Skip to main content
eLife logoLink to eLife
. 2024 Mar 13;13:e93485. doi: 10.7554/eLife.93485

Maturation of cortical input to dorsal raphe nucleus increases behavioral persistence in mice

Nicolas Gutierrez-Castellanos 1,, Dario Sarra 1,2,†,, Beatriz S Godinho 1,2,, Zachary F Mainen 1,
Editors: Geoffrey Schoenbaum3, Michael J Frank4
PMCID: PMC10994666  PMID: 38477558

Abstract

The ability to persist toward a desired objective is a fundamental aspect of behavioral control whose impairment is implicated in several behavioral disorders. One of the prominent features of behavioral persistence is that its maturation occurs relatively late in development. This is presumed to echo the developmental time course of a corresponding circuit within late-maturing parts of the brain, such as the prefrontal cortex, but the specific identity of the responsible circuits is unknown. Here, we used a genetic approach to describe the maturation of the projection from layer 5 neurons of the neocortex to the dorsal raphe nucleus in mice. Using optogenetic-assisted circuit mapping, we show that this projection undergoes a dramatic increase in synaptic potency between postnatal weeks 3 and 8, corresponding to the transition from juvenile to adult. We then show that this period corresponds to an increase in the behavioral persistence that mice exhibit in a foraging task. Finally, we used a genetic targeting strategy that primarily affected neurons in the medial prefrontal cortex, to selectively ablate this pathway in adulthood and show that mice revert to a behavioral phenotype similar to juveniles. These results suggest that frontal cortical to dorsal raphe input is a critical anatomical and functional substrate of the development and manifestation of behavioral persistence.

Research organism: Mouse

Introduction

Multiple aspects of behavioral control, including attention, cognitive flexibility, and behavioral persistence, emerge during critical periods of postnatal development. In these periods, environment and experience contribute to the maturation of higher cognitive functions (Larsen and Luna, 2018; Mischel et al., 1989; Tooley et al., 2021), which sets the foundations of future social and cognitive abilities during adulthood (Casey et al., 2011; Moffitt et al., 2011).

Ethologically, the development of behavioral control is critical for selective fitness and, thus, survival. For instance, in the natural environment, food resources are often sparsely distributed and depleted with consumption. Therefore, the well-known tradeoff between exploiting a depleting resource and exploring in search of alternatives is crucial to reach an optimal foraging strategy and obtain the maximum amount of resources with minimal waste of physical effort. Therefore, a forager in a possibly depleted patch of food faces an important dilemma—to stay and continue to forage at the site or to leave and travel to another—that calls for a careful balancing between persistence (staying) and flexibility (leaving) (Charnov, 1976; Lottem et al., 2018; Morris and Davidson, 2000; Vertechi et al., 2020).

From a neural perspective, cognitive development correlates with large-scale synaptic and structural changes (Durston and Casey, 2006; Shaw et al., 2006; Zuo et al., 2010; Zuo et al., 2017) that are considered to underlie the emergence of increasing cognitive control over innate impulsive behavioral tendencies (Alexander-Bloch et al., 2013; Fair et al., 2009; Luna et al., 2001). A variety of evidence links the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) to the expression of behavioral control in a wide range of mammal species. For instance, humans and macaques with prefrontal cortical damage display deficits in behavioral flexibility, decision making, and emotional processing (Izquierdo et al., 2017; Rudebeck et al., 2013; Roberts et al., 1998), as well as a notable increase in impulsive behavior (Berlin et al., 2004; Dalley and Robbins, 2017; Fellows, 2006; Itami and Uno, 2002), all of which, at least partially, recapitulate features of juvenile behavior over healthy development in humans, non-human primates, and rodents (Rosati et al., 2023; Doremus-Fitzwater et al., 2012; Romer, 2010; Weed et al., 2008). In line with this, local pharmacological inhibition of mPFC significantly limits rats’ ability to wait for a delayed reward (Murakami et al., 2017; Narayanan et al., 2006).

Crucially, the mPFC undergoes intense postnatal maturation from childhood to adulthood, particularly during adolescence (Chini and Hanganu-Opatz, 2021), which in humans spans from years ~10 to 18 of life and in mice from weeks ~3 to 8 of life, and is a period of intense somatic maturation, including sexual development (Bell, 2018), and that correlates with a decrease in impulsive behavior characteristic of the juvenile phase (Rosati et al., 2023; Doremus-Fitzwater et al., 2012; Hammond et al., 2011; Konstantoudaki et al., 2018).

The maturation of the mPFC includes structural and functional modifications during childhood and adolescence (Chini and Hanganu-Opatz, 2021; Sakurai and Gamo, 2019). Although it has been long hypothesized that the neural changes occurring in the mPFC during development are central to the emergence of behavioral control (e.g. Durston and Casey, 2006; Sowell et al., 1999) the specific plastic arrangements underlying behavioral control development remain poorly understood.

A number of studies have focused on the local changes of mPFC circuits, such as the changes in cortical thickness caused by cellular structural plasticity and synaptic pruning that are characteristic of early postnatal developmental phases in both humans and mice (Nagy et al., 2004; Alexander-Bloch et al., 2013; Ueda et al., 2015; Kolk and Rakic, 2022), as a putative locus underlying cognitive development. More recently, studies in rodents have shed light on the development of long-range top-down mPFC extracortical connections as the putative origin of certain aspects of cognitive development (Klune et al., 2021). In particular, the development of mPFC afferents to the amygdala may shape the response to threats across different stages of development (Arruda-Carvalho et al., 2017; Dincheva et al., 2015; Gee et al., 2016), and the development of mPFC input onto the dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN) shapes the response to stress (Soiza-Reilly et al., 2019).

A growing body of evidence supports that 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) neuron activity in the DRN is related to increases in the ability to wait for rewards (Winstanley et al., 2005; Fonseca et al., 2015; Lottem et al., 2018; Miyazaki et al., 2011; Miyazaki et al., 2018; Miyazaki et al., 2014). This kind of behavior can be considered an instance of behavioral or cognitive control (Cools et al., 2008; Dayan and Huys, 2009), which can be manifested either as passive waiting (Fonseca et al., 2015; Miyazaki et al., 2012;Miyazaki et al., 2018; Miyazaki et al., 2014)https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?gvZa7for active persistence (Lottem et al., 2018). The raphe has likewise been implicated in the active overcoming of adverse situations (Nishitani et al., 2019; Ohmura et al., 2020; Warden et al., 2012).

