A conversation about neuroscience

Nature research journal editors speak with Eric Nestler and Robert Greene about neurobiology and the Society for Neuroscience (SfN) 2017 annual meeting.

A conversation about neuroscience
presented by Nature Methods, Nature Neuroscience & Nature Communications

Sachin Ranade and Jean Zarate

eric_nestler_robert_greene

 

 

 

 

In advance of the 2017 annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, Jean Mary Zarate, an editor at Nature Neuroscience and Sachin Ranade , an editor at Nature Communications (photo, upper left) had the opportunity to speak with Eric Nestler, President of the Society for Neuroscience and researcher at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai and Robert Greene, a scientist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (photo, upper right).

Watch the video here

Optogenetics in neuroscience at Nature Methods

The optogenetic manipulation of cellular properties has not only revolutionized neuroscience, but this technology can also be applied to the manipulation of signaling pathways, transcription or other processes in non-neuronal cells. Here, we highlight some of the papers we have published on the neuroscience side of optogenetics.

Optogenetic tools

2014 has been an exciting year for us with the publication of new optogenetic tools. Klapoetke and Boyden developed Chrimson and Chronos, two channelrhodopsins that they discovered in a screen of algal transcriptomes. Chrimson is more red-shifted than previously known channelrhodopsins while Chronos has faster kinetics. Hochbaum and Cohen described another algal channelrhodopsin called CheRiff, which is highly sensitive to blue light stimulation, making it compatible with red-shifted voltage sensors.

Previously, we published papers describing modifications to optogenetic tools. For example, Prakash and Deisseroth tailored opsin with custom properties. To ensure stoichiometric expression of optogenetic activators and/or inhibitors, Kleinlogel and Bamberg simply and elegantly fused the two proteins into a single chain. Depending on the two partners, this marriage can lead to synergisms or bidirectional effects. Finally, Mattis and Deisseroth undertook a comprehensive characterization of available tools.

Optogenetic applications

Since the initial description of Channelrhodopsin2 (ChR2) as an efficient tool to evoke neural activity in a light-dependent manner, we have seen a flurry of papers applying ChR2 for a variety of questions in neuroscience. For instance, Zhang and Oertner combined this tool with two-photon calcium imaging in rat slices to study synaptic plasticity. Liewald and Gottschalk applied the same methodology to analyze synaptic function in freely moving C. elegans.

ChR2 can also be used to map the function of brains regions as Ayling and Murphy demonstrated by evoking activity in limb muscles via light stimulation in the motor cortex of ChR2 transgenic mice. Similarly, Guo and Ramanathan mapped neural circuitry in C. elegans by combining ChR2-mediated neural activation with imaging of a genetically encoded calcium sensor in downstream neurons. To facilitate circuit mapping in mice, Zhao and Feng generated mouse lines that express ChR2 in GABAergic, cholinergic, serotonergic or parvalbumin-expressing neurons.

While ChR2 is a very popular tool in optogenetics, other family members can do the job as well. C1V1T is a fusion of two different opsins and is particularly useful when applying two-photon excitation, as shown by Packer and Yuste. ReaChR is activated by red light and thus especially useful in vivo. Inagaki and Anderson studied courtship behavior in Drosophila with this tool.

Method of the Year

We celebrated the impact of optogenetics by recognizing the technology as our Method of the Year 2010. We marked the occasion with the publication of special Commentaries on the subjects. Deisseroth discussed the past, present and future of optogenetics. Hegemann and Möglich deliberate on the exploration of new optogenetic tools. And Peron and Svoboda illuminated us on the precise delivery of optogenetic stimulation. In addition, our News Feature recounted the stories behind the “Light tools”.

If we have sparked your interest, the mentioned papers are listed below.

We are excited to hear about the upcoming developments in optogenetics from you.

 

Nathan C Klapoetke, Yasunobu Murata, Sung Soo Kim, Stefan R Pulver, Amanda Birdsey-Benson, Yong Ku Cho, Tania K Morimoto, Amy S Chuong, Eric J Carpenter, Zhijian Tian, Jun Wang, Yinlong Xie, Zhixiang Yan, Yong Zhang, Brian Y Chow, Barbara Surek, Michael Melkonian, Vivek Jayaraman, Martha Constantine-Paton, Gane Ka-Shu Wong & Edward S Boyden
Independent optical excitation of distinct neural populations
Nature Methods 11, 338–346 (2014) doi:10.1038/nmeth.2836

Daniel R Hochbaum, Yongxin Zhao, Samouil L Farhi, Nathan Klapoetke, Christopher A Werley, Vikrant Kapoor, Peng Zou, Joel M Kralj, Dougal Maclaurin, Niklas Smedemark-Margulies, Jessica L Saulnier, Gabriella L Boulting, Christoph Straub, Yong Ku Cho, Michael Melkonian, Gane Ka-Shu Wong, D Jed Harrison, Venkatesh N Murthy, Bernardo L Sabatini, Edward S Boyden, Robert E Campbell & Adam E Cohen
All-optical electrophysiology in mammalian neurons using engineered microbial rhodopsins
Nature Methods 11, 825–833 (2014) doi:10.1038/nmeth.3000

Rohit Prakash, Ofer Yizhar, Benjamin Grewe, Charu Ramakrishnan, Nancy Wang, Inbal Goshen, Adam M Packer, Darcy S Peterka, Rafael Yuste, Mark J Schnitzer & Karl Deisseroth
Two-photon optogenetic toolbox for fast inhibition, excitation and bistable modulation
Nature Methods 9, 1171–1179 (2012) doi:10.1038/nmeth.2215

Sonja Kleinlogel, Ulrich Terpitz, Barbara Legrum, Deniz Gökbuget, Edward S Boyden, Christian Bamann, Phillip G Wood & Ernst Bamberg
A gene-fusion strategy for stoichiometric and co-localized expression of light-gated membrane proteins
Nature Methods 8, 1083–1088 (2011) doi:10.1038/nmeth.1766

