taken from mice and non-human primates to study how these diseases develop. But the question has lingered: are the brains of these subjects similar enough to humans to yield useful insights?

Now work from the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and the McGovern Institute for Brain Research is pointing towards an answer. In a study published in Nature, researchers from the Broad’s Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research report several key differences in the brains of ferrets, mice, nonhuman primates, and humans, all focused on a type of neuron called interneurons. Most surprisingly, the team found a new type of interneuron only in primates, located in a part of the brain called the striatum, which is associated with Huntington’s disease and potentially schizophrenia.

The findings could help accelerate research into causes of and treatments for neuropsychiatric illnesses, by helping scientists choose the lab model that best mimics features of the human brain that may be involved in these diseases.

“The data from this work will inform the study of human brain disorders because it helps us think about which features of the human brain can be studied in mice, which features require higher organisms such as marmosets, and why mouse models often don’t reflect the effects of the corresponding mutations in human,” said Steven McCarroll, senior author of the study, director of genetics at the Stanley Center, and a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School.

“Dysfunctions of interneurons have been strongly linked to several brain disorders including autism spectrum disorder and schizophrenia,” said Guoping Feng, co-author of the study, director of model systems and neurobiology at the Stanley Center, and professor of neuroscience at MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research. “These data further demonstrate the unique importance of non-human primate models in understanding neurobiological mechanisms of brain disorders and in developing and testing therapeutic approaches.”

Enter the interneuron

Interneurons form key nodes within neural circuitry in the brain, and help regulate neuronal activity by releasing the neurotransmitter GABA, which inhibits the firing of other neurons.

Fenna Krienen, a postdoctoral fellow in the McCarroll Lab and first author on the Nature paper, and her colleagues wanted to track the natural history of interneurons.

“We wanted to gain an understanding of the evolutionary trajectory of the cell types that make up the brain,” said Krienen. “And then we went about acquiring samples from species that could inform this understanding of evolutionary divergence between humans and the models that so often stand in for humans in neuroscience studies.”

One of the tools the researchers used was Drop-seq, a high-throughput single nucleus RNA sequencing technique developed by McCarroll’s lab, to classify the roles and locations of more than 184,000 telencephalic interneurons in the brains of ferrets, humans, macaques, marmosets, and mice. Using tissue from frozen samples, the team isolated the nuclei of interneurons from the cortex, the hippocampus, and the striatum, and profiled the RNA from the cells.

The researchers thought that because interneurons are found in all vertebrates, the cells would be relatively static from species to species.

“But with these sensitive measurements and a lot of data from the various species, we got a different picture about how lively interneurons are, in terms of the ways that evolution has tweaked their programs or their populations from one species to the next,” said Krienen.

She and her collaborators identified four main differences in interneurons between the species they studied: the cells change their proportions across brain regions, alter the programs they use to link up with other neurons, and can migrate to different regions of the brain.

But most strikingly, the scientists discovered that primates have a novel interneuron not found in other species. The interneuron is located in the striatum—the brain structure responsible for cognition, reward, and coordinated movements that has existed as far back on the evolutionary tree as ancient primitive fish. The researchers were amazed to find the new neuron type made up a third of all interneurons in the striatum.

“Although we expected the big innovations in human and primate brains to be in the cerebral cortex, which we tend to associate with human intelligence, it was in fact in the venerable striatum that Fenna uncovered the most dramatic cellular innovation in the primate brain,” said McCarroll. “This cell type had never been discovered before, because mice have nothing like it.”

“The question of what provides the “human advantage” in cognitive abilities is one of the fundamental issues neurobiologists have endeavored to answer,” said Gordon Fishell, group leader at the Stanley Center, a professor of neurobiology at Harvard Medical School, and a collaborator on the study. “These findings turn on end the question of ‘how do we build better brains?’. It seems at least part of the answer stems from creating a new list of parts.”

A better understanding of how these inhibitory neurons vary between humans and lab models will provide researchers with new tools for investigating various brain disorders. Next, the researchers will build on this work to determine the specific functions of each type of interneuron.

“In studying neurodevelopmental disorders, you would like to be convinced that your model is an appropriate one for really complex social behaviors,” Krienen said. “And the major overarching theme of the study was that primates in general seem to be very similar to one another in all of those interneuron innovations.”

