Researcher: Ann Graybiel

Women in STEM — A celebration of excellence and curiosity

Anne Trafton |

What better way to commemorate Women’s History Month and International Women’s Day than to give  three of the world’s most accomplished scientists an opportunity to talk about their careers? On March 7, MindHandHeart invited professors Paula Hammond, Ann Graybiel, and Sangeeta Bhatia to share their career journeys, from the progress they have witnessed to the challenges they have faced as women in STEM. Their conversation was moderated by Mary Fuller, chair of the faculty and professor of literature.

Hammond, an Institute professor with appointments in the Department of Chemical Engineering and the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, reflected on the strides made by women faculty at MIT, while acknowledging ongoing challenges. “I think that we have advanced a great deal in the last few decades in terms of the numbers of women who are present, although we still have a long way to go,” Hammond noted in her opening. “We’ve seen a remarkable increase over the past couple of decades in our undergraduate population here at MIT, and now we’re beginning to see it in the graduate population, which is really exciting.” Hammond was recently appointed to the role of vice provost for faculty.

Ann Graybiel, also an Institute professor, who has appointments in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and the McGovern Institute for Brain Research, described growing up in the Deep South. “Girls can’t do science,” she remembers being told in school, and they “can’t do research.” Yet her father, a physician scientist, often took her with him to work and had her assist from a young age, eventually encouraging her directly to pursue a career in science. Graybiel, who first came to MIT in 1973, noted that she continued to face barriers and rejection throughout her career long after leaving the South, but that individual gestures of inspiration, generosity, or simple statements of “You can do it” from her peers helped her power through and continue in her scientific pursuits.

Sangeeta Bhatia, the John and Dorothy Wilson Professor of Health Sciences and Technology and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, director of the Marble Center for Cancer Nanomedicine at the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, and a member of the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, is also the mother of two teenage girls. She shared her perspective on balancing career and family life: “I wanted to pick up my kids from school and I wanted to know their friends. … I had a vision for the life that I wanted.” Setting boundaries at work, she noted, empowered her to achieve both personal and professional goals. Bhatia also described her collaboration with President Emerita Susan Hockfield and MIT Amgen Professor of Biology Emerita Nancy Hopkins to spearhead the Future Founders Initiative, which aims to boost the representation of female faculty members pursuing biotechnology ventures.

A video of the full panel discussion is available on the MindHandHeart YouTube channel.

Scientists discover how mutations in a language gene produce speech deficits

Anne Trafton |

Mutations of a gene called Foxp2 have been linked to a type of speech disorder called apraxia that makes it difficult to produce sequences of sound. A new study from MIT and National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University sheds light on how this gene controls the ability to produce speech.

In a study of mice, the researchers found that mutations in Foxp2 disrupt the formation of dendrites and neuronal synapses in the brain’s striatum, which plays important roles in the control of movement. Mice with these mutations also showed impairments in their ability to produce the high-frequency sounds that they use to communicate with other mice.

Those malfunctions arise because Foxp2 mutations prevent the proper assembly of motor proteins, which move molecules within cells, the researchers found.

“These mice have abnormal vocalizations, and in the striatum there are many cellular abnormalities,” says Ann Graybiel, an MIT Institute Professor, a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research, and an author of the paper. “This was an exciting finding. Who would have thought that a speech problem might come from little motors inside cells?”

Fu-Chin Liu PhD ’91, a professor at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University in Taiwan, is the senior author of the study, which appears today in the journal Brain. Liu and Graybiel also worked together on a 2016 study of the potential link between Foxp2 and autism spectrum disorder. The lead authors of the new Brain paper are Hsiao-Ying Kuo and Shih-Yun Chen of National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University.

Speech control

Children with Foxp2-associated apraxia tend to begin speaking later than other children, and their speech is often difficult to understand. The disorder is believed to arise from impairments in brain regions, such as the striatum, that control the movements of the lips, mouth, and tongue. Foxp2 is also expressed in the brains of songbirds such as zebra finches and is critical to those birds’ ability to learn songs.

Foxp2 encodes a transcription factor, meaning that it can control the expression of many other target genes. Many species express Foxp2, but humans have a special form of Foxp2. In a 2014 study, Graybiel and colleagues found evidence that the human form of Foxp2, when expressed in mice, allowed the mice to accelerate the switch from declarative to procedural types of learning.

In that study, the researchers showed that mice engineered to express the human version of Foxp2, which differs from the mouse version by only two DNA base pairs, were much better at learning mazes and performing other tasks that require turning repeated actions into behavioral routines. Mice with human-like Foxp2 also had longer dendrites — the slender extensions that help neurons form synapses — in the striatum, which is involved in habit formation as well as motor control.

In the new study, the researchers wanted to explore how the Foxp2 mutation that has been linked with apraxia affects speech production, using ultrasonic vocalizations in mice as a proxy for speech. Many rodents and other animals such as bats produce these vocalizations to communicate with each other.

While previous studies, including the work by Liu and Graybiel in 2016, had suggested that Foxp2 affects dendrite growth and synapse formation, the mechanism for how that occurs was not known. In the new study, led by Liu, the researchers investigated one proposed mechanism, which is that Foxp2 affects motor proteins.

One of these molecular motors is the dynein protein complex, a large cluster of proteins that is responsible for shuttling molecules along microtubule scaffolds within cells.

“All kinds of molecules get shunted around to different places in our cells, and that’s certainly true of neurons,” Graybiel says. “There’s an army of tiny molecules that move molecules around in the cytoplasm or put them into the membrane. In a neuron, they may send molecules from the cell body all the way down the axons.”