The mPFC sends a dense glutamatergic projection to the DRN at the adult stage (Pollak Dorocic et al., 2014; Weissbourd et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2017), which can bidirectionally modulate the activity of 5-HT DRN neurons through monosynaptic excitation or disynaptic feedforward inhibition through local interneurons (Challis et al., 2014; Geddes et al., 2016; Maier, 2015; Warden et al., 2012). Selective optogenetic activation of the mPFC inputs to the DRN elicits active behavioral responses in a challenging context (Warden et al., 2012), and perturbations in the development of this pathway lead to maladaptive anxiety levels (Soiza-Reilly et al., 2019). Conversely, optogenetic activation of the DRN 5-HT input to the mPFC specifically promotes waiting for probabilistic rewards (Miyazaki et al., 2020).

Given the reciprocal connectivity between the mPFC and DRN (Puig and Gulledge, 2011) and that both areas causally modulate animals’ ability to wait for delayed rewards (Ciaramelli et al., 2021; Fonseca et al., 2015; Miyazaki et al., 2011; Miyazaki et al., 2018; Murakami et al., 2017; Schweighofer et al., 2008), it seems plausible that the maturation of mPFC input to the DRN over development could underlie the emergence of behavioral persistence in mice.

Therefore, we sought to characterize the development of cortical innervation onto the DRN and its functional consequences in the context of behavioral persistence. In contrast to previous studies in which adult behavioral readouts were assessed after developmental perturbations (Bitzenhofer et al., 2021; Soiza-Reilly et al., 2019), we undertook a longitudinal study, characterizing behavior, synaptic physiology and anatomy, in parallel, from adolescence to adulthood. First, using a transgenic line (Rbp-Cre) that targets the layer 5 neurons that provide the neocortical input to the DRN, we discovered that this input undergoes a dramatic increase in potency over the course of development from 3 to 4 weeks (juvenile) to 7 to 8 weeks (adult). Then, using a probabilistic foraging task, we found that mice’s behavior persistence increased over the same period. Finally, using a genetic ablation technique that primarily affected the mPFC, we showed that ablation of neocortical input to the DRN in adult mice recapitulated the juvenile foraging behavior. Together, these results identify a descending neocortical pathway to the DRN that is critical to the maturation of behavioral control that characterizes adulthood.

Results

Cortical top–down input over the dorsal raphe matures in the transition between adolescence and adulthood in mice

First, to characterize the development of neocortical projections to the DRN, we focused on the afferents of layer 5 neurons, which are the primary origin of these projections (Pollak Dorocic et al., 2014). To do so, we used a mouse line expressing channelrhodopsin-2 (ChR2) under the Rbp4 promoter (Rbp4-Cre/ChR2-loxP) which targets both intra- and extracortical projecting layer 5 neurons (Leone et al., 2015; Gerfen et al., 2013; Tervo et al., 2016) and that has been previously used to map the postnatal development of extracortical projections (Peixoto et al., 2016). Importantly, this approach represents key advantages over alternative viral based strategies as it is insensitive to injection size and location and avoids surgeries in pup mice, thus not introducing an unwanted source of early life stress (Ririe et al., 2021).

We performed ChR2-assisted circuit mapping (CRACM) (Petreanu et al., 2009) of cortical afferents in brain slices containing the DRN obtained from Rbp4/ChR2 mice between postnatal weeks 3 and 12 (Figure 1A). Taking advantage of the fact that ChR2-expressing axons are excitable even when excised from their parent somata, we evoked firing of presynaptic ChR2-expressing cortical axons innervating the DRN while recording the electrophysiological responses of postsynaptic DRN neurons. We assessed the fraction of recorded DRN neurons receiving cortical excitatory synaptic input (connection probability, Pcon) and the strength of this connection (amplitude of the evoked synaptic response) at different developmental time points.

Figure 1. Top–down cortico-raphe connections develop over adolescence in mice.

(A) Schematic representation of a sagittal view of an Rbp4-ChR2 mouse brain illustrating top–down cortico-raphe afferents. Coronal slices containing the dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN) were obtained ex vivo, and whole-cell recordings of DRN neurons were performed to assess cortical connectivity upon light stimulation. (B) Optogenetically-evoked excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) were recorded in DRN neurons contacted by ChR2-expressing cortical axons (122 neurons, 20 Rbp4-ChR2 mice). The current amplitude of cortico-raphe connections is plotted as a function of postnatal age in mice. (C) Pooled connection probability (connected cells/ total cells) and averaged connection amplitude of cortico-DRN afferents at four different developmental points: early juvenile (3–4 weeks), late juvenile (5–6 weeks), early adult (7–8 weeks), and late adult (5–6 months). (D) Example images illustrate an increased cortico-DRN innervation in adult mice compared to juveniles, while the cortico-accumbens innervation remains constant over the same time period. Scale bar = 400 µm. (E) Number of axonal intersections quantified in the DRN and nucleus accumbens of juvenile and adult mice. (F) Pooled connection probability and averaged connection amplitude of cortico-accumbens afferents in early juvenile and early adult mice. *p < 0.05.

Figure 1—source data 1. Electrophygiological recordings and axonal quantification.

Figure 1.

Figure 1—figure supplement 1. Changes in cortico-raphe connectivity over development are not explained by changes in the location of the recorded dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN) neurons.

Figure 1—figure supplement 1.

(A) Example low magnification picture taken of a recorded DRN neuron and overlaid atlas inset used to determine its location. (B, C) Summary of the spatial location and connectivity of the recorded DRN neurons in juvenile (anterior DRN connected/non-connected = 1/15, posterior DRN connected/non-connected = 1/10) and adult (anterior DRN connected/non-connected = 23/4, posterior DRN connected/non-connected = 13/4) mice.
Figure 1—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Electrophysiological properties of DRN neurons and optogenetic controls.
Figure 1—figure supplement 2. Changes in cortico-raphe connectivity over development are not explained by changes in membrane properties of dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN) neurons or by differential ChR2 expression of ChR2 under the Rbp4 promoter over time.

Figure 1—figure supplement 2.