Support for this work was provided in part by the Broad Institute’s Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research and the NIH Brain Initiative, the Dean’s Innovation Award (Harvard Medical School), the Hock E. Tan and K. Lisa Yang Center for Autism Research at MIT, the Poitras Center for Psychiatric Disorders Research at MIT, the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT, and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Tool developed in Graybiel lab reveals new clues about Parkinson’s disease

by Jennifer Michalowski |

As the brain processes information, electrical charges zip through its circuits and neurotransmitters pass molecular messages from cell to cell. Both forms of communication are vital, but because they are usually studied separately, little is known about how they work together to control our actions, regulate mood, and perform the other functions of a healthy brain.

Neuroscientists in Ann Graybiel’s laboratory at MIT’s McGovern Institute are taking a closer look at the relationship between these electrical and chemical signals. “Considering electrical signals side by side with chemical signals is really important to understand how the brain works,” says Helen Schwerdt, a postdoctoral researcher in Graybiel’s lab. Understanding that relationship is also crucial for developing better ways to diagnose and treat nervous system disorders and mental illness, she says, noting that the drugs used to treat these conditions typically aim to modulate the brain’s chemical signaling, yet studies of brain activity are more likely to focus on electrical signals, which are easier to measure.

Schwerdt and colleagues in Graybiel’s lab have developed new tools so that chemical and electrical signals can, for the first time, be measured simultaneously in the brains of primates. In a study published September 25, 2020, in Science Advances, they used those tools to reveal an unexpectedly complex relationship between two types of signals that are disrupted in patients with Parkinson’s disease—dopamine signaling and coordinated waves of electrical activity known as beta-band oscillations.

Complicated relationship

Graybiel’s team focused its attention on beta-band activity and dopamine signaling because studies of patients with Parkinson’s disease had suggested a straightforward inverse relationship between the two. The tremors, slowness of movement, and other symptoms associated with the disease develop and progress as the brain’s production of the neurotransmitter dopamine declines, and at the same time, beta-band oscillations surge to abnormal levels. Beta-band oscillations are normally observed in parts of the brain that control movement when a person is paying attention or planning to move. It’s not clear what they do or why they are disrupted in patients with Parkinson’s disease. But because patients’ symptoms tend to be worst when beta activity is high—and because beta activity can be measured in real time with sensors placed on the scalp or with a deep-brain stimulation device that has been implanted for treatment, researchers have been hopeful that it might be useful for monitoring the disease’s progression and patients’ response to treatment. In fact, clinical trials are already underway to explore the effectiveness of modulating deep-brain stimulation treatment based on beta activity.

When Schwerdt and colleagues examined these two types of signals in the brains of rhesus macaques, they discovered that the relationship between beta activity and dopamine is more complicated than previously thought.

Their new tools allowed them to simultaneously monitor both signals with extraordinary precision, targeting specific parts of the striatum—a region deep within the brain involved in controlling movement, where dopamine is particularly abundant—and taking measurements on the millisecond time scale to capture neurons’ rapid-fire communications.

They took these measurements as the monkeys performed a simple task, directing their gaze in a particular direction in anticipation of a reward. This allowed the researchers to track chemical and electrical signaling during the active, motivated movement of the animals’ eyes. They found that beta activity did increase as dopamine signaling declined—but only in certain parts of the striatum and during certain tasks. The reward value of a task, an animal’s past experiences, and the particular movement the animal performed all impacted the relationship between the two types of signals.

Multi-modal systems allow subsecond recording of chemical and electrical neural signals in the form of dopamine molecular concentrations and beta-band local field potentials (beta LFPs), respectively. Online measurements of dopamine and beta LFP (time-dependent traces displayed in box on right) were made in the primate striatum (caudate nucleus and putamen colored in green and purple, respectively, in the left brain image) as the animal was performing a task in which eye movements were made to cues displayed on the left (purple event marker line) and right (green event) of a screen in order to receive large or small amounts of food reward (red and blue events). Dopamine and beta LFP neural signals are centrally implicated in Parkinson’s disease and other brain disorders. Image: Helen Schwerdt

“What we expected is there in the overall view, but if we just look at a different level of resolution, all of a sudden the rules don’t hold,” says Graybiel, who is also an MIT Institute Professor. “It doesn’t destroy the likelihood that one would want to have a treatment related to this presumed opposite relationship, but it does say there’s something more here that we haven’t known about.”