A delicate balance

The dynein complex is made up of several other proteins. The most important of these is a protein called dynactin1, which interacts with microtubules, enabling the dynein motor to move along microtubules. In the new study, the researchers found that dynactin1 is one of the major targets of the Foxp2 transcription factor.

The researchers focused on the striatum, one of the regions where Foxp2 is most often found, and showed that the mutated version of Foxp2 is unable to suppress dynactin1 production. Without that brake in place, cells generate too much dynactin1. This upsets the delicate balance of dynein-dynactin1, which prevents the dynein motor from moving along microtubules.

Those motors are needed to shuttle molecules that are necessary for dendrite growth and synapse formation on dendrites. With those molecules stranded in the cell body, neurons are unable to form synapses to generate the proper electrophysiological signals they need to make speech production possible.

Mice with the mutated version of Foxp2 had abnormal ultrasonic vocalizations, which typically have a frequency of around 22 to 50 kilohertz. The researchers showed that they could reverse these vocalization impairments and the deficits in the molecular motor activity, dendritic growth, and electrophysiological activity by turning down the gene that encodes dynactin1.

Mutations of Foxp2 can also contribute to autism spectrum disorders and Huntington’s disease, through mechanisms that Liu and Graybiel previously studied in their 2016 paper and that many other research groups are now exploring. Liu’s lab is also investigating the potential role of abnormal Foxp2 expression in the subthalamic nucleus of the brain as a possible factor in Parkinson’s disease.

The research was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Ministry of Education of Taiwan, the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health, the Saks Kavanaugh Foundation, the Kristin R. Pressman and Jessica J. Pourian ’13 Fund, and Stephen and Anne Kott.

How Huntington’s disease affects different neurons

Anne Trafton |

In patients with Huntington’s disease, neurons in a part of the brain called the striatum are among the hardest-hit. Degeneration of these neurons contributes to patients’ loss of motor control, which is one of the major hallmarks of the disease.

Neuroscientists at MIT have now shown that two distinct cell populations in the striatum are affected differently by Huntington’s disease. They believe that neurodegeneration of one of these populations leads to motor impairments, while damage to the other population, located in structures called striosomes, may account for the mood disorders that are often see in the early stages of the disease.

“As many as 10 years ahead of the motor diagnosis, Huntington’s patients can experience mood disorders, and one possibility is that the striosomes might be involved in these,” says Ann Graybiel, an MIT Institute Professor, a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research, and one of the senior authors of the study.

Using single-cell RNA sequencing to analyze the genes expressed in mouse models of Huntington’s disease and postmortem brain samples from Huntington’s patients, the researchers found that cells of the striosomes and another structure, the matrix, begin to lose their distinguishing features as the disease progresses. The researchers hope that their mapping of the striatum and how it is affected by Huntington’s could help lead to new treatments that target specific cells within the brain.

This kind of analysis could also shed light on other brain disorders that affect the striatum, such as Parkinson’s disease and autism spectrum disorder, the researchers say.

Myriam Heiman, an associate professor in MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and a member of the Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, and Manolis Kellis, a professor of computer science in MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) and a member of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, are also senior authors of the study. Ayano Matsushima, a McGovern Institute research scientist, and Sergio Sebastian Pineda, an MIT graduate student, are the lead authors of the paper, which appears in Nature Communications.

Neuron vulnerability

Huntington’s disease leads to degeneration of brain structures called the basal ganglia, which are responsible for control of movement and also play roles in other behaviors, as well as emotions. For many years, Graybiel has been studying the striatum, a part of the basal ganglia that is involved in making decisions that require evaluating the outcomes of a particular action.

Many years ago, Graybiel discovered that the striatum is divided into striosomes, which are clusters of neurons, and the matrix, which surrounds the striosomes. She has also shown that striosomes are necessary for making decisions that require an anxiety-provoking cost-benefit analysis.

In a 2007 study, Richard Faull of the University of Auckland discovered that in postmortem brain tissue from Huntington’s patients, the striosomes showed a great deal of degeneration. Faull also found that while those patients were alive, many of them had shown signs of mood disorders such as depression before their motor symptoms developed.

To further explore the connections between the striatum and the mood and motor effects of Huntington’s, Graybiel teamed up with Kellis and Heiman to study the gene expression patterns of striosomal and matrix cells. To do that, the researchers used single-cell RNA sequencing to analyze human brain samples and brain tissue from two mouse models of Huntington’s disease.

Within the striatum, neurons can be classified as either D1 or D2 neurons. D1 neurons are involved in the “go” pathway, which initiates an action, and D2 neurons are part of the “no-go” pathway, which suppresses an action. D1 and D2 neurons can both be found within either the striosomes and the matrix.

The analysis of RNA expression in each of these types of cells revealed that striosomal neurons are harder hit by Huntington’s than matrix neurons. Furthermore, within the striosomes, D2 neurons are more vulnerable than D1.

The researchers also found that these four major cell types begin to lose their identifying molecular identities and become more difficult to distinguish from one another in Huntington’s disease. “Overall, the distinction between striosomes and matrix becomes really blurry,” Graybiel says.

Striosomal disorders

The findings suggest that damage to the striosomes, which are known to be involved in regulating mood, may be responsible for the mood disorders that strike Huntington’s patients in the early stages of the disease. Later on, degeneration of the matrix neurons likely contributes to the decline of motor function, the researchers say.

In future work, the researchers hope to explore how degeneration or abnormal gene expression in the striosomes may contribute to other brain disorders.