Joanna Mattis, Kay M Tye, Emily A Ferenczi, Charu Ramakrishnan, Daniel J O’Shea, Rohit Prakash, Lisa A Gunaydin, Minsuk Hyun, Lief E Fenno, Viviana Gradinaru, Ofer Yizhar & Karl Deisseroth
Principles for applying optogenetic tools derived from direct comparative analysis of microbial opsins
Nature Methods 9, 159–172 (2012) doi:10.1038/nmeth.1808

Yan-Ping Zhang & Thomas G Oertner
Optical induction of synaptic plasticity using a light-sensitive channel
Nature Methods 4, 139 – 141 (2006) doi:10.1038/nmeth988

Jana F Liewald, Martin Brauner, Greg J Stephens, Magali Bouhours, Christian Schultheis, Mei Zhen & Alexander Gottschalk
Optogenetic analysis of synaptic function
Nature Methods 5, 895 – 902 (2008) doi:10.1038/nmeth.1252

Oliver G S Ayling, Thomas C Harrison, Jamie D Boyd, Alexander Goroshkov & Timothy H Murphy
Automated light-based mapping of motor cortex by photoactivation of channelrhodopsin-2 transgenic mice
Nature Methods 6, 219 – 224 (2009) doi:10.1038/nmeth.1303

Zengcai V Guo, Anne C Hart & Sharad Ramanathan
Optical interrogation of neural circuits in Caenorhabditis elegans
Nature Methods 6, 891 – 896 (2009) doi:10.1038/nmeth.1397

Shengli Zhao, Jonathan T Ting, Hisham E Atallah, Li Qiu, Jie Tan, Bernd Gloss, George J Augustine, Karl Deisseroth, Minmin Luo, Ann M Graybiel & Guoping Feng
Cell type–specific channelrhodopsin-2 transgenic mice for optogenetic dissection of neural circuitry function
Nature Methods 8, 745-752 (2011) doi:10.1038/nmeth.1668

Adam M Packer, Darcy S Peterka, Jan J Hirtz, Rohit Prakash, Karl Deisseroth & Rafael Yuste
Two-photon optogenetics of dendritic spines and neural circuits
Nature Methods 9, 1202–1205 (2012) doi:10.1038/nmeth.2249

Hidehiko K Inagaki, Yonil Jung, Eric D Hoopfer, Allan M Wong, Neeli Mishra, John Y Lin, Roger Y Tsien & David J Anderson
Optogenetic control of Drosophila using a red-shifted channelrhodopsin reveals experience-dependent influences on courtship
Nature Methods 11, 325–332 (2014) doi:10.1038/nmeth.2765

Karl Deisseroth
Optogenetics
Nature Methods 8, 26–29 (2011) doi:10.1038/nmeth.f.324

Peter Hegemann & Andreas Möglich
Channelrhodopsin engineering and exploration of new optogenetic tools
Nature Methods 8, 39–42 (2011) doi:10.1038/nmeth.f.327

Simon Peron & Karel Svoboda
From cudgel to scalpel: toward precise neural control with optogenetics
Nature Methods 8, 30–34 (2011) doi:10.1038/nmeth.f.325

Monya Baker
Light tools
Nature Methods 8, 19–22 (2011) doi:10.1038/nmeth.f.322

Sequencing: Ship-Seq sails the seas

To study a primordial nervous system, Leonid Moroz brings the tools of biology to the open sea. Nature Methods spoke with the neurobiologist turned sea adventurer.

Leonid Moroz diving in Palau, collecting Nautilus.

Leonid Moroz diving in Palau, collecting Nautilus.{credit}Aggressor Fleet / L.L. Moroz{/credit}

Meet neurobiologist Leonid Moroz of the University of Florida, the inventor of Ship-Seq. His hair is not always this wild, although his ideas tend to be.

Ship-Seq is a boat with a sequencing lab on board. On the high seas, Moroz and his crew of sailor-scientists do high-throughput sequencing of DNA and RNA from single cells, as well as neurobiology experiments. And they analyze results, too.

The ctenophore Beroe ovata.

The ctenophore Beroe ovata.{credit}J. Netherton/ L.L. Moroz{/credit}

He is especially intrigued by ctenophores, now believed to be the first multicellular organisms, which also have a nervous system but it is utterly unlike ours. It is likely, he says, that their ‘elementary brains,’ their neural and muscular systems, such as the ones found in molluscs and basal metazonas, have evolved independently from all other animal lineages.

In his Nature paper recently published, he and his colleagues present the genome of the ctenophore of the Pacific sea gooseberry (Pleurobrachia bachei)—the data are here—along with transcriptome analysis of other ctenophores. He and his colleagues also present metabolic and physiological data about these organisms. The authors describe how ctenophores have evolved neuronal organizations that show ‘molecular innovations.’ There is also an accompanying News and Views piece by Andreas Hejnol of the University of Bergen in Norway and a Nature news story by Ewen Callaway.

Labs can be outdoors and on-ship.

Labs can be outdoors and on-ship. {credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

Although organisms can be taken from the sea to the lab, they often need ocean depths or a certain temperature to survive. And when samples are prepared for travel, they need optimized conditions to not degrade. Three decades of dealing with dead organisms, degraded samples, delayed shipments and customs snafus have led Moroz to try something new: Ship-Seq. “We cannot bring the sea to the lab, but we can bring a whole lab to the sea,” he says.

After completing two proof-of-concept Ship-Seq voyages—one to the Bahamas and another near the Florida Keys and one to Palau to prepare those voyages—Moroz shares some of his findings here, offers a glimpse at his logistics and future plans. He hopes others can follow his example, because probing and analyzing nature while in and around nature is an adventure with biomedical value.

Leonid Moroz

Leonid Moroz wanted to bring the lab to the sea. {credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

Biologist and entrepreneur Craig Venter and his Global Ocean Sampling Expedition in some ways parted the seas for Moroz’s project. Moroz wanted to explore biodiversity through sequencing but also take an extra step to do on-site ‘integrative experimental biology,’ which is about using many types of tools to study whole organisms, their behavior and their cells and genomes.