(A) The input resistance of DRN neurons is comparable over time. (B) The fraction of putative 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) neurons (capacitance >20 pF) and non-5-HT neurons (capacitance <20 pF) (Soiza-Reilly et al., 2019) recorded is comparable across developmental stages fraction of neurons with capacitance >20 pF: 3–4 weeks = 0.53, 5–6 weeks = 0.62, 7–8 weeks = 0.54, 5–6 months = 0.6. Chi-square test χ2 (3, N = 122 neurons) = 0.59, p = 0.89. In addition, no overall changes in input capacitance were observed in DRN neurons across development. (C) The density of fluorescent medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) layer 5 neurons is comparable in juvenile and adult Rbp4-tdTomato mice. (D) The evoked photocurrent in mPFC layer 5 neurons of juvenile and adult Rbp4-ChR2 mice is virtually identical across a wide range of stimulation intensities. Error bars in (A–C) represent median and 95% CI. Error bars in D represent mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM. Scale bar in C = 800 µm).

We found a dramatic increase in the connection probability and amplitude of cortico-raphe input between weeks 3 and 8 (Figure 1B, C). At 3–4 weeks (juvenile mice), the probability of DRN neurons receiving cortical input was equal to 0.07. This probability increased significantly to 0.66 (Pcon 3–4 weeks vs. Pcon 5–6 weeks, Chi-square test χ2 (1, N = 52 neurons) = 24.1, p = 0.00001) at weeks 5–6, reaching a peak connection probability of 0.82 at weeks 7–8 (Figure 1C). Between 5–6 and 7–8 weeks (i.e. late juvenile to adult mice), the amplitude of the optogenetically evoked currents increased from 27.3 ± 6.2 to 128 ± 15.7 pA (mean ± standard error of the mean [SEM], two-tailed t-test, t(55) = 4.03, p = 0.002). To test whether there is a further development of this pathway in the later stages of development, we recorded slices from 5 to 6 months old mice. We observed no further increase in either the connection probability (Pcon 7–8 weeks = 0.82 vs. Pcon 5–6 months = 0.80, Chi-square test χ2 (1, N = 70 neurons) = 0.03, p = 0.84) or the input magnitude (7–8 weeks old = 126 ± 15 pA vs. 5–6 months old = 113 ± 14.1 pA, two-tailed t-test, t(55) = 1.27, p = 0.21, Figure 2B, C). Altogether, these results suggest that the cortico-raphe pathway gradually matures between weeks 3 and 8 and then plateaus. Importantly, the location of the recorded DRN neurons was comparable between juvenile and adult mice (Figure 1—figure supplement 1) and thus, the connectivity changes observed across development do not reflect a biased sampling of differentially innervated subregions of the DRN. Furthermore, the passive electrical properties did not change over development, as measured by input resistance (3–4 weeks: median = 444 MΩ, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [370, 676], 5–6 weeks: median = 612 MΩ, 95% CI = [402, 925], 7–8 weeks: median = 731 MΩ, 95% CI = [519, 943], 5–6 months: median = 532 MΩ, 95% CI = [385, 664], Kruskal–Wallis H(3) = 6.06, p = 0.11) and input capacitance (3–4 weeks: median = 20.7 pF, 95% CI = [17.4, 25.9], 5–6 weeks: median = 22.8 pF, 95% CI = [15.9, 24.8], 7–8 weeks: median = 20.8 pF, 95% CI = [18.3, 28.5], 5–6 months: median = 23.5 pF, 95% CI = [14.1, 44.7], Kruskal–Wallis H(3) = 0.81, p = 0.84) (Figure 1—figure supplement 2A, B), suggesting that changes in the passive propagation of current through DRN neurons is not the underlying cause of the apparent increase in connection probability and input magnitude observed over time.

Figure 2. Adult mice persist longer than juveniles in exploiting a foraging patch.

(A) Illustration of the rodent foraging task. Water-deprived mice seek rewards by probing two nose-ports. (B) Randomly selected examples of poking behavior throughout a naive juvenile, naive adult, and trained adult behavioral session sorted by trial length. Pokes in the active state can be rewarded (in green) or not (in gray). Pokes in the inactive state are never rewarded (in white). After the state switches, the mice have to travel to the other side (left or right port, L annd R) to obtain more water. Leaving time is illustrated with black triangles. (C) Median ± 95% confidence interval (CI) of the reward rate per second for juvenile and adult mice. (D) Cumulative distribution of the probability of leaving (median ± 95% CI across mice) as time elapses from the first poke in a trial for adults and juvenile animals. (E) Regression coefficients ± 95% CI resulting from a parametric bootstrap (n = 1000) of a mixed models logistic regression to explain the probability of leaving. * indicates predictors with a significant impact on the probability of leaving. (F) Median ± 95% CI of the number of pokes per trial (left) and the consecutive pokes after the last reward (right). Juvenile mice do a significantly lower amount of pokes per trial and pokes after the last reward compared to adult mice. (G) Port occupancy as a function of trial time elapsed for juveniles and adults. (H) Regression coefficients ± 95% CI resulting from a parametric bootstrap (n = 1000) of a mixed models logistic regression to explain the port occupancy, as in E. All analyses in C–H computed by pooling the data from all sessions of juvenile (N = 21) or adult (N = 23) mice, yielding a total of 2875 trials (juveniles = 1347, adults = 1528) and 9596 pokes (juveniles = 3908, adults = 5688).

Figure 2—source data 1. Foraging task behavior over development.

Figure 2.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1. Description of mouse nose foraging behavior over the session progression and according to sex.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1.

(A) Distribution of the trial durations for naive juveniles and naive adults (left) and for Caspase and tdTomato control mice (right). Note that the bimodality of the data visibly arises at the single mouse level, indicating each mouse performs short and long leaving times. Consistently, when using Fisher’s exact test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the likelihood of individual mice displaying long leaving times (obtained using k = 2 K-means based categorization) is equivalent to the remainder of their respective groups, 57/59 mice were unable to reject the null hypothesis (data not shown). (B) Left, Individual poke durations for all juvenile and adult mice. Right, Leaving time (median ± 95% confidence interval [CI] across mice) as a function of elapsed trials in a session. (C) Left, Cumulative distribution of the probability of leaving as a function of trial time elapsed (median ± 95% CI across mice) for female and male mice. Right, Regression coefficients ± 95% CI resulting from a parametric bootstrap (n = 1000) of a mixed models logistic regression to explain the probability of leaving. Note the lack of explanatory power for the group variable sex. * indicates predictors with a significant impact on the probability of leaving.
Figure 2—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Behavioral controls across experiments.