Previous research has shown that overactivity of striosomes can lead to the development of repetitive behaviors such as those seen in autism, obsessive compulsive disorder, and Tourette’s syndrome. In this study, at least one of the genes that the researchers discovered was overexpressed in the striosomes of Huntington’s brains is also linked to autism.

Additionally, many striosome neurons project to the part of the brain that is most affected by Parkinson’s disease (the substantia nigra, which produces most of the brain’s dopamine).

“There are many, many disorders that probably involve the striatum, and now, partly through transcriptomics, we’re working to understand how all of this could fit together,” Graybiel says.

The research was funded by the Saks Kavanaugh Foundation, the CHDI Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Nancy Lurie Marks Family Foundation, the Simons Foundation, the JPB Foundation, the Kristin R. Pressman and Jessica J. Pourian ’13 Fund, and Robert Buxton.

Making and breaking habits

by Shafaq Zia |

As part of our Ask the Brain series, science writer Shafaq Zia explores the question, “How are habits formed in the brain?”

____

Have you ever wondered why it is so hard to break free of bad habits like nail biting or obsessive social networking?

When we repeat an action over and over again, the behavioral pattern becomes automated in our brain, according to Jill R. Crittenden, molecular biologist and scientific advisor at McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT. For over a decade, Crittenden worked as a research scientist in the lab of Ann Graybiel, where one of the key questions scientists are working to answer is, how are habits formed?

Making habits

To understand how certain actions get wired in our neural pathways, this team of McGovern researchers experimented with rats, who were trained to run down a maze to receive a reward. If they turned left, they would get rich chocolate milk and for turning right, only sugar water. With this, the scientists wanted to see whether these animals could “learn to associate a cue with which direction they should turn in the maze in order to get the chocolate milk reward.”

Over time, the rats grew extremely habitual in their behavior; “they always turned the the correct direction and the places where their paws touched, in a fairly long maze, were exactly the same every time,” said Crittenden.

This isn’t a coincidence. When we’re first learning to do something, the frontal lobe and basal ganglia of the brain are highly active and doing a lot of calculations. These brain regions work together to associate behaviors with thoughts, emotions, and, most importantly, motor movements. But when we repeat an action over and over again, like the rats running down the maze, our brains become more efficient and fewer neurons are required to achieve the goal. This means, the more you do something, the easier it gets to carry it out because the behavior becomes literally etched in our brain as our motor movements.

But habits are complicated and they come in many different flavors, according to Crittenden. “I think we don’t have a great handle on how the differences [in our many habits] are separable neurobiologically, and so people argue a lot about how do you know that something’s a habit.”

The easiest way for scientists to test this in rodents is to see if the animal engages in the behavior even in the absence of reward. In this particular experiment, the researchers take away the reward, chocolate milk, to see whether the rats continue to run down the maze correctly. And to take it even a step further, they mix the chocolate milk with lithium chloride, which would upset the rat’s stomach. Despite all this, the rats continue to run down the maze and turn left towards the chocolate milk, as they had learnt to do over and over again.

Breaking habits

So does that mean once a habit is formed, it is impossible to shake it? Not quite. But it is tough. Rewards are a key building block to forming habits because our dopamine levels surge when we learn that an action is unexpectedly rewarded. For example, when the rats first learn to run down the maze, they’re motivated to receive the chocolate milk.

But things get complicated once the habit is formed. Researchers have found that this dopamine surge in response to reward ceases after a behavior becomes a habit. Instead the brain begins to release dopamine at the first cue or action that was previously learned to lead to the reward, so we are motivated to engage in the full behavioral sequence anyway, even if the reward isn’t there anymore.

This means we don’t have as much self-control as we think we do, which may also be the reason why it’s so hard to break the cycle of addiction. “People will report that they know this is bad for them. They don’t want it. And nevertheless, they select that action,” said Crittenden.

One common method to break the behavior, in this case, is called extinction. This is where psychologists try to weaken the association between the cue and the reward that led to habit formation in the first place. For example, if the rat no longer associates the cue to run down the maze with a reward, it will stop engaging in that behavior.

So the next time you beat yourself up over being unable to stick to a diet or sleep at a certain time, give yourself some grace and know that with consistency, a new, healthier habit can be born.

Aging Brain Initiative awards fund five new ideas to study, fight neurodegeneration

Anne Trafton |

Neurodegenerative diseases are defined by an increasingly widespread and debilitating death of nervous system cells, but they also share other grim characteristics: Their cause is rarely discernible and they have all eluded cures. To spur fresh, promising approaches and to encourage new experts and expertise to join the field, MIT’s Aging Brain Initiative (ABI) this month awarded five seed grants after a competition among labs across the Institute.

Founded in 2015 by nine MIT faculty members, the ABI promotes research, symposia, and related activities to advance fundamental insights that can lead to clinical progress against neurodegenerative conditions, such as Alzheimer’s disease, with an age-related onset. With an emphasis on spurring research at an early stage before it is established enough to earn more traditional funding, the ABI derives support from philanthropic gifts.

“Solving the mysteries of how health declines in the aging brain and turning that knowledge into effective tools, treatments, and technologies is of the utmost urgency given the millions of people around the world who suffer with no meaningful treatment options,” says ABI director and co-founder Li-Huei Tsai, the Picower Professor of Neuroscience in The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory and the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences. “We were very pleased that many groups across MIT were eager to contribute their expertise and creativity to that goal. From here, five teams will be able to begin testing their innovative ideas and the impact they could have.”