Field biology tends to be an observational science, because in the field, biologists do not usually have an entire high-tech molecular biology lab in tow. And, says Moroz, field scientists may not be completely familiar with new genomics tools, which is too bad since nature has performed genetics experiments waiting to be evaluated. On the boat he studied regeneration, which is hard or even impossible to accomplish “in a dish,” he says, because the animals he studies are incredibly fragile.

King of Regeneration
Meet the comb jelly Bolinopsis, which Moroz calls ‘the king of regeneration.’

Bolinopsis can regenerate its brain in three to five days.

Bolinopsis can regenerate its brain in three to five days. {credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

These transparent organisms from the phylum Ctenophora propel themselves through the water with rows of iridescent combs of tiny hairs. Though they may be small and unassuming, they perform an amazing feat: they can regenerate their entire ‘elementary’ brain in three to five days.

Moroz calls their aboral organ with gravity sensors an ‘elementary’ brain; it is not homologous to the human brain. But it is a control center with many neuron types and it coordinates behaviors and motions. In that sense it is an “analog” of the human brain, he says. What astounded Moroz is that when it is dissected from the animal, it grows back.

Other marine organisms such as Hydra are known to regenerate organs, but examples are limited, particularly for organisms that can be maintained in the lab. Finding models for such biological phenomena are crucial in neurobiology, he says. And for regenerative medicine, too. Aplysia, the marine sea slug, has long been helping scientists study memory. And there are more such organisms to find and with which he wants to do ‘real-time’ experiments and analysis, for example look at the dialogue between pre- and post-synaptic neurons.

Bolinopsis has another intriguing trait that Moroz discovered by accident. He was making some small incisions and then briefly interrupted his work. “When I came back around 40 minutes or an hour later, I couldn’t find my cut,“ he says. He made another incision and watched the wound begin to close before his eyes. Overnight, the wound became invisible. “It’s very cool,” says Moroz.

Sequencing team on the first ShipSeq voyage, from feft to right: Tatiana Moroz, Andrea Kohn, Rachel Sanford

Sequencing team on the first ShipSeq voyage, from left to right: Tatiana Moroz, Andrea Kohn, Rachel Sanford{credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

He found this wound-healing ability in five or six ctenophore species. It is likely an adaptation to life close to the water surface, where there are predators and formidable waves that can inflict bodily harm on these organisms. A related ctenophore species that lives in deeper waters appears to have lost this wound-healing ability. In this sense, he says, “nature already performed knock-out experiments for us,” inviting researchers to investigate which genes might play a role in these instances. Some species in the same lineage are slow regenerators, others fast, another aspect that invites genomic analysis.

Traditional ways of exploring the biochemical underpinnings of physiology and behavior can be slow. With new technologies such as high-throughput sequencing, it is possible to connect data types more quickly. For example, one can see an organism behave and use genomics to see molecular changes, for example in gene expression or epigenetic markers. Being on the boat lets scientists directly address observed biology; “you basically follow up with what nature suggests to you,” says Moroz.

One-way ticket

The Ship-Seq sequencing team for the second trip (from left to right Suzette,  Lauran, Rachel, Gabby, Andrea, Greg, Emily, Leonid, Gustav).

The Ship-Seq sequencing team for the second trip (from left to right Suzette,Lauran, Rachel, Gabby, Andrea, Greg, Emily, Leonid, Gustav).{credit}L.Moroz{/credit}

ShipSeq is also an environmental research project. Roughly every six hours a species is lost, he says. The disappearance of these organisms means ecological harm and the loss of important molecular blueprints, which is not unlike losing precious art and heritage sites, he says.

Comparative biologists face the criticism that their work does not have ‘translational value’ for biomedicine. But Moroz believes Ship-Seq shows that marine organisms have tremendous biomedical value. Bolinopsis is one example of many.

A small volcanic island in Antarctica. Moroz nicknamed it  Aplysia Island given that it looks like a model organism,  the sea slug, Aplysia.

A small volcanic island in Antarctica. Moroz nicknamed it Aplysia Island because it looks like the sea slug, Aplysia, a model organism. {credit}L.L. Moroz {/credit}

Too many human diseases are “a one way ticket,” he says, such as age-related memory loss. Spinal cord injury and stroke lead to irreparable damage. But genomic analysis, including genome-wide expression studies can help researchers explore how to lessen the impact of these diseases and injuries. Scientists need to “jump” from the genome to complex functions and brain circuits, which recruit many parts of the genome.

By delivering the basic alphabet of an organism, sequencing is a boon to many fields. What scientists also need is the grammar with which this alphabet creates the biological equivalent of language, which is behavior and physiology.

With his approach to ‘real-time genomics,’ he wants to help expose this grammar, says Moroz. For example, scientists might want to capture epigenetic changes over the course of learning or regeneration.

Ship-Seq logistics

Copasetic with the mobile sequencing lab aboard

Copasetic with the mobile sequencing lab aboard{credit}Ian van der Watt{/credit}

This is Leonid Moroz’s boat, the Copasetic, a 141-foot yacht. Actually it isn’t his boat. And the story about how he gained access to it, is a tale of Moroz’s brand of determination.

Logistics expenses for field expeditions are usually not covered by traditional grants, so Moroz built a collaboration between companies and non-profits to make Ship-Seq a reality.Over the years, he found opportunities, but the tide was against him. One time, everything was ready to go, but the boat’s owner decided to sell the boat, a mere week before the scientists wanted to set sail. Ship-Seq’s maiden voyage was cancelled.

Then Moroz came across the Florida-based International Seakeepers Society, through which yacht-owners loan out their boats for research purposes when they are not using them.

In late 2012, Moroz was invited to an International Seakeepers Society dinner. He had a semiconductor chip in his pocket that is used in semiconductor-based sequencers from Life Technologies, now a part of Thermo Fisher. The scheduled presentation was delayed due to a glitch with the projector. Until the projector was fixed, Moroz gave an impromptu talk about how the small chip could help save the oceans’ heritage and tell the world about the genomic blueprints of marine organisms. He had already been using the technology in his lab and saw how the instrument was accelerating his work.