In these experiments, the onset of ChR2 expression is dictated by the Cre recombinase expression under the control of the native Rbp4 promoter over development. Therefore, if in the juvenile cortex there were fewer neurons expressing Rbp4 or the onset of expression was near our recording time point, this could affect the net amount of ChR2-expressing top–down cortical axons and/or their net excitability. To control that our findings reflect a development process and not a genetic artifact caused by the temporal dynamics of Rbp4 expression, we performed two additional control experiments in one of the main cortical origins of afferents onto the DRN, the mPFC (Weissbourd et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2017).

First, we compared the density of neurons in the mPFC expressing a fluorescent reporter (tdTomato) under the control of the Rbp4 promoter in juvenile and adult mice. The same density of tdTomato expressing somas was detected in the mPFC of juvenile and adult Rbp4-Cre/tdTomato-loxP mice (Juveniles: median = 4.59 somas per 0.01 mm2, 95% CI = [4.59, 6.18], vs. Adults: median = 5.22 somas per 0.01 mm2, 95% CI = [4.35, 6.06], Mann–Whitney U test (N Juveniles = 3, N Adults = 4) = 6, p = 0.99, Figure 1—figure supplement 2C), indicating that a comparable number of neurons underwent a Cre-dependent recombination of the tdTomato fluorescent reporter under the control of the Rbp4 promoter at both developmental time points. Second, we compared the light-evoked somatic current produced in layer 5 neurons expressing ChR2 under the Rbp4 promoter in juvenile and adult mice. In agreement with the previous control, layer 5 neurons in the mPFC expressing ChR2 under the Rbp4 promoter produced the same amount of photocurrent upon light stimulation in juvenile and adult mice (repeated measures analysis of variance [ANOVA], F(1, 11) = 0. 138, p = 0.71 for age factor, Figure 1—figure supplement 2D). These experiments show that juvenile and adult mice have similar densities of cortical layer 5 projection neurons that could give rise to DRN afferents and that these neurons express similar amounts of ChR2 and thus, if present, projections should be equally detectable by optogenetic circuit mapping across ages.

To further understand the mechanisms underlying the cortico-raphe input strengthening observed over development, we investigated whether the changes of connection probability and input amplitude we observed were accompanied by differences in the density of cortical axonal innervation over the DRN. Indeed, we observed a significantly higher density of Rbp4 positive axons around the DRN in adults compared to juveniles (2.2 ± 0.47 vs. 5.7 ± 0.56 axons per bin in juvenile vs. adult mice, two-tailed t-test (N Juveniles = 4, N Adults = 7), t(9) = 4.15, p = 0.002, Figure 1D, E). This observation supports the idea that the increase in physiological strength we observed reflects in part the growth of new connections between the neocortex and DRN.

To assess whether the development of cortico-raphe projections is specific to raphe projecting cortical afferents or it reflects a more general maturation of corticofugal projections over adolescence in mice, we mapped the anatomical and synaptic development of cortico-accumbens projections, which mainly originate in the mPFC (Phillipson and Griffiths, 1985; Li et al., 2018) and whose functional connectivity has been previously assessed in juvenile rodents (Gorelova and Yang, 1996). In contrast to cortico-raphe afferents, cortico-accumbens projections did not undergo any significant structural change over the same developmental period (4.5 ± 0.54 vs. 5.8 ± 0.74 axons per bin in juvenile vs. adult mice, two-tailed t-test (N Juveniles = 3, N Adults = 7), t(8) = 1.09, p = 0.40, Figure 1D, E). Consistent with the anatomy, the ChR2-assisted mapping of cortico-accumbens connections in juvenile and adult Rbp4-ChR2 mice revealed no change in either the connection probability (Pcon 3–4 weeks = 0.90 vs. Pcon 7–8 weeks = 0 .87, Chi-square test χ2 (1, N = 19 neurons) = 0.03, p = 0.81) or the input amplitude in the transition from juveniles to adults (two-tailed t-test, t(15) = 0.15, p = 0.88, Figure 1F). Altogether, these observations reveal the structural and synaptic development of a subpopulation of cortical afferents targeting the DRN during the transition to adulthood in mice that does not reflect a generalized development of corticofugal projections.

Baseline persistence correlates with the maturation of cortico-raphe input in the transition between adolescence and adulthood in mice

To investigate the development of behavioral persistence in mice, we employed a self-paced probabilistic foraging task (Vertechi et al., 2020). The setup consists of a box with two nose-ports separated by a barrier (Figure 2A). Each nose-port constitutes a foraging site that water-deprived mice can actively probe in order to receive water rewards. Only one foraging site is active at a time, delivering reward with a fixed probability. Each try in the active site can also cause a switch of the active site’s location with a fixed probability (Figure 2B). After a state switch, mice have to travel to the other port to obtain more reward, bearing a time cost to travel. In this task, a trial is defined as a bout of consecutive attempts on the same port, before leaving, and the amount of time spent attempting to obtain reward in one port before switching is the primary measure of persistence, independent of the specific strategy used by the mice (see Discussion).

We compared the behavior of juvenile (weeks 3–4) and adult mice (weeks 7–8) on their first exposure to the apparatus and task, ensuring that differences in persistence do not arise from differences in learning about the task. We used an environment characterized by high reward probability (prwd = 90%) and high site-switching probability (psw = 90%) (Figure 2A). These statistics produce a small number of rewards per trial (Rewards per trial: minimum = 0, maximum = 3) (Figure 2B), and maximize the number of trials performed in one session. Both groups obtained a comparable reward rate (Figure 2C; Adults: median = 0.02 rewards per second, 95% CI = [0.0020, 0.003], Juveniles: median = 0.023 rewards per second, 95% CI = [0.001, 0.012]; Mann–Whitney U test (N Adults = 21, N Juveniles = 23) = 82.0, p = 0.16), indicating that juveniles and adults do not differ in terms of overall competence in performing the task.

Compared to well-trained animals, naive mice tended to interleave poking in the port with investigating the apparatus. Presumably due to the novelty of the environment, they often took long pauses in between pokes at the same port. This resulted in a less regular poking structure than experienced mice (Figure 2B). In light of this observation, it is unlikely that animals were tracking the number of foraging attempts executed on the same site. Therefore, we tested whether leaving choices were better explained as a function of elapsed time. Indeed, we found that contrary to trained mice (Vertechi et al., 2020), for naive mice, elapsed time has more explanatory power on leaving decisions (Akaike information criterion test Leave~1 + PokeTime + (1 + PokeTime|MouseID) vs. Leave~1 + PokeNumber + (1 + PokeNumber|MouseID): AICtime = 1.13e4, AICnumber = 1.14e4 p: 1.94e−23).