To address the clinical challenge of accurately assessing cognitive decline during Alzheimer’s disease progression and healthy aging, a team led by Thomas Heldt, associate professor of electrical and biomedical engineering in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, proposes to use artificial intelligence tools to bring diagnostics based on eye movements during cognitive tasks to everyday consumer electronics such as smartphones and tablets. By moving these capabilities to common at-home platforms, the team, which also includes EECS Associate Professor Vivian Sze, hopes to increase monitoring beyond what can only be intermittently achieved with high-end specialized equipment and dedicated staffing in specialists’ offices. The team will pilot their technology in a small study at Boston Medical Center in collaboration with neurosurgeon James Holsapple.

Institute Professor Ann Graybiel’s lab in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences (BCS) and the McGovern Institute for Brain Research will test the hypothesis that mutations on a specific gene may lead to the early emergence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology in the striatum. That’s a a brain region crucial for motivation and movement that is directly and severely impacted by other neurodegenerative disorders including Parkinson’s and Huntington’s diseases, but that has largely been unstudied in Alzheimer’s. By editing the mutations into normal and AD-modeling mice, Research Scientist Ayano Matsushima and Graybiel hope to determine whether and how pathology, such as the accumulation of amyloid proteins, may result. Determining that could provide new insight into the progression of disease and introduce a new biomarker in a region that virtually all other studies have overlooked.

Numerous recent studies have highlighted a potential role for immune inflammation in Alzheimer’s disease. A team led by Gloria Choi, the Mark Hyman Jr. Associate Professor in BCS and The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, will track one potential source of such activity by determining whether the brain’s meninges, which envelop the brain, becomes a means for immune cells activated by gut bacteria to circulate near the brain, where they may release signaling molecules that promote Alzheimer’s pathology. Working in mice, Choi’s lab will test whether such activity is prone to increase in Alzheimer’s and whether it contributes to disease.

A collaboration led by Peter Dedon, the Singapore Professor in MIT’s Department of Biological Engineering, will explore whether Alzheimer’s pathology is driven by dysregulation of transfer RNAs (tRNAs) and the dozens of natural tRNA modifications in the epitranscriptome, which play a key role in the process by which proteins are assembled based on genetic instructions. With Benjamin Wolozin of Boston University, Sherif Rashad of Tohoku University in Japan, and Thomas Begley of the State University of New York at Albany, Dedon will assess how the tRNA pool and epitranscriptome may differ in Alzheimer’s model mice and whether genetic instructions mistranslated because of tRNA dysregulation play a role in Alzheimer’s disease.

With her seed grant, Ritu Raman, the d’Arbeloff Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering, is launching an investigation of possible disruption of intercellular messages in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a terminal condition in which motor neuron causes loss of muscle control. Equipped with a new tool to finely sample interstitial fluid within tissues, Raman’s team will be able to monitor and compare cell-cell signaling in models of the junction between nerve and muscle. These models will be engineered from stem cells derived from patients with ALS. By studying biochemical signaling at the junction the lab hopes to discover new targets that could be therapeutically modified.

Major support for the seed grants, which provide each lab with $100,000, came from generous gifts by David Emmes SM ’76; Kathleen SM ’77, PhD ’86 and Miguel Octavio; the Estate of Margaret A. Ridge-Pappis, wife of the late James Pappis ScD ’59; the Marc Haas Foundation; and the family of former MIT President Paul Gray ’54, SM ’55, ScD ‘60, with additional funding from many annual fund donors to the Aging Brain Initiative Fund.

Unexpected synergy

by Jennifer Michalowski |

This story originally appeared in the Spring 2022 issue of BrainScan.

***

Recent results from cognitive neuroscientist Nancy Kanwisher’s lab have left her pondering the role of music in human evolution. “Music is this big mystery,” she says. “Every human society that’s been studied has music. No other animals have music in the way that humans do. And nobody knows why humans have music at all. This has been a puzzle for centuries.”

MIT neuroscientist and McGovern Investigator Nancy Kanwisher. Photo: Jussi Puikkonen/KNAW

Some biologists and anthropologists have reasoned that since there’s no clear evolutionary advantage for humans’ unique ability to create and respond to music, these abilities must have emerged when humans began to repurpose other brain functions. To appreciate song, they’ve proposed, we draw on parts of the brain dedicated to speech and language. It makes sense, Kanwisher says: music and language are both complex, uniquely human ways of communicating. “It’s very sensible to think that there might be common machinery,” she says. “But there isn’t.”

That conclusion is based on her team’s 2015 discovery of neurons in the human brain that respond only to music. They first became clued in to these music-sensitive cells when they asked volunteers to listen to a diverse panel of sounds inside an MRI scanner. Functional brain imaging picked up signals suggesting that some neurons were specialized to detect only music — but the broad map of brain activity generated by an fMRI couldn’t pinpoint those cells.

Singing in the brain

Kanwisher’s team wanted to know more — but neuroscientists who study the human brain can’t always probe its circuitry with the exactitude of their colleagues who study the brains of mice or rats. They can’t insert electrodes into human brains to monitor the neurons they’re interested in. Neurosurgeons, however, sometimes do — and thus, collaborating with neurosurgeons has created unique opportunities for Kanwisher and other McGovern investigators to learn about the human brain.

Kanwisher’s team collaborated with clinicians at Albany Medical Center to work with patients who are undergoing monitoring prior to surgical treatment for epilepsy. Before operating, a neurosurgeon must identify the spot in their patient’s brain that is triggering seizures. This means inserting electrodes into the brain to monitor specific areas over a few days or weeks. The electrodes they implant pinpoint activity far more precisely, both spatially and temporally, than an MRI. And with patients’ permission, researchers like Kanwisher can take advantage of the information they collect.