Some of the listeners smiled politely and ignored him, he says, but a few were excited. Around nine months after that dinner, finally an opportunity presented itself that allowed Ship-Seq to leave the dock.

Boat, crew, captain

Steven Sablotsky designed the Copasetic

Steven Sablotsky designed the Copasetic{credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

Steven Sablotsky, a University of Florida alumnus, engineer, businessperson, yacht owner and member of the International Seakeepers Society approached Moroz. Sablotsky had designed his own boat, the 141-foot Copasetic, with marine research in mind. Sablonsky offered his boat for Moroz’s “proof-of concept” trips for free, including his crew.

The added crew was important. Private boat owners can be their own skippers, but large boats are legally obliged to have a competent crew. “It’s pretty complicated machinery,” says Moroz. “You really have to work around the clock.”

The Copasetic crew

The Copasetic crew{credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

At the time, Moroz was also speaking with sequencer manufacturers. He had set up a Life Technologies’ Personal Genome Machine (PGM), which is a bench-top, semiconductor-based sequencer. The instrument’s semiconductor chip uses millions of wells to capture DNA sequence information. DNA is fragmented and each fragment is attached to a bead, and copied such that each bead is covered with copies of the same fragment. One bead is deposited into each one of many wells on the chip, which is then flooded with one of the four DNA bases. When a base is incorporated into DNA, a hydrogen ion is released, leading to a chemical change in the well. The instrument detects the change, converts the signal to voltage, which registers that the base was incorporated and adds it to the growing sequence of the fragment. Another base floods the wells and the process repeats.

After testing the PGM, Moroz decided that it should be the sequencer for Ship-Seq. He was not sure where to install it along with the other necessary lab equipment. It was the Copasetic’s captain Ian van der Watt who suggested housing the lab in a shipping container. A construction manager at Florida Biodiversity Institute helped to organize one such container and design the mobile lab with Moroz. A few weeks later it was ready to be placed on the boat’s deck.

The mobile lab contained is transferred to the Copasetic’s deck.

The mobile lab is placed on the boat’s deck….{credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

The lab is mobile

…and is ready to travel anywhere. {credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

The advantage of a container, says Moroz, is that it offers a completely controlled environment. He and his lab collected the supplies and instruments they needed such as benches, anti-vibration tables, PCR machine, and enrichment systems to measure RNA and DNA and run quality controls.

They needed a high-quality water purification system for the sequencing. It is, he says “somewhat ironic” that the team needed to produce ‘clean pure water’ even though they were in the middle of the ocean. Thermo Fisher engineers got the sequencer ship-shape for a seafaring environment. “Basically we made a full-scale molecular lab” for genomics and imaging, says Moroz.

He still had concerns about variables such as temperature and vibration. They set up the lab and tested all the instruments. While at the dock, he asked the captain to power the motor forwards and backwards, simulating high waves. The lab aced the test.

ShipSeq set sail on its first voyage and the lab was humming from the moment they left, Moroz says. Sablotsky came along, too. Every day they did two sequencing runs and sent the data via a satellite link to HiPerGator, which is a high performance computer with 24,000 core processing units installed at the University of Florida.

mobile lab inside for web

Ship-Seq’s core lab. {credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

Moroz had set up an analysis pipeline with computational tools and scripts to assemble and annotate the incoming sequence information. After automated analysis, data was beamed back to the boat. The sailor-scientists had considered taking a Thermo Fisher engineer along but that did not pan out “so we were on our own,” says Moroz. The good news was “everything worked.”

The second trip, to the Gulf Stream and Florida Keys was windy and through rough seas. Seasickness immobilized half of the lab staff for part of the trip, says Moroz, including his wife. “People could not cope with the field conditions but the PGM machine could,” he says of the sequencer on board. Actually, he says, the Ship-Seq’s sequencing runs were higher quality than in the lab on land. He speculates that the waves enhanced the mixing of chemicals.

“The versatility of our bench top sequencers is only limited by the imagination of today’s scientists,” says Mark Stevenson, executive vice president of Thermo Fisher Scientific in an e-mail to Nature Methods. “Clearly, Dr. Moroz has taken an ingenious idea to a new level and demonstrated that great data can be attained and analyzed in real time – even on a ship that’s rocking on the high seas.”

Seasick but happy
On both trips and despite the seasickness on the second venture, the lab’s team was especially motivated, says Moroz. “It is easy to work a 16-18 hour day when you have the beautiful sea, beautiful creatures around.” People have been important for the overall success of the venture, he says.

Moroz wants to do more trips and expand Ship-Seq’s scientific scope. Using a prototype of the PII chip (which is not yet on the market), he performed single neuron RNA-sequencing in the lab. He projects it might cost around $3 per individual neuronal transcriptome, if one wanted to do a census of neuronal cell types in the brain of a marine organism such as Bolinopsis or others ctenophores, plankton and other, as he calls them, ‘aliens of the sea.’

setting sail for web

It took a while before Ship-Seq could set sail. {credit}L.L. Moroz{/credit}

Ship-Seq and its ‘lab-in-a-container’ offers many opportunities, he says. “The beauty is that it is mobile.” The container could be put on a ship in Florida or it could be sent to Palau or Antarctica and placed on a boat there for not much greater cost. “You can get anywhere,” he says, maybe even set up a “sequencing fleet.”

The planning for the next Ship-Seq trips is underway—but the geographic and scientific directions are not yet finalized. And the finances, too, need to be organized. The trip might focus on more complex marine organisms. For example, cephalopods have complex brains, lending them their nickname ‘primates of the sea.’ Moroz hopes to one day study their neurobiology, integrating field biology, behavior, and genomics. He also wants to be part of the ongoing ‘race to save species,’ to not only study but also “preserve our planet.”

Moroz has encountered plenty of detractors and skeptics. Whenever he is criticized and told he should stick to the traditional way of doing science, his path of taking the lab to the sea feels right. He says it reinforces his sense: “I must do it.” To him, doing science on Ship-Seq feels like “the investigation of a new planet.”