The researchers say it’s important to investigate this more nuanced relationship between dopamine signaling and beta activity, and that understanding it more deeply might lead to better treatments for patients with Parkinson’s disease and related disorders. While they plan to continue to examine how the two types of signals relate to one another across different parts of the brain and under different behavioral conditions, they hope that other teams will also take advantage of the tools they have developed. “As these methods in neuroscience become more and more precise and dazzling in their power, we’re bound to discover new things,” says Graybiel.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the Army Research Office, the Saks Kavanaugh Foundation, the National Science Foundation, Kristin R. Pressman and Jessica J. Pourian ’13 Fund, and Robert Buxton.

New molecular therapeutics center established at MIT’s McGovern Institute

by Julie Pryor |

More than one million Americans are diagnosed with a chronic brain disorder each year, yet effective treatments for most complex brain disorders are inadequate or even nonexistent.

A major new research effort at MIT’s McGovern Institute aims to change how we treat brain disorders by developing innovative molecular tools that precisely target dysfunctional genetic, molecular, and circuit pathways.

The K. Lisa Yang and Hock E. Tan Center for Molecular Therapeutics in Neuroscience was established at MIT through a $28 million gift from philanthropist Lisa Yang and MIT alumnus Hock Tan ’75. Yang is a former investment banker who has devoted much of her time to advocacy for individuals with disabilities and autism spectrum disorders. Tan is President and CEO of Broadcom, a global technology infrastructure company. This latest gift brings Yang and Tan’s total philanthropy to MIT to more than $72 million.

Lisa Yang (center) and MIT alumnus Hock Tan ’75 with their daughter Eva (far left) pictured at the opening of the Hock E. Tan and K. Lisa Yang Center for Autism Research in 2017. Photo: Justin Knight

“In the best MIT spirit, Lisa and Hock have always focused their generosity on insights that lead to real impact,” says MIT President L. Rafael Reif. “Scientifically, we stand at a moment when the tools and insights to make progress against major brain disorders are finally within reach. By accelerating the development of promising treatments, the new center opens the door to a hopeful new future for all those who suffer from these disorders and those who love them. I am deeply grateful to Lisa and Hock for making MIT the home of this pivotal research.”

Engineering with precision

Research at the K. Lisa Yang and Hock E. Tan Center for Molecular Therapeutics in Neuroscience will initially focus on three major lines of investigation: genetic engineering using CRISPR tools, delivery of genetic and molecular cargo across the blood-brain barrier, and the translation of basic research into the clinical setting. The center will serve as a hub for researchers with backgrounds ranging from biological engineering and genetics to computer science and medicine.

“Developing the next generation of molecular therapeutics demands collaboration among researchers with diverse backgrounds,” says Robert Desimone, McGovern Institute Director and Doris and Don Berkey Professor of Neuroscience at MIT. “I am confident that the multidisciplinary expertise convened by this center will revolutionize how we improve our health and fight disease in the coming decade. Although our initial focus will be on the brain and its relationship to the body, many of the new therapies could have other health applications.”

There are an estimated 19,000 to 22,000 genes in the human genome and a third of those genes are active in the brain–the highest proportion of genes expressed in any part of the body.

Variations in genetic code have been linked to many complex brain disorders, including depression and Parkinson’s. Emerging genetic technologies, such as the CRISPR gene editing platform pioneered by McGovern Investigator Feng Zhang, hold great potential in both targeting and fixing these errant genes. But the safe and effective delivery of this genetic cargo to the brain remains a challenge.

Researchers within the new Yang-Tan Center will improve and fine-tune CRISPR gene therapies and develop innovative ways of delivering gene therapy cargo into the brain and other organs. In addition, the center will leverage newly developed single cell analysis technologies that are revealing cellular targets for modulating brain functions with unprecedented precision, opening the door for noninvasive neuromodulation as well as the development of medicines. The center will also focus on developing novel engineering approaches to delivering small molecules and proteins from the bloodstream into the brain. Desimone will direct the center and some of the initial research initiatives will be led by Associate Professor of Materials Science and Engineering Polina Anikeeva; Ed Boyden, the Y. Eva Tan Professor in Neurotechnology at MIT; Guoping Feng, the James W. (1963) and Patricia T. Poitras Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT; and Feng Zhang, James and Patricia Poitras Professor of Neuroscience at MIT.