“The intracranial recording from human brains that’s possible from collaboration with neurosurgeons is extremely precious to us,” Kanwisher says. “All of the research is kind of opportunistic, on whatever the surgeons are doing for clinical reasons. But sometimes we get really lucky and the electrodes are right in an area where we have long-standing scientific questions that those data can answer.”

Song-selective neural population (yellow) in the “inflated” human brain. Image: Sam Norman-Haignere

The unexpected discovery of song-specific neurons, led by postdoctoral researcher Sam Norman-Haignere, who is now an assistant professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center, emerged from such a collaboration. The team worked with patients at Albany Medical Center whose presurgical monitoring encompassed the auditory-processing part of the brain that they were curious about. Sure enough, certain electrodes picked up activity only when patients were listening to music. The data indicated that in some of those locations, it didn’t matter what kind of music was playing: the cells fired in response to a range of sounds that included flute solos, heavy metal, and rap. But other locations became active exclusively in response to vocal music. “We did not have that hypothesis at all, Kanwisher says. “It reallytook our breath away,” she says.

When that discovery is considered along with findings from McGovern colleague Ev Fedorenko, who has shown that the brain’s language-processing regions do not respond to music, Kanwisher says it’s now clear that music and language are segregated in the human brain. The origins of our unique appreciation for music, however, remain a mystery.

Clinical advantage

Clinical collaborations are also important to researchers in Ann Graybiel’s lab, who rely largely on model organisms like mice and rats to investigate the fine details of neural circuits. Working with clinicians helps keep them focused on answering questions that matter to patients.

In studying how the brain makes decisions, the Graybiel lab has zeroed in on connections that are vital for making choices that carry both positive and negative consequences. This is the kind of decision-making that you might call on when considering whether to accept a job that pays more but will be more demanding than your current position, for example. In experiments with rats, mice, and monkeys, they’ve identified different neurons dedicated to triggering opposing actions — “approach” or “avoid” — in these complex decision-making tasks. They’ve also found evidence that both age and stress change how the brain deals with these kinds of decisions.

In work led by former Graybiel lab research scientist Ken-ichi Amemori, they have worked with psychiatrist Diego Pizzagalli at McLean Hospital to learn what happens in the human brain when people make these complex decisions.

By monitoring brain activity as people made decisions inside an MRI scanner, the team identified regions that lit up when people chose to “approach” or “avoid.” They also found parallel activity patterns in monkeys that performed the same task, supporting the relevance of animal studies to understanding this circuitry.

In people diagnosed with major depression, however, the brain responded to approach-avoidance conflict somewhat differently. Certain areas were not activated as strongly as they were in people without depression, regardless of whether subjects ultimately chose to “approach” or “avoid.” The team suspects that some of these differences might reflect a stronger tendency toward avoidance, in which potential rewards are less influential for decision-making, while an individual is experiencing major depression.

The brain activity associated with approach-avoidance conflict in humans appears to align with what Graybiel’s team has seen in mice, although clinical imaging cannot reveal nearly as much detail about the involved circuits. Graybiel says that gives her confidence that what they are learning in the lab, where they can manipulate and study neural circuits with precision, is important. “I think there’s no doubt that this is relevant to humans,” she says. “I want to get as far into the mechanisms as possible, because maybe we’ll hit something that’s therapeutically valuable, or maybe we will really get an intuition about how parts of the brain work. I think that will help people.”

Developing brain needs cannabinoid receptors after birth

by Jennifer Michalowski |

Doctors warn that marijuana use during pregnancy may have harmful effects on the development of a fetus, in part because the cannabinoid receptors activated by the drug are known be critical for enabling a developing brain to wire up properly. Now, scientists at MIT’s McGovern Institute have learned that cannabinoid receptors’ critical role in brain development does not end at birth.

In today’s online issue of the journal eNeuro, scientists led by McGovern investigator Ann Graybiel report that mice need the cannabinoid receptor CB1R to establish connections within the brain’s dopamine system that take shape soon after birth. The finding raises concern that marijuana use by nursing moms, who pass the CB1R-activating compound THC to their infants when they breastfeed, might interfere with brain development by disrupting cannabinoid signaling.

“This is a real change to one of the truly important systems in the brain—a major controller of our dopamine,” Graybiel says. Dopamine exerts a powerful influence over our motivations and behavior, and changes to the dopamine system contribute to disorders from Parkinson’s disease to addiction. Thus, the researchers say, it is vital to understand whether postnatal drug exposure might put developing dopamine circuits at risk.

Brain bouquets

Cannabinoid receptors in the brain are important mediators of mood, memory, and pain. Graybiel’s lab became interested in CB1R due to their dysregulation in Huntington’s and Parkinson’s diseases, both of which impair the brain’s ability to control movement and other functions. While investigating the receptor’s distribution in the brain, they discovered that in the adult mice, CB1R is abundant within small compartments within the striatum called striosomes. The receptor was particularly concentrated within the neurons that connect striosomes to a dopamine-rich area of the brain called the substantia nigra, via structures that Graybiel’s team has dubbed striosome-dendron bouquets.

Striosome-dendron bouquets are easy to overlook within the densely connected network of the brain. But when the cells that make up the bouquets are labeled with a fluorescent protein, the bouquets become visible—and their appearance is striking, says Jill Crittenden, a research scientist in Graybiel’s lab.