Ship-Seq Protocol
1 x 141-foot boat
1 x generous entrepreneur
1 x ship’s crew
1 x mobile molecular biology lab equipped with lab benches, a sequencer, reagents
1 x manufacturer of a high-throughput sequencer willing to donate an instrument
1 x satellite link to a supercomputer
1 x lab staff and scientist/wife willing to be scientist-sailors
1 x diving equipment
1 x funding National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
3 x support from non-profit organizations: Florida Biodiversity Institute, Florida Museum of Natural History, the International Seakeepers Society
1,000 international units of patience
Several remedies for seasickness

Brain initiatives galore, smiles aplenty

Vivien Marx reports on the Society for Neuroscience meeting in San Diego and the big brain projects in the EU and US.

SfN attendance sign

The Society for Neuroscience annual meeting in San Diego clocked record attendance.{credit}Vivien Marx{/credit}

The brain is hot.

Despite dismay about the recent 16-day US government shutdown, the impact of automatic budget cuts–the sequester–taking effect in light of federal budget disagreements in Washington, and the general economic malaise, there is palpable excitement. New large-scale initiatives are getting underway around the world to develop technologies to empower neuroscientists.

This year’s Society for Neuroscience (SfN) meeting in San Diego that has just ended, clocked a record attendance of over 30,000 attendees, noted society president Larry Swanson to attendees with a broad smile in one of his conference announcements. “It is an inspirational time to be a neuroscientist,” he said, with the field drawing attention, for example, across the European Union and in the White House. In a town hall meeting for the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, there was no lack of critical comments and suggestions of aspects to include in BRAIN. But smiles stayed plentiful as funders explained their plans.

The fact that the US president chose neuroscience as his multi-year, signature project is something “we should all be pretty excited about,” says Tom Insel, director of the National Institutes of Mental Health. In addition to projects in the US, such as  (BRAIN) Initiative and the EU’s Human Brain Project, large neuroscience projects are just emerging in Australia, China, Japan and Israel. “This is beginning to feel like a global movement,” he says. And projects are unfurling in the private sector, too.

The new tools, says Story Landis, director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, will help neuroscientists do their work “bigger, better, faster” and expand the research strides made in recent years.

Much remains to be done. Compared to what is known about the kidney or heart, very little is known about the brain, says Insel. Adding to the neurological diseases, he noted, are the “invisible wounds of war” such as traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. Tools to help diagnose these illnesses are urgently needed.

Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse says that the BRAIN initiative stands to “act like a catalyst” in ways not unlike the decoding of the human genome and its successive “avalanche of discovery.”

Besides attending SfN’s hundreds of sessions and 17,000 posters, scientists had the chance to get up close and personal with representatives from the funding agencies and to hear about and discuss the new opportunities. Here is a snapshot of some of the announcements.

European Union
As Daniel Pasini from the European Commission’s programme on future and emerging technologies explained, the 10-year European Human Brain Project has invited the scientific community to present “grand ideas” for a massive effort to computationally reconstruct the human brain using supercomputers.

The model will help to study brain-related diseases, which are a major health challenge, an economic and social burden, and to pool data and expertise more effectively and translate results for treatments.

The project, which took three years of planning, involves over 250 scientists across Europe in 135 research groups in 22 countries, including groups in the US and Asia. The program began officially in October and has a budget of $1.6 billion. Half of the money will come from the EU the other will come from national funding sources, Pasini says. The first phase is slated to last 30 months and is funded with $100 million.

Six platforms are to be developed including, for example, the neuroinformatic platform as a single point of access to all neuroscience and clinical data along with software tools. The other platforms involve brain simulation, high performance computing, medical informatics, neuromorphic projects and neurorobotics. The idea is to keep improving the model as new data become available. All tools and data are set to be made available to the global scientific community. The plan is to create the ‘CERN for brain research.’ Not unlike a telescope facility or a super-collider, scientists will be able to perform experiments and use this platform to help continue to expand the model.

Deconstructing Henry

The Brain Observatory at UC San Diego is running ‘Deconstructing Henry’ an examination of the Brain of patient H.M.{credit}Vivien Marx{/credit}

US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
“Yes, we build guns and bombs, that is true,” says Colonel Geoffrey Ling of DARPA more generally. He is a neurologist who also served in Afghanistan and Iraq and currently deputy director of DARPA’s division responsible for defense sciences, which does not build bombs and guns. He and many other neuroscientists want to cure diseases ranging from Alzheimer’s to schizophrenia to post traumatic stress disorder to traumatic brain injury. DARPA is indeed “zeroed in” on the problems facing soldiers returning from the battlefield.

Speaking directly to fellow panelists from NIH, he says: “I wish they would double the budget yet again for you guys,” which was greeted by SfN attendees with vigorous applause.

Two DARPA solicitations for proposals are now open, offering “real money,” as Ling says, collecting projects that relate to memory dysfunction and psychiatric disorders. More solicitations are “in the works,” he says. “It’s not for us to decide what you’re going to build,” he says, highlighting the importance of imagination and taking a diversity of approaches.

The funding model at DARPA is shaped by use cases to assure that what is developed serves his constituency, the servicemen and women.

Multidisciplinary research, for example, is not achieved with the collaboration of a cellular neuroscientist, a neurophysiologist, and a neurologist. Rather, for DARPA interdisciplinary efforts can be a team comprised of a mathematician, a physicist and “a crazy guy in his backyard putting together some Rube Goldberg thing,” says Ling.

Unlike NIH, DARPA issues no grants but rather contracts, which are “deliverables-driven,” and may seem more rigid that NIH. But he sees strength in the synergy of the different funding approaches by NSF, NIH and DARPA. DARPA is committed to this project over the next decade, says Ling.

Data-sharing provisions are built into each contract, which DARPA takes “extremely seriously,” and breach of contracts are pursued. The DARPA solicitations issued are just the beginning, he says.