To test how postnatal development affects innate persistence, we performed a logistic regression for probability of leaving the patch as a function of the time elapsed within the trial (Figure 2C), trials completed within the session, and the age of the animal (juvenile vs. adult):

Leave~1 + PokeTime + Trial + Age + PokeTime&Age + Trial&Age + ( 1 + PokeTime + Trial|Mouse).

We accounted for the individual variability through generalized linear mixed models with random intercept and slope for each mouse (see Methods for the implementation). A factor was considered to significantly affect the decision to leave if the value of its estimated coefficient plus 95% CI (1000 parametric bootstrap analysis, see Methods) did not cross 0.

This analysis showed that juveniles are significantly more likely to leave earlier than adults and thus, less persistent (Figure 2D, E and Figure 2—figure supplement 1A). Consistently, including the Age group in the model significantly contributes to the ability to explain leaving decisions (likelihood ratio test on Leave~1 + PokeTime + Trial + Age + PokeTime&Age + Trial&Age + (1 + PokeTime + Trial|MouseID) vs. Leave~1 + PokeTime + Trial + (1 + PokeTime + Trial|MouseID): X2(3) = 15.65, p = 0.0013).

Another factor significantly explaining foraging was the amount of trials performed. We found that throughout the session animals were progressively leaving earlier — the probability of leaving increased as a function of Trial, indicating that animals become less persistent over the course of the session (Figure 2—figure supplement 1B, likelihood ratio test on Leave~1 + PokeTime + Trial + Age + PokeTime&Age + Trial&Age +(1 + PokeTime + Trial|MouseID) vs. Leave~1 + PokeTime + Age + PokeTime&Age + (1 + PokeTime|MouseID): X2(−5) = 26.88, p < 1e−5). This is likely reflecting a drop in motivation due to the water drunk during the session or accumulated tiredness. Differences in any of these aspects could explain the change in persistence, for instance juveniles might get satiated or tired faster than adults. To test this possibility we analyzed whether the behavioral change over trials was different between the two groups. Crucially, there was no significant interaction between Trial and Age factors (Figure 2E), indicating that differences in satiety or fatigue accumulated throughout the session do not underlie the change in persistence between juveniles and adults.

Although the time elapsed from the beginning of a trial is a better metric to explain leaving decisions, it does not distinguish between active persistence and spurious pauses in poking. Changes in leaving time could be caused either by an increase in the number of attempts performed or by an increase in the time between attempts. We therefore compared the number of attempts per trial in adults and juveniles, both as overall number of pokes and as consecutive unrewarded pokes performed after the last reward (Vertechi et al., 2020; Figure 2F). Adults made more pokes per trial than juveniles (Figure 2F; Adults: median = 3.65 pokes per trial, 95% CI = [0.42, 0.51], Juveniles: median = 2.92 pokes per trial, 95% CI = [0.35, 0.50]; Mann–Whitney U test (N Adults = 21, N Juveniles = 23) = 354.5, p = 0.008, effect size = 0.73), and more consecutive failures after the last reward Figure 2F; Adults: median = 2.69 pokes after last reward, 95% CI = [0.39, 0.53], Juveniles: median = 1.96 pokes after last reward, 95% CI = [0.41, 0.52]; Mann–Whitney U test (N Adults = 21, N Juveniles = 23) = 351.0, p = 0.009, effect size = 0.73. Next, we assessed the temporal profile of poking behavior in terms of port occupancy—quantified as the cumulative time spent with the snout in the port divided by the overall time elapsed from the trial beginning (Figure 2G). We found that adult animals were consistently poking for longer than juveniles, as indicated by both a significant effect of the Age variable (Figure 2H) and significant improvement in explanatory power with the Age factor: likelihood ratio test on Occupancy~1 + PokeTime + Age + Age&PokeTime + (1 + PokeTime|MouseID) vs. Occupancy~1 + PokeTime +(1 + PokeTime|MouseID), X2(2) = 20.10, p < 1e−4. Furthermore, the difference between the two groups was constant throughout the trial, as shown by the lack of a significant interaction between poke time and age factors (Figure 2H). Altogether these results indicate that adult animals are actively more persistent than juveniles and this is not explained by qualitative differences in their poking behavior.

Finally, to assess whether the observed change in persistence is consistent in male and female mice we tested, in the same mice cohort, whether the variable sex played a role in leaving decisions. We found no significant effect of Sex on the probability of leaving either alone or in interaction with animals’ age (Figure 2—figure supplement 1C), and including Sex as a predictor had no significant improvement in the model’s ability to explain the decision to leave (Figure 2—figure supplement 1C, likelihood ratio test on Leave~1 + PokeTime + Trial + Age + Sex + Age&Sex + (1 + PokeTime + Trial|MouseID) vs. Leave~1 + PokeTime + Trial + Age + (1 + PokeTime + Trial|MouseID): X2(2) = 3.46, p = 0.18). These results indicate that the maturation of persistence occurs at a similar rate in male and female mice.

Cortico-DRN pathway ablation in adult mice recapitulates juvenile behavioral features

The above results establish a correlation between the development of the descending cortical input to the DRN and the emergence of behavioral persistence. To test the causal link between the development of cortico-raphe afferents and the observed increase in persistence during foraging, we next ablated the cortico-raphe pathway in adult mice and assessed the impact on behavioral persistence.

To ablate cortico-raphe afferents, we used an engineered version of Caspase3 (taCasp3-TEVp) that is able to trigger apoptosis bypassing cellular regulation upon activation by the TEV protease, which is coexpressed in the same construct (Yang et al., 2013). We packaged a Cre-dependent taCasp3-TEVp construct (or the reporter tdTomato as a control) in a retrogradely traveling AAV vector (rAAV), that we locally delivered in the DRN of Rbp4-Cre mice (Figure 3—figure supplement 1). This approach resulted in the fluorescent tagging of cortico-raphe layer 5 projecting neurons in control mice (tdTomato mice) and in the ablation of the same corticofugal pathway in taCasp3-TEVp-injected mice (Caspase mice) (Figure 3A and Figure 3—figure supplement 1).

Figure 3. Animals lacking cortico-raphe projections show less behavioral persistence in exploiting a foraging patch.