Striosomal neurons form these bouquets by reaching into the substantia nigra, whose cells use dopamine to influence movement, motivation, learning, and habit formation. Clusters of dopamine-producing neurons form dendrites there that intertwine tightly with incoming axons from the striosomal neurons. The resulting structures, whose intimately associated cells resemble the bundled stems of a floral bouquet, establish so many connections that they give striosomal neurons potent control over dopamine signaling.

By tracking the bouquets’ emergence in newborn mice, Graybiel’s team found that they form in the first week after birth, a period during which striosomal neurons are ramping up production of CB1R. Mice genetically engineered to lack CB1R, however, can’t make these elaborate but orderly bouquets. Without the receptor, fibers from striosomes extend into the substantia nigra, but fail to form the tightly intertwined “bouquet stems” that facilitate extensive connections with their targets. This disorganized structure is apparent as soon as bouquets arise in the brains of young pups and persists into adulthood. “There aren’t those beautiful, strong fibers anymore,” Crittenden says. “This suggests that those very strong controllers over the dopamine system function abnormally when you interfere with cannabinoid signaling.”

The finding was a surprise. Without zeroing in on striosome-dendron bouquets, it would be easy to miss CB1R’s impact on the dopamine system, Crittenden says. Plus, she adds, prior studies of the receptor’s role in development largely focused on fetal development. The new findings reveal that the cannabinoid system continues to guide the formation of brain circuits after birth.

Graybiel notes that funds from generous donors, including the Broderick Fund for Phytocannabinoid Research at MIT, the Saks Kavanaugh Foundation, the Kristin R. Pressman and Jessica J. Pourian ‘13 Fund, Mr. Robert Buxton, and the William N. & Bernice E. Bumpus Foundation, enabled her team’s studies of CB1R’s role in shaping striosome-dendron bouquets.

Now that they have shown that CB1R is needed for postnatal brain development, it will be important to determine the consequences of disrupting cannabinoid signaling during this critical period—including whether passing THC to a nursing baby impacts the brain’s dopamine system.

Study finds neurons that encode the outcomes of actions

Anne Trafton |

When we make complex decisions, we have to take many factors into account. Some choices have a high payoff but carry potential risks; others are lower risk but may have a lower reward associated with them.

A new study from MIT sheds light on the part of the brain that helps us make these types of decisions. The research team found a group of neurons in the brain’s striatum that encodes information about the potential outcomes of different decisions. These cells become particularly active when a behavior leads a different outcome than what was expected, which the researchers believe helps the brain adapt to changing circumstances.

“A lot of this brain activity deals with surprising outcomes, because if an outcome is expected, there’s really nothing to be learned. What we see is that there’s a strong encoding of both unexpected rewards and unexpected negative outcomes,” says Bernard Bloem, a former MIT postdoc and one of the lead authors of the new study.

Impairments in this kind of decision-making are a hallmark of many neuropsychiatric disorders, especially anxiety and depression. The new findings suggest that slight disturbances in the activity of these striatal neurons could swing the brain into making impulsive decisions or becoming paralyzed with indecision, the researchers say.

Rafiq Huda, a former MIT postdoc, is also a lead author of the paper, which appears in Nature Communications. Ann Graybiel, an MIT Institute Professor and member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research, is the senior author of the study.

Learning from experience

The striatum, located deep within the brain, is known to play a key role in making decisions that require evaluating outcomes of a particular action. In this study, the researchers wanted to learn more about the neural basis of how the brain makes cost-benefit decisions, in which a behavior can have a mixture of positive and negative outcomes.

Striosomes (red) appear and then disappear as the view moves deeper into the striatum. Video courtesy of the researchers

To study this kind of decision-making, the researchers trained mice to spin a wheel to the left or the right. With each turn, they would receive a combination of reward (sugary water) and negative outcome (a small puff of air). As the mice performed the task, they learned to maximize the delivery of rewards and to minimize the delivery of air puffs. However, over hundreds of trials, the researchers frequently changed the probabilities of getting the reward or the puff of air, so the mice would need to adjust their behavior.

As the mice learned to make these adjustments, the researchers recorded the activity of neurons in the striatum. They had expected to find neuronal activity that reflects which actions are good and need to be repeated, or bad and that need to be avoided. While some neurons did this, the researchers also found, to their surprise, that many neurons encoded details about the relationship between the actions and both types of outcomes.

The researchers found that these neurons responded more strongly when a behavior resulted in an unexpected outcome, that is, when turning the wheel in one direction produced the opposite outcome as it had in previous trials. These “error signals” for reward and penalty seem to help the brain figure out that it’s time to change tactics.

Most of the neurons that encode these error signals are found in the striosomes — clusters of neurons located in the striatum. Previous work has shown that striosomes send information to many other parts of the brain, including dopamine-producing regions and regions involved in planning movement.

“The striosomes seem to mostly keep track of what the actual outcomes are,” Bloem says. “The decision whether to do an action or not, which essentially requires integrating multiple outcomes, probably happens somewhere downstream in the brain.”

Making judgments

The findings could be relevant not only to mice learning a task, but also to many decisions that people have to make every day as they weigh the risks and benefits of each choice. Eating a big bowl of ice cream after dinner leads to immediate gratification, but it might contribute to weight gain or poor health. Deciding to have carrots instead will make you feel healthier, but you’ll miss out on the enjoyment of the sweet treat.

“From a value perspective, these can be considered equally good,” Bloem says. “What we find is that the striatum also knows why these are good, and it knows what are the benefits and the cost of each. In a way, the activity there reflects much more about the potential outcome than just how likely you are to choose it.”