Systems based Neurotechnology for Emerging Therapies (SUBNETS)
Deadline: Dec. 17, 2013
This project seeks proposals to develop devices, perform model organism based research, or enable modeling of human neural systems, which are geared to help treat patients with neuropsychiatric and neurologic disease.

Restoring Active Memory (RAM)
Deadline: Jan. 6, 2014
This project seeks proposals in the area of analyzing and decoding neuronal signals which can be used to help patients recover memory function after injury.

SfN attendee bag

Companies in the neuroscience field may benefit from funding in the emerging large-scale projects. Here a scientst at SfN wears one company’s advertisement.{credit}Vivien Marx{/credit}

National Institutes of Health (NIH)
No grants have yet been awarded through the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. But grants are in the pipeline. True, says Insel, some see the project as a perhaps $40 billion dollar challenge, but he views the funding in 2014 as an “initial investment.”

The first report of the BRAIN initiative’s working group, says Landis, offers a guide for how the project could begin to move forward in its first year. The working group, is the advisory committee to the NIH director is chaired by Rockefeller University’s Cornelia Bargmann and Stanford University’s Bill Newsome. Landis says excitement is high in the Obama administration and across NIH. The hope is that this enthusiasm would be reflected in the budget allocations.

The NIH first year funding is “a down payment,” she says.

Insel says that the NIH’s $40 million to be allocated in 2014 is drawn from the following sources:

  • $10 million are coming from the NIH Director’s discretionary fund
  • $10 million are from the NIH Blueprint Neuroscience a program to enhance collaboration across NIH institutes
  • $20 million are split among four NIH agencies: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA)

These monies were previously slated for initiatives of the individual institutes’ choice. As Landis explains, these four agencies agreed that the BRAIN Initiative was the one they selected for fund allocation. She says she and her colleagues are “optimistic” that the excitement, opportunities and promise of the BRAIN initiative will power the budgets of the future. Throughout sessions at SfN, she, Insel and others were quick to squelch fears that BRAIN would draw funding away from investigator-driven grants.

The first NIH Requests for Applications (RFAs) are currently begin hashed out with cross-communication happening across NIH, NSF and DARPA, says Insel.

All BRAIN Initiative projects will be peer-reviewed and perhaps unlike the more classic grants, they will have milestones and there will be expectations of data-sharing. “That’s going to be baked into everything we do in this project,” says Insel. Evaluations will accompany the projects after they are funded.

A number of awards are likely to be cooperative agreements, which are part way between a contract with deliverables and R01s, says Landis. These agreements are accompanied by milestones. If researchers do not share data and that provision is in their notice of grant award “there can be consequences,” she says.

Update: In mid-December NIH announced six funding opportunities. Approximately $44 million will finance six new funding opportunities.

Sunset at SfN

Two of the 30,000 attending scientists take a break outside the SfN conference halls.{credit}Vivien Marx{/credit}

National Science Foundation (NSF)
Cora Marrett, the acting director of the NSF says her agency will “very energetically” support the BRAIN Initiative. She says that funders need to take “the long view” to let the forces of scientific discovery play out with a long-term commitment. “I’m feeling very optimistic, too, about what the long-run prospects for additional resources will look like.”

Evidence of NSF’s engagement with neuroscience in general can be seen in the recent $25 million grant to fund the Center for Brains, Mind and Machines at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The intent is to blend computer science, math, robotics, neuroscience and cognitive science.

The BRAIN Initiative will require intense collaboration across disciplines and scales, she says. Neuroscience has been more devoted to small science, she says, the work of individual principal investigators and small lab groups. Marrett agrees with Alan Leshner, the executive publisher of Science, that neuroscience’s strides will benefit from a change in the culture toward larger-scale, interdisciplinary efforts.

At the same time, this shift will occur without prescriptions that all work needs to be on “the huge scale” of a particle accelerator, for example. Indeed neuroscientists will need to integrate findings across the scales of their research and link physiology, biophysical and genetic data with cognitive and behavioral findings (see Leshner Editorial in Science).

The projects will require data management plans of the grantees, she says, to explain how they will handle data-sharing, which is to the benefit of the entire enterprise.

The NIH’s BRAIN Initiative interim report – notes and thoughts

The first official report lists the scientific priorities that will be funded by the NIH as part of the BRAIN Initiative

brain_map

{credit}Margrie & Osten, Nat. Methods{/credit}

Yesterday evening we heard the first official report that delivered some details about what scientific areas the BRAIN Initiative (at least the part coordinated by the National Institutes of Health) will focus on and what its general approach to science funding will be.

Cori Bargmann and Bill Newsome (co-chairs of the NIH-appointed panel that is advising the NIH-director about the plan) spoke through a webcasted seminar to explain the conclusions that arose from the series of scientific workshops and meetings that have been taking place over the summer to discuss what could be the scientific priorities of the BRAIN Initiative. These priorities will set the ground of the research areas to be funded by the BRAIN initiative NIH funding in Fiscal Year 2014 (with a budget of US $40M).

The overall goal of the project was summarized as focusing of developing tools and resources for analyzing neuronal circuits and their function in living organisms.

The two scientists delved on a number of principles that applied to the overall initiative, such as promoting platforms for data sharing, promoting interdisciplinary research and focusing on a variety of experimental organisms and studies across temporal and spatial scales.

The specific areas that will be funded through the Initiative are summarized below:

  1. Generate a census of cell types in the nervous system. Including neurons and glia and techniques for targeting them. To be attempted in parallel in human and animal samples. Methods developed for this should apply across species.
  2. Create structural maps of the brain. This means cell to cell level connections in different animal models. This would complement the Human Connectome project (based on macroscale neuroimaging approaches).
  3. Develop new large scale methods for recording chemical and electrical activity of neurons. Scaling up of electrophysiological and imaging methods as well as completely new technologies.
  4. Develop a suite of tools for circuit manipulation and perturbation of circuit function. A push for the development of technologies like optogenetics that enable manipulating nervous activity in ways that resemble natural activity patterns.
  5. Linking brain activity to behavior. Activity monitoring at the same time that behavior is monitored. Highlighting the importance of making simultaneous measurements during long periods of time and during different types of behaviors.
  6. Integrating theory, statistics and computation with experimentation. Importance of theoretical frameworks that could explain principles of brain function.
  7. Delineate mechanisms underlying macroscale brain imaging technologies, as used in humans.
  8. Create mechanisms to enable collection of human data.
  9. Provide training so that new methods reach the community and promoting interdisciplinary research.