(A) Schematic representation of the ablation strategy used for behavioral assessment. Retrogradely transporting AAV vectors expressing either the fluorescent reporter tdTomato (rAAV-tdTomato) or the intrinsically active apoptosis triggering Caspase3 (rAAV-Caspase, Caspase group were locally delivered in the dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN) of Rbp4-Cre mice). In the cortical areas containing tdTomato expressing neurons in control animals (in example picture, PL/IL cortex) the density of neurons was quantified with an immunohistochemistry protocol against the pan-neuronal marker NeuN and compared to the neuronal densities obtained in the same cortical areas of ablated mice (scale bar = 200 microns). (B) Distribution of the neuronal density difference between ablated mice and the mean density of control mice per cortical depth bin in the PL/IL cortex (black shaded error plot). The neuronal density loss observed in ablated mice when compared to control NeuN densities matches the cortical depth in which tdTomato neurons are located (red shaded area). Shaded error plots represent mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). (C) Summary of caspase-control NeuN density per brain area (MO: median = −0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [−2.81, 1.06], PL/IL: median = −2.3, 95% CI = [−4.01, −1.44], AC: median = −2.26, 95% CI = [−3.59, −0.17], Rs: median = 0.75, 95% CI = [−1.80, 1.81], TeA: median = –0.63, 95% CI = [−1.01, 1.76], and M1: median = 0.14, 95% CI = [−1.81, 0.73]). * indicates p<0.05. (D) Randomly selected examples of poking behavior for a tdTomato and caspase behavioral session sorted by trial length. Pokes in the active state can be rewarded (in green) or not (in gray). Pokes in the inactive state are never rewarded (in white). Leaving time is illustrated with black triangles. (E) Median ± 95% CI fraction of the reward rate per second (left), pokes per trial (middle) and the consecutive pokes after the last reward (right). Caspase mice obtain a comparable number of rewards per trial but do a significantly lower amount of pokes per trial and pokes after the last reward compared to control tdTomato mice. * indicates p<0.05. (F) Cumulative distribution of the probability of leaving as a function of trial time elapsed (median ± 95% CI across mice) for tdTomato and Caspase animals. (G) Regression coefficients ± 95% CI resulting from a parametric bootstrap (n = 1000) of a mixed models logistic regression to explain the probability of leaving. * indicates predictors with a significant impact on the probability of leaving. (H) Port occupancy as a function of trial time elapsed for tdTomato and Caspase. (I) Regression coefficients ± 95% CI resulting from a parametric bootstrap (n = 1000) of a mixed models logistic regression to explain the port occupancy. All analyses in B–G computed by pooling the data from the histology and the first session of Caspase (N = 7) or tdTomato (N = 8) mice, yielding a total of 1464 trials (Caspase = 939, tdTomato = 525) and 4742 pokes (Caspase = 2555, tdTomato = 2187).

Figure 3—source data 1. Cell loss and behavioral quantification in caspase and control mice.
elife-93485-fig3-data1.xlsx (391.3KB, xlsx)

Figure 3.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1. Viral injections in the dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN) provide localized cortico-DRN axonal feedback and do not affect neuronal density.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1.

(A) Example confocal images containing the DRN and adjacent structures for a control tdTomato and a Caspase injection (left and right, respectively) in which the native fluorescence of tdTomato (red) and the immunohistochemical detection of a pan-neuronal marker (NeuN, in green) can be observed. Same magnification as Figure 1 (B) Binned fluorescent tdTomato signal from feedback cortical axons, normalized to peak intensity and averaged across control mice reveal distinctively high intensity levels in the DRN, which is consistent with the viral targeting of cortico-raphe projections and supports the specificity of the injection site. (C) Control tdTomato and Caspase-injected mice present a comparable local density of neurons in the DRN (injection site), as revealed by neuronal density difference between groups close to zero throughout the DRN. This indicates that the injection of a Cre-dependent rAAV Caspase virus did not produce local neuronal loss in the DRN of Rbp4-Cre mice.
Figure 3—figure supplement 1—source data 1. NeuN and tdTomato density in the DRN.
Figure 3—figure supplement 2. Labeling of Rbp4-expressing dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN)-projecting neurons with rAAV-tdTomato is consistent with cell density loss in mice injected with rAAV-Caspase3.

Figure 3—figure supplement 2.

(A) Schematic representation of rAAV-tdTomato-dependent labeling of cortico-DRN-projecting neurons in Rbp4-Cre mice. (B) Quantification of layer 5 tdTomato labeled somas across the different DRN-projecting cortical areas (n = 8 mice). (C–E) Example picture of the immunolabeling obtained with the pan-neuronal marker NeuN and the virally expressed tdTomato reporter together with the quantification across cortical depth of tdTomato cell density and neuronal loss (NeuN density in rAAV-Caspase3-injected mice − average NeuN density of control mice, n = 7 caspase mice) for the medial orbitofrontal cortex (C, Control vs. Caspase two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnoff test, D = 0.017, p = 0.08), prelimbic/infralimbic cortex (D, D = 0.028, p = 0.002), cingulate cortex and motor primary cortex (E, D = 0.024, p = 0.01 and D = 0.019, p = 0.15, respectively), temporal association cortex (F, D = 0.025, p = 0.19) and retrosplenial cortex (G, D = 0.034, p = 0.12). Box plots represent median, IQR, and min/max data range. Shaded error plots represent mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Scale bar = 400 µm.
Figure 3—figure supplement 2—source data 1. NeuN and tdTomato densities across cortical areas.
Figure 3—figure supplement 3. Dorsal raphe projecting cortical neurons have dense collateral projections to the striatum.

Figure 3—figure supplement 3.

(A) Schematic representation of rAAV-tdTomato-dependent labeling of cortico-dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN)-projecting neurons in Rbp4-Cre mice. (B) Schematic representation of axon collaterals from the same cortical subpopulation of neurons retrogradely labeled at the DRN. (C–H) Semiquantitative representation of axon collateral innervation density across the anteroposterior levels of the mouse brain presenting the injections with the highest (red) and lowest (blue) density of retrogradely labeled neurons. Scale bar = 500 µm.