This type of complex decision-making is often impaired in people with a variety of neuropsychiatric disorders, including anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Drug abuse can also lead to impaired judgment and impulsivity.

“You can imagine that if things are set up this way, it wouldn’t be all that difficult to get mixed up about what is good and what is bad, because there are some neurons that fire when an outcome is good and they also fire when the outcome is bad,” Graybiel says. “Our ability to make our movements or our thoughts in what we call a normal way depends on those distinctions, and if they get blurred, it’s real trouble.”

The new findings suggest that behavioral therapy targeting the stage at which information about potential outcomes is encoded in the brain may help people who suffer from those disorders, the researchers say.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Mental Health, the Saks Kavanaugh Foundation, the William N. and Bernice E. Bumpus Foundation, the Simons Foundation, the Nancy Lurie Marks Family Foundation, the National Eye Institute, the National Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke, the National Science Foundation, the Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative, and JSPS KAKENHI.

A new approach to curbing cocaine use

by Jennifer Michalowski |

Cocaine, opioids, and other drugs of abuse disrupt the brain’s reward system, often shifting users’ priorities to obtaining more drug above all else. For people battling addiction, this persistent craving is notoriously difficult to overcome—but new research from scientists at MIT’s McGovern Institute and collaborators points toward a therapeutic strategy that could help.

Researchers in MIT Institute Professor Ann Graybiel’s lab and collaborators at the University of Copenhagen and Vanderbilt University report in a January 25, 2022 online publication in the journal Addiction Biology that activating a signaling molecule in the brain known as muscarinic receptor 4 (M4) causes rodents to reduce cocaine self-administration and simultaneously choose a food treat over cocaine.

M4 receptors are found on the surface of neurons in the brain, where they alter signaling in response to the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. They are plentiful in the striatum, a brain region that Graybiel’s lab has shown is deeply involved in habit formation. They are of interest to addiction researchers because, along with a related receptor called M1, which is also abundant in the striatum, they often seem to act in opposition to the neurotransmitter dopamine.

Drugs of abuse stimulate the brain’s habit circuits by allowing dopamine to build up in the brain. With chronic use, that circuitry can become less sensitive to dopamine, so experiences that were once rewarding become less pleasurable and users are driven to seek higher doses of their drug. Attempts to directly block the dopamine system have not been found to be an effective way of treating addiction and can have unpleasant or dangerous side-effects, so researchers are seeking an alternative strategy to restore balance within the brain’s reward circuitry. “Another way to tweak that system is to activate these muscarinic receptors,” explains Jill Crittenden, a research scientist in the Graybiel lab.

New pathways to treatment

At the University of Copenhagen, neuroscientist Morgane Thomsen has found that activating the M1 receptor causes rodents to choose a food treat over cocaine. In the new work, she showed that a drug that selectively activates the M4 receptor has a similar effect.

When rats that have been trained to self-administer cocaine are given an M4-activating compound, they immediately reduce their drug use, actively choosing food instead. Thomsen found that this effect grew stronger over a seven-day course of treatment, with cocaine use declining day by day. When the M4-activating treatment was stopped, rats quickly resumed their prior cocaine-seeking behavior.

While Thomsen’s experiments have now shown that animals’ cocaine use can be reduced by activating either M1 or M4, it’s clear that the two muscarinic receptors don’t modulate cocaine use in the same way. M1 activation works on a different time scale, taking some time to kick in, but leaving some lasting effects even after the treatment has been discontinued.

Experiments with genetically modified mice developed in Graybiel’s lab confirm that the two receptors influence drug-seeking behavior via different molecular pathways. Previously, the team discovered that activating M1 has no effect on cocaine-seeking in mice that lack a signaling molecule called CalDAG-GEFI. M4 activation, however, reduces cocaine consumption regardless of whether CalDAG-GEFI is present. “The CalDAG-GEFI is completely essential for the M1 effect to happen, but doesn’t appear to play any role in the M4 effect,” Thomsen says. “So that really separates the pathways. In both the behavior and the neurobiology, it’s two different ways that we can modulate the cocaine effects.” The findings suggest that activating M4 could help people with substance abuse disorders overcome their addiction, and that such a strategy might be even more effective if combined with activation of the M1 receptor.

Graybiel’s lab first became interested in CalDAG-GEFI in the late 1990s, when they discovered that it was unusually abundant in the main compartment of the brain’s striatum. Their research revealed the protein to be important for controlling movement and even uncovered an essential role in blood clotting—but CalDAG-GEFI’s impacts on behavior remained elusive for a long time. Graybiel says it’s gratifying that this long-standing interest has now shed light on a potential therapeutic strategy for substance abuse disorder. Her lab will continue investigating the molecular pathways that underlie addiction as part of the McGovern Institute’s new addiction initiative.

The craving state

by Jennifer Michalowski |

This story originally appeared in the Winter 2022 issue of BrainScan.

***

For people struggling with substance use disorders — and there are about 35 million of them worldwide — treatment options are limited. Even among those who seek help, relapse is common. In the United States, an epidemic of opioid addiction has been declared a public health emergency.

A 2019 survey found that 1.6 million people nationwide had an opioid use disorder, and the crisis has surged since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that more than 100,000 people died of drug overdose between April 2020 and April 2021 — nearly 30 percent more overdose deaths than occurred during the same period the previous year.

In the United States, an epidemic of opioid addiction has been declared a public health emergency.

A deeper understanding of what addiction does to the brain and body is urgently needed to pave the way to interventions that reliably release affected individuals from its grip. At the McGovern Institute, researchers are turning their attention to addiction’s driving force: the deep, recurring craving that makes people prioritize drug use over all other wants and needs.

