Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Irvine, Irvine, CA, 92617, United States.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Irvine, Irvine, CA, 92617, United States; Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Irvine, Irvine, CA, 92617, United States; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Irvine, Irvine, CA, 92617, United States; Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Irvine, Irvine CA, 92617, United States; Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, Irvine, Irvine, CA, 92617, United States; UCI Mind, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, 92617, United States.
J Neurosci Methods. 2021 Jan 15;348:109005. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2020.109005. Epub 2020 Nov 20.
Viruses have proved instrumental to elucidating neuronal connectivity relationships in a variety of organisms. Recent advances in genetic technologies have facilitated analysis of neurons directly connected to a defined starter population. These advances have also made viral transneuronal mapping available to the broader neuroscience community, where one-step rabies virus mapping has become routine. This method is commonly used to identify inputs onto defined cell populations, to demonstrate the quantitative proportion of inputs coming from specific brain regions, or to compare input patterns between two or more cell populations. Furthermore, the number of inputs labeled is often assumed to reflect the number of synaptic connections, and these viruses are commonly believed to label strong synapses more efficiently than weak synapses. While these maps are often interpreted to provide a quantitative estimate of the synaptic landscape onto starter cell populations, in fact very little is known about how transneuronal transmission takes place. We do not know how these viruses transmit between neurons, if they display biases in the cell types labeled, or even if transmission is synapse-specific. In this review, we discuss the experimental evidence against or in support of key concepts in viral tracing, focusing mostly on the use of one-step rabies input mapping and related methods. Does spread of these viruses occur specifically through synaptic connections, preferentially through synapses, or non-specifically? How efficient is viral transneuronal transmission, and is this efficiency equal in all cell types? And lastly, to what extent does viral labeling reflect functional connectivity?
病毒已被证明在阐明各种生物体中的神经元连接关系方面具有重要作用。遗传技术的最新进展促进了对与特定起始群体直接相连的神经元的分析。这些进展还使更广泛的神经科学界能够使用病毒转导神经示踪技术,其中一步狂犬病毒示踪技术已成为常规方法。该方法通常用于识别特定细胞群体的输入,以证明来自特定脑区的输入的定量比例,或比较两个或更多细胞群体之间的输入模式。此外,标记的输入数量通常被认为反映了突触连接的数量,并且这些病毒通常被认为比弱突触更有效地标记强突触。尽管这些图谱通常被解释为提供起始细胞群体上的突触景观的定量估计,但实际上,我们对转导神经元的传递过程知之甚少。我们不知道这些病毒在神经元之间如何传递,如果它们在标记的细胞类型中存在偏向,甚至不知道传递是否是特异性突触的。在这篇综述中,我们讨论了支持或反对病毒示踪关键概念的实验证据,重点讨论了一步狂犬病毒输入映射和相关方法的使用。这些病毒的传播是否专门通过突触连接,优先通过突触,还是非特异性地传播?病毒转导神经元的传递效率如何,所有细胞类型的效率是否相等?最后,病毒标记在多大程度上反映了功能连接?