We found tdTomato+ expressing neurons in five cortical areas (Figure 3—figure supplement 2A–G), which is largely consistent with previous reports (Xu et al., 2021). Furthermore, these neurons mainly originated in the prefrontal cortex, being 13 times more abundant than those from other cortical areas outside the prefrontal cortex. The prelimbic/infralimbic (PL/IL) and anterior cingulate (AC) cortices, which constitute the mPFC, were the areas with the highest density of DRN-projecting tdTomato+ somas in control animals (Figure 3—figure supplement 2B–E, median = 3.41 neurons per layer 5 bin, 95% CI = [1.45, 3.81] for PL/IL and median = 1.54 neurons per layer 5 bin, 95% CI = [1.18, 3.64] for AC) and consistently more extensive neuron density loss in caspase-injected mice, quantified using the pan-neuronal marker NeuN (Figure 3A–C, control n = 8 mice vs. caspase n = 7 mice, two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnoff test = 0.028, p = 0.002 for PL/IL and D = 0.024, p = 0.01 for AC). We also found tdTomato+ somata in the medial orbitofrontal cortex (MO) of the control group; however, this projection was less robust in terms of tdTomato+ labeled neurons across animals (Figure 3—figure supplement 2B, C, median = 1.34 neurons per layer 5 bin, 95% CI = [0.37, 4.81]) and, consistently, the difference in layer 5 NeuN densities between control and caspase mice was not significant (Figures 3C and 5, D = 0.017, p = 0.08).

Apart from the mPFC, sparse labeling of tdTom+ neurons was found in more posterior levels of the neocortex, namely in the retrosplenial cortex (RS) and in the temporal association cortex (TeA) (Figure 3—figure supplement 2B, F, G; median = 0.11 neurons per layer 5 bin, 95% CI = [0.0, 0.56] for Rs and median = 0.0 neurons per layer 5 bin, 95% CI = [0.0, 0.52] for TeA). However, it is worth noting that tdTom+ neurons were only found in the RS of 5 out of 8 control animals, and in the TeA of 3 out of 8 control animals. Consistently, the reduction in NeuN layer 5 neuronal density in these two areas was minimal and non-significant compared to controls (Figure 3C, D = 0.034, p = 0.12 for RS and D = 0 .025, p = 0.19 for TeA). In addition, no differences in NeuN density were observed between caspase- and tdTomato-injected animals in an area that does not contain tdTomato expressing somas and therefore not projecting to the DRN which serves as a negative control to rule out unspecific biases in our quantification method (M1, Figure 3C, D = 0.019, p = 0.15). These observations suggest that our ablation approach primarily affected mPFC–DRN-projecting neurons, particularly from the PL/IL and AC cortices.

When investigating the distribution of tdTomato expressing somas, we observed weak collateral projections of the cortical subpopulation projecting to the DRN in the lateral septum, lateral hypothalamic nucleus, the ventral tegmental area and the anterior periaqueductal gray; medium collateral axonal density in anterior subcortical olfactory nuclei (anterior dorsal endopirifrm, anterior olfactory nucleus, dorsal taenia tecta, and islands of Calleja) and the substantia nigra; and heavy collateralization in the dorsomedial striatum (Figure 3—figure supplement 3).

We then assessed the impact of ablation of cortical input to the DRN on behavioral persistence using the same foraging paradigm and analysis we adopted to assess persistence in adults and juveniles (Figure 3D). First, we confirmed that both groups could perform the task comparatively well, obtaining a similar reward rate (Figure 3E; tdTomato: median = 0.033 rewards per second, 95% CI = [0.019, 0.003], Caspase: median = 0.034 rewards per second, 95% CI = [0.010, 0.008]; Mann–Whitney U test (N tdTomato = 8, N Caspase = 7) = 21.0, p = 0.46). However, in line with our observations in juvenile mice, we observed that Caspase mice made significantly fewer pokes per trial (Figure 3E; tdTomato: median = 3.99 pokes per trial, 95% CI = [1.15, 0.98], Caspase: median = 2.80 pokes per trial, 95% CI = [0.47, 0.54]; Mann–Whitney U test (N Caspase = 7, N tdTomato = 8) = 49, p = 0.014, effect size = 0.88) and significantly lower number of pokes after last reward (Figure 3E; tdTomato: median = 3.01 pokes after last reward, 95% CI = [1.16, 0.98], Caspase: median = 1.87 pokes after last reward, 95% CI = [0.49, 0.44]; Mann–Whitney U test (N Caspase = 7, N tdTomato = 8) = 48, p = 0.02, effect size = 0.86) when compared to tdTomato controls. Furthermore, and similar to juvenile animals (Figure 2—figure supplement 1A), Caspase animals had a higher chance of leaving the port, as indicated by a leftward shift in the cumulative distribution of leaving times (Figure 3F). We therefore applied logistic regression analysis to test this difference and assess how this effect relates to the factors previously identified in the age comparison. Animals lacking cortico-raphe projections were significantly more likely to leave the patch earlier than control animals (Figure 3F, G). Congruently, including the Virus factor significantly improved the model performance (likelihood ratio test on Leave~1 + PokeTime + Trial + Virus + PokeTime&Virus + Trial&Virus +( 1 +P okeTime + Trial|MouseID) vs. Leave~1 + PokeTime + Trial + (1 +P okeTime + Trial|MouseID): X2(3) = 10.83, p = 0.012).

In line with the previous results, the probability of leaving increased with the number of trials performed. As previously outlined, this factor captures the effect of long-running changes, such as satiety and tiredness. Crucially, these effects did not differ between caspase and tdTomato infected groups, as shown by the lack of interaction between the trial and group factors (Figure 3G). Interestingly, the reduced persistence of Caspase animals did not scale with the elapsed time as for the juveniles (lack of interaction effect PokeTime&Virus, Figure 3G).

As with the case of juvenile versus adult mice, Caspase mice showed a shift toward shorter port occupancy (Figure 3H). A regression analysis showed that the viral intervention impacted significantly port occupancy (likelihood ratio test on Occupancy~1 + PokeTime + Virus + Virus&PokeTime +( 1 + PokeTime|MouseID) vs. Occupancy~1 + PokeTime + (1 + PokeTime|MouseID), X2(2) = 12 .69, p = 0.018), and the regression analysis showed that this was mainly due to a progressive reduction during the trial rather than a subtractive effect (significant PokeTime & Virus: Caspase, not Virus: Caspase alone, Figure 3I).

Together, these results show that turning off the cortical input to the DRN, which mostly originates in the mPFC, makes adult mice behave more like juvenile mice when they are performing the same foraging task. This suggests that mature cortico-DRN innervation may be necessary for adult mice to be persistent in their behavior, and this pathway may help mice learn to be persistent in their behavior.