McGovern Institute co-founder, Lore Harp McGovern.

“When you are in that state, then it seems nothing else matters,” says McGovern Investigator Fan Wang. “At that moment, you can discard everything: your relationship, your house, your job, everything. You only want the drug.”

With a new addiction initiative catalyzed by generous gifts from Institute co-founder Lore Harp McGovern and others, McGovern scientists with diverse expertise have come together to begin clarifying the neurobiology that underlies the craving state. They plan to dissect the neural transformations associated with craving at every level — from the drug-induced chemical changes that alter neuronal connections and activity to how these modifications impact signaling brain-wide. Ultimately, the McGovern team hopes not just to understand the craving state, but to find a way to relieve it — for good.

“If we can understand the craving state and correct it, or at least relieve a little bit of the pressure,” explains Wang, who will help lead the addiction initiative, “then maybe we can at least give people a chance to use their top-down control to not take the drug.”

The craving cycle

For individuals suffering from substance use disorders, craving fuels a cyclical pattern of escalating drug use. Following the euphoria induced by a drug like heroin or cocaine, depression sets in, accompanied by a drug craving motivated by the desire to relieve that suffering. And as addiction progresses, the peaks and valleys of this cycle dip lower: the pleasant feelings evoked by the drug become weaker, while the negative effects a person experiences in its absence worsen. The craving remains, and increasing use of the drug are required to relieve it.

By the time addiction sets in, the brain has been altered in ways that go beyond a drug’s immediate effects on neural signaling.

These insidious changes leave individuals susceptible to craving — and the vulnerable state endures. Long after the physical effects of withdrawal have subsided, people with substance use disorders can find their craving returns, triggered by exposure to a small amount of the drug, physical or social cues associated with previous drug use, or stress. So researchers will need to determine not only how different parts of the brain interact with one another during craving and how individual cells and the molecules within them are affected by the craving state — but also how things change as addiction develops and progresses.

Circuits, chemistry and connectivity

One clear starting point is the circuitry the brain uses to control motivation. Thanks in part to decades of research in the lab of McGovern Investigator Ann Graybiel, neuroscientists know a great deal about how these circuits learn which actions lead to pleasure and which lead to pain, and how they use that information to establish habits and evaluate the costs and benefits of complex decisions.

Graybiel’s work has shown that drugs of abuse strongly activate dopamine-responsive neurons in a part of the brain called the striatum, whose signals promote habit formation. By increasing the amount of dopamine that neurons release, these drugs motivate users to prioritize repeated drug use over other kinds of rewards, and to choose the drug in spite of pain or other negative effects. Her group continues to investigate the naturally occurring molecules that control these circuits, as well as how they are hijacked by drugs of abuse.

Distribution of opioid receptors targeted by morphine (shown in blue) in two regions in the dorsal striatum and nucleus accumbens of the mouse brain. Image: Ann Graybiel

In Fan Wang’s lab, work investigating the neural circuits that mediate the perception of physical pain has led her team to question the role of emotional pain in craving. As they investigated the source of pain sensations in the brain, they identified neurons in an emotion-regulating center called the central amygdala that appear to suppress physical pain in animals. Now, Wang wants to know whether it might be possible to modulate neurons involved in emotional pain to ameliorate the negative state that provokes drug craving.

These animal studies will be key to identifying the cellular and molecular changes that set the brain up for recurring cravings. And as McGovern scientists begin to investigate what happens in the brains of rodents that have been trained to self-administer addictive drugs like fentanyl or cocaine, they expect to encounter tremendous complexity.

McGovern Associate Investigator Polina Anikeeva, whose lab has pioneered new technologies that will help the team investigate the full spectrum of changes that underlie craving, says it will be important to consider impacts on the brain’s chemistry, firing patterns, and connectivity. To that end, multifunctional research probes developed in her lab will be critical to monitoring and manipulating neural circuits in animal models.

Imaging technology developed by investigator Ed Boyden will also enable nanoscale protein visualization brain-wide. An important goal will be to identify a neural signature of the craving state. With such a signal, researchers can begin to explore how to shut off that craving — possibly by directly modulating neural signaling.

Targeted treatments

“One of the reasons to study craving is because it’s a natural treatment point,” says McGovern Associate Investigator Alan Jasanoff. “And the dominant kind of approaches that people in our team think about are approaches that relate to neural circuits — to the specific connections between brain regions and how those could be changed.” The hope, he explains, is that it might be possible to identify a brain region whose activity is disrupted during the craving state, then use clinical brain stimulation methods to restore normal signaling — within that region, as well as in other connected parts of the brain.

To identify the right targets for such a treatment, it will be crucial to understand how the biology uncovered in laboratory animals reflects what’s happens in people with substance use disorders. Functional imaging in John Gabrieli’s lab can help bridge the gap between clinical and animal research by revealing patterns of brain activity associated with the craving state in both humans and rodents. A new technique developed in Jasanoff’s lab makes it possible to focus on the activity between specific regions of an animal’s brain. “By doing that, we hope to build up integrated models of how information passes around the brain in craving states, and of course also in control states where we’re not experiencing craving,” he explains.

In delving into the biology of the craving state, McGovern scientists are embarking on largely unexplored territory — and they do so with both optimism and urgency. “It’s hard to not appreciate just the size of the problem, and just how devastating addiction is,” says Anikeeva. “At this point, it just seems almost irresponsible to not work on it, especially when we do have the tools and we are interested in the general brain regions that are important for that problem. I would say that there’s almost a civic duty.”