Building a research hub

“My goal in creating this center is to cement the Cambridge and Boston region as the global epicenter of next-generation therapeutics research. The novel ideas I have seen undertaken at MIT’s McGovern Institute and Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard leave no doubt in my mind that major therapeutic breakthroughs for mental illness, neurodegenerative disease, autism and epilepsy are just around the corner,” says Yang.

Center funding will also be earmarked to create the Y. Eva Tan Fellows program, named for Tan and Yang’s daughter Eva, which will support fellowships for young neuroscientists and engineers eager to design revolutionary treatments for human diseases.

“We want to build a strong pipeline for tomorrow’s scientists and neuroengineers,” explains Hock Tan. “We depend on the next generation of bright young minds to help improve the lives of people suffering from chronic illnesses, and I can think of no better place to provide the very best education and training than MIT.”

The molecular therapeutics center is the second research center established by Yang and Tan at MIT. In 2017, they launched the Hock E. Tan and K. Lisa Yang Center for Autism Research, and, two years later, they created a sister center at Harvard Medical School, with the unique strengths of each institution converging toward a shared goal: understanding the basic biology of autism and how genetic and environmental influences converge to give rise to the condition, then translating those insights into novel treatment approaches.

All tools developed at the molecular therapeutics center will be shared globally with academic and clinical researchers with the goal of bringing one or more novel molecular tools to human clinical trials by 2025.

“We are hopeful that our centers, located in the heart of the Cambridge-Boston biotech ecosystem, will spur further innovation and fuel critical new insights to our understanding of health and disease,” says Yang.

 

How general anesthesia reduces pain

by Sabbi Lall |

General anesthesia is medication that suppresses pain and renders patients unconscious during surgery, but whether pain suppression is simply a side effect of loss of consciousness has been unclear. Fan Wang and colleagues have now identified the circuits linked to pain suppression under anesthesia in mouse models, showing that this effect is separable from the unconscious state itself.

“Existing literature suggests that the brain may contain a switch that can turn off pain perception,” explains Fan Wang, a professor at Duke University and lead author of the study. “I had always wanted to find this switch, and it occurred to me that general anesthetics may activate this switch to produce analgesia.”

Wang, who will join the McGovern Institute in January 2021, set out to test this idea with her student, Thuy Hua, and postdoc, Bin Chen.

Pain suppressor

Loss of pain, or analgesia, is an important property of anesthetics that helps to make surgical and invasive medical procedures humane and bearable. In spite of their long use in the medical world, there is still very little understanding of how anesthetics work. It has generally been assumed that a side effect of loss of consciousness is analgesia, but several recent observations have brought this idea into question, and suggest that changes in consciousness might be separable from pain suppression.

A key clue that analgesia is separable from general anesthesia comes from the accounts of patients that regain consciousness during surgery. After surgery, these patients can recount conversations between staff or events that occurred in the operating room, despite not feeling any pain. In addition, some general anesthetics, such as ketamine, can be deployed at low concentrations for pain suppression without loss of consciousness.

Following up on these leads, Wang and colleagues set out to uncover which neural circuits might be involved in suppressing pain during exposure to general anesthetics. Using CANE, a procedure developed by Wang that can detect which neurons activate in response to an event, Wang discovered a new population of GABAergic neurons activated by general anesthetic in the mouse central amygdala.

These neurons become activated in response to different anesthetics, including ketamine, dexmedetomidine, and isoflurane. Using optogenetics to manipulate the activity state of these neurons, Wang and her lab found that they led to marked changes in behavioral responses to painful stimuli.

“The first time we used optogenetics to turn on these cells, a mouse that was in the middle of taking care of an injury simply stopped and started walked around with no sign of pain,” Wang explains.

Specifically, activating these cells blocks pain in multiple models and tests, whereas inhibiting these neurons rendered mice aversive to gentle touch — suggesting that they are involved in a newly uncovered central pain circuit.

The study has implications for both anesthesia and pain. It shows that general anesthetics have complex, multi-faceted effects and that the brain may contain a central pain suppression system.

“We want to figure out how diverse general anesthetics activate these neurons,” explains Wang. “That way we can find compounds that can specifically activate these pain-suppressing neurons without sedation. We’re now also testing whether placebo analgesia works by activating these same central neurons.”

The study also has implications for addiction as it may point to an alternative system for central pain suppression that could be a target of drugs that do not have the devastating side effects of opioids.