Discussion

In the present study, we described how the postnatal maturation of the cortical innervation over the DRN during adolescence is linked to the performance of a probabilistic foraging task. Over the same period of development, the cortico-raphe projections underwent a dramatic increase in potency and mice developed an increase in persistence in foraging behavior. Ablation of this pathway in adult mice recapitulated the features observed in the behavior of juvenile mice, supporting a causal relationship between the cortico-raphe input and behavioral persistence.

In a wide variety of species, including mice, adolescence corresponds to the emancipation from the parents (Spear, 2000), a period in which individuals need to develop or refine skills to become independent. This ethological scenario may explain the evolutionary selection of juvenile behavioral traits (Sercombe, 2014; Spear, 2000), such as increased impulsivity or high risk taking behavior (Laviola et al., 2003; Sercombe, 2014). However, the abnormal development of behavioral control over the intrinsic behavioral tendencies of juveniles may underlie aspects of the etiopathology of impulsive and addictive disorders in adult humans (Reiter et al., 2016, Wong et al., 2006). In line with pre-adolescent humans’ lack of delay gratification ability (Mischel et al., 1989), and with studies assessing impulsive behavior in mice over development (Sasamori et al., 2018), we found that mice of 3–4 weeks of age tend to be less persistent than 7–8 weeks old mice in a probabilistic foraging task. In a previous study, we showed that adult mice are capable of performing the task by adopting an effective inference-based strategy (Vertechi et al., 2020) which involves tolerating a fixed number of consecutive failures after the last received reward, independent of the total number of rewards obtained in that trial. This strategy is optimal because the state switch probability is independent of the reward probability. However, before learning this strategy, mice use a simpler ‘stimulus-bound’ strategy in which the number of rewards received tends to increase persistence during a trial (Vertechi et al., 2020). Altogether, our observations suggest that naive juvenile and adult mice forage in a similar manner but utilize different values for outcomes, which may reflect their niche specializations.

From a neural perspective, maturational changes of cortical areas, including the mPFC, have been previously linked to the emergence of cognitive skills during development in primates and humans (Luna et al., 2015; Nagy et al., 2004; Velanova et al., 2008). Such changes result in an increased top–down behavioral control and increased functional connectivity with cortical and subcortical targets (Hwang et al., 2010) in the transition between childhood to adulthood. However, the specific contribution of long-range top–down cortical circuits and the cellular mechanisms underlying its development had not been previously investigated.

Here, using optogenetic-assisted circuit mapping we characterized the structural and functional development of cortico-raphe projections that take place over adolescence in mice. A recent report showed that a subpopulation of DRN-projecting mPFC neurons increases their axonal contacts over the DRN in an earlier phase of postnatal development (weeks 1–2) (Soiza-Reilly et al., 2019). We found a cortico-DRN connection strength at 5–6 weeks postnatal similar to that reported by Soiza-Reilly and colleagues at a similar developmental time point (4–5 weeks of age). In addition, we found a connection strength at 7–8 weeks of age similar to those reported in adult rodents elsewhere (Zhou et al., 2017; Geddes et al., 2016). Thus, our findings are consistent with previous observations in the literature and suggest that the maturation of cortico-DRN afferents starts early in postnatal development and undergoes an extended development period, plateauing only after reaching 7–8 weeks of age. Among the previous studies investigating the postnatal development of top-down afferents from the neocortex in rodents (Klune et al., 2021; Peixoto et al., 2016; Ferguson and Gao, 2014), the latest afferent maturational process reported is the mPFC innervation over the basolateral amygdala, which occurs up to week 4 (Arruda-Carvalho et al., 2017). Thus, to our knowledge, the cortical innervation of the DRN represents the latest top–down pathway to develop.

Importantly, we found that the structural development of cortico-DRN projections is causally linked to the maturation of behavioral persistence in adult mice. Using a genetically-driven ablation approach (Yang et al., 2013), we selectively eliminated layer 5 cortical neurons projecting to the DRN in adult mice. The procedure resulted in a behavioral phenotype that recapitulated key features of the juvenile foraging behavior. We observed a reduction in behavioral persistence. This difference in behavioral persistence was small but reliable, and of similar magnitude (but, as expected, in the opposite direction) to the difference observed when optogenetically stimulating 5-HT DRN neurons in mice performing a probabilistic foraging task (Lottem et al., 2018). Furthermore, we localized the origin of these projections and quantified the local neuronal loss. The PL, IL, and AC cortices, areas that comprise the so-called mPFC (Klune et al., 2021), suffered a significant loss with the procedure. Although we can not rule out the contribution of the other affected areas (Rs and TeA) in our caspase manipulation experiment, it is very likely that the areas with higher neuronal loss (mPFC) made a pivotal contribution to the behavioral changes we observed. It should be noted that the extent of layer 5 neurons affected by the caspase ablation in these cortical areas will be defined by the total percentage of layer 5 neurons expressing Rbp4. A previous study has shown that a Cre-dependent fluorescent reporter expressing retroAAV injected in the basal pontine nuclei of Rbp4-Cre mice produces a comparable density of labeled layer 5 cortical neurons as obtained with a standard retrograde tracer such as fluorogold (Tervo et al., 2016). This suggests that, at least for the case of cortico-pontine projection neurons, the Rbp4 promoter grants genetic access to virtually all layer 5 projecting neurons. However, we cannot conclude that this holds true for the case of cortico-raphe projections and therefore future work will have to assess whether additional non-Rbp4 populations of projecting neurons in these, or other cortical areas, contribute as well to the development of behavioral persistence.

Previous reports have shown that the pharmacological inactivation of the IL cortex reduces response persistence in a foraging task (Verharen et al., 2020). Moreover, lesions of the IL cortex improves performance on a reversal learning task (Ashwell and Ito, 2014), which resembles the increased behavioral flexibility observed in juvenile mice (Johnson and Wilbrecht, 2011). In addition, neurons in the PL cortex have been shown to track reward value and reflect impulsive choices (Sackett et al., 2019). More generally, the inactivation of PL/IL cortices using optogenetics leads to an increase in premature responses in a probabilistic reversal task (Nakayama et al., 2018), while the optogenetic activation of the PL/IL cortices increases food-seeking behavior while reducing impulsive actions (Warthen et al., 2016).