Although these FY2014 research priorities are presented as 9 independent entities, the goal is really to integrate these approaches as much as possible —but how exactly this integration will take place or be promoted is to be revealed by June 2014.  The goals are also highly ambitious and will require much more funding than the BRAIN Intiative’s current budget.

The speakers noted that the goals were not “to develop tools for tools sake” but tools that could have applicability. Innovative tools, thoroughly validated and applied in real nervous systems, improved through iterations and to ensure that they are disseminated efficiently to the community.

The commission also highlighted that their goal was not to deliver the solutions but the problems. Solutions to addressing these challenges are to come from ‘bottom-up’ approaches proposed by the community of scientists.

Tools for studying individual cells in the brain or the entire brain as a whole exist and continue to be very useful. But methods for understanding how connected networks of cells in the brain work and relate to behavior are still largely missing. Even maps of these connected entities remain unknown. Focusing funding on better tools to close this gap will be exciting and productive for advancing neuroscience as a whole.

The conclusions disclosed in this interim report are very much in line with what was expected of the project as announced a few months ago. They also largely agree with the main scientific goals that were deemed to be the top funding priorities for the National Science Foundation for the BRAIN Initiative (which will have US$20M to contribute, as well). Indeed, many of the topics covered in these 9 areas were things we and others discussed in editorials and commentaries related to the BRAIN Initiative in our pages and in this blog. The working group that has developed these priorities has had an inclusive, overarching frame of mind and included most of the major challenges that neuroscience currently faces, as most scientists would probably agree.

As we’ve said before, a push for technology development in neuroscience, with clear goals and challenges that these tools need to tackle, will surely be an efficient way of advancing the science of the brain.

It’s time to map the brain

A special complimentary focus on technology for large scale mapping of anatomy and function of brain circuits at Nature Methods
0613 NMeth cover-hires

These are exciting times in neuroscience. The technology available for  large-scale anatomical and functional brain mapping is advancing at a very high speed and it is foreseeable that these brain maps will have a profound impact on our understanding of how the brain works. Because of the importance of this topic, we devote a special focus to it.

To understand the brain we need to know how and when neurons fire in the living animal while it performs naturalistic behaviors. We need to know the underlying wiring patterns and anatomical configuration of the circuits and we need to be able to develop testable models of how behaviors arise from the underlying function of the cells in the brain.

Obtaining this type of systems-level information about the brain has not been easy up to now. But thanks to technological development, this is rapidly changing.

Rendering the connectivity maps of entire areas of the mammalian nervous system, like the retina, at nanometer resolution is now feasible in a few years work. These structural maps will contain unique information about the characteristics of neural circuits. But in addition to anatomical information, we need to monitor the brain at work at cellular level and we need to gather molecular information about its components. Together, the compilation of functional, structural and molecular data about the circuits in the living brain and their relation to behavior opens new posibilities for neuroscience.

Data-gathering alone will not, however, deliver the answers. Neuroscientists will need help from statisticians and mathematicians to make the information understandable and interpretable. After all, the data is only a tool that one hopes will lead to testable theories and models about how the brain works.

Because of the exciting moment at which the technology for mapping the brain is, we have put together a collection of Reviews, Perspectives and Commentaries in which experts discuss the state of the art technologies available for mapping the brain, the challenges and the potential of this endeavor. All the materials in this focus are freely available (thanks to our sponsors)—you can also read more about our views on the importance of this topic for neuroscience in our editorial.

We hope that these pieces will inform, inspire and incite discussions about mapping the brain and its potential to help us advance towards a deeper understanding of our own minds.

An era for BRAIN technology

President Barack Obama has just proposed large investments in a project aiming to develop technologies that enhance our understanding of brain function.

In an official announcement from the White House, US President Obama just launched the BRAIN (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) Initiative project. This basic research project is expected to receive large sums of public and private funding to promote technologies that expand our knowledge of brain function.

This was a much awaited announcement. From what can be read in the White House’s official Press release, the BRAIN Initiative will be a collaboration between the US National Institutes of Health, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science Foundation, with an initial injection of funds going up to $100 million for 2014.

To set the goals and timeline of this project, the NIH will establish a working group composed of 60-80 scientists co-chaired by Cori Bargmann of Rockefeller University and Bill Newsome from Stanford University. Through workshops and meetings that will take place in 2013, the working group will define the detailed scientific goals and establish a multi-year scientific plan for achieving them. The workshops are to start in about one month.

In addition, the project will have several private sector partners: the Allen Institute for Brain Science, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), the Kavli Foundation and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. Most of these institutions have already been investing in technology development to address the challenges of understanding the brain for some time. In fact, Nature Methods recently published work from HHMI investigators showing the first whole brain imaging of neural activity at the single-cell level. As the details of the goals and timelines of the BRAIN Initiative become clearer over the next few months, we will likely have a more concrete idea of how the budget for BRAIN will be projected in the coming years.

What is unique about BRAIN compared to other previous ‘big science’ projects like the Human Genome Project is that it is advocating for technology development first as it lays out its broad goals without indicating a particular biological idea or concept. The need for technology development is so dear in neuroscience that in our view devoting substantial resources to this is essential for understanding brain function, a view that appears to be shared by the HHMI as evidenced by the substantial technology development they are funding for brain research at the HHMI Janelia Farm Research campus.

As we have discussed in previous posts on this site and in our April Editorial, to understand the brain we will need technologies that help large scale mapping of the structural wiring diagrams in the brain, that record the activity of whole brains in action at resolutions that mirror those of physiology and behavior and that link function and behavior. In all these areas, we first need to improve our tools and methods.

The progress that can be made by promoting technological development cannot be underestimated. Once more powerful methods are in the hands of researchers, knowledge will advance at a much higher speed and investments in science will be more productive and efficient.

Technology development at the heart of ‘big neuroscience’

European and US initiatives aiming to advance our understanding of brain function depend on new technologies.  

Last January the European Commission awarded one of its flagship grants worth 1 billion Euros ($1.3 billion) to the Human Brain Project, an international initiative that seeks to integrate everything we know about the brain into databases and computer models. The Human Brain Project builds on the work of the Blue Brain Project led by Henry Markram of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne and seeks to simulate the workings of the human brain.  

The NIH is also likely to support a  big collaborative effort to improve our understanding of the brain through the Brain Activity Map, a  project that aims to develop technologies to monitor and modulate the activity of whole brain circuits at cellular level.

As we discuss in our recent editorial, technological development is a fundamental pillar of both of these projects. The Human Brain Project will require significant advancements in algorithms and computing technology, and will benefit from improvements in the type of data that is used to create the models. The Brain Activity Map faces challenges due to the difficulty of recording the activity of neurons distributed across large brain areas simultaneously and at the cellular level. As its proponents have outlined, the project will require large efforts in new technological development in the areas of functional brain imaging and optogenetics. It also has to set realistic goals and focus much of its initial effors in model organisms.

Understanding brain function and its pathologies is undoubtedly a challenge worth taking—the steps that will take us in the right direction hinge on our capacity to work across scientific disciplines and stimulate major technological advances.

Whole brain cellular-level activity mapping in a second

It is now possible to map the activity of nearly all the neurons in a vertebrate brain at cellular resolution in just over a second. What does this mean for neuroscience research and projects like the Brain Activity Map proposal?

In an Article that just went live in Nature Methods, Misha Ahrens and Philipp Keller from HHMI’s Janelia Farm Research Campus used high-speed light sheet microscopy to image the activity of 80% of the neurons in the brain of a fish larva at speeds of a whole brain every 1.3 seconds. This represents—to our knowledge—the first technology that achieves whole brain imaging of a vertebrate brain at cellular resolution with speeds that approximate neural activity patterns and behavior.

Click on the image to view the video.

Brain activity imaging of a whole zebrafish brain at single-cell resolution. Click on image to view video [20 MB].

Interestingly, the paper comes out at a time when much is being discussed and written about mapping brain activity at the cellular level. This is one of the main proposals of the Brain Activity Map—a project that is being discussed at the White House and could be NIH’s next ‘big science’ project for the next 10-15 years. [Just for clarity, the authors of this work are not formally associated with the BAM proposal].

The details of BAM’s exact goals and a clear roadmap and timeline to achieve them have yet to be presented, but from what its proponents have described in a recent Science paper the main aspiration of the project is to improve our understanding of how whole neuronal circuits work at the cellular level. The project seeks to monitor the activity of whole circuits as well as manipulate them to study their functional role. To reach these goals, first and foremost one must have technology capable of measuring the activity of individual neurons throughout the entire brain in a way that can discriminate individual circuits. The most obvious way to do this is by imaging the activity as it is occurring.

With improvements in the speed and resolution of existing microscopy setups and in the probes for monitoring activity, exhaustive imaging of neuronal function across a small transparent organism was bound to be possible—as this study has now shown.

The study has also made interesting discoveries. The authors saw correlated activity patterns measured at the cellular level that spanned large areas of the brain—pointing to the existence of broadly distributed functional circuits. The next steps will be to determine the causal role that these circuits play in behavior—something that will require improvements in the methods for 3D optogenetics. Obtaining the detailed anatomical map of these circuits will also be key to understand the brain’s organization at its deepest level.

These are some of the types of experiments described in the BAM proposal and they are clearly within reach in the next 10 years–whether through a centralized initiative or through normal lab competition and peer review. While it is expected that in mice, too, functional circuits will span large brain areas, performing these types of experiments in mice will require more methodological imagination. It will not be possible to place a living mouse brain within the microscope system used by Ahrens and Keller to image the zebrafish brain. The mouse brain is significantly bigger, is largely impenetrable to visible light and is surrounded by a skull. Realistically, we may not see methods that enable whole brain activity mapping in mammals at the cellular level for quite a while.

But there is much worth learning about brain function in smaller organisms such as the zebrafish and drosophila, and microscopy systems such as this will be capable of providing important fundamental insights into brain function that are relevant to our understanding of the human brain.

Whether it will be through BAM or not, the neuroscience community has important challenges to tackle ahead. At Nature Methods, we have been actively involved in supporting technology development in the neurosciences from the very beginning and we look forward with enthusiasm to doing so during this exciting period in neuroscience research.

Update: We just published an Editorial on this topic in our May issue.

What’s behind an fMRI signal?

In this month’s editorial we discuss the importance of gaining a deeper understanding of the signals underlying fMRI technology.

Despite the increased interest in this technology and the huge investments, we know very little about the underlying biology that produces these signals. This lack of understanding limits the type of information that can be obtained from this methodology and its utility to help us understand how our brains work.

We discuss new technological developments that might help address this question, including a research article by Dr. Helmchen and colleagues in this issue.

Dialogs between neuroimagers and cellular neurobiologists are critical to solve this question, as has been discussed before and funding institutions should give a higher priority to projects focused on gaining a deeper understanding of these complex signals.

Using the NIH RePORTER database we performed a search based on the following terms: ‘functional magnetic resonance imaging’ and ‘brain imaging’. We restricted the search to active projects starting on 1 January 2010 and we screened through the list of projects to remove those that were related to MRI but not fMRI. We then added up the total cost of all projects in the curated list. The number that we present in the piece is approximate and has not been scrutinized in detail. This way, we came up with the approximate amount of money that the US National Institute of Health has spent over different time periods in the last years. 

An exponential increase in scientific publications based on fMRI research has also been observed over the last years.

We’re curious to hear what you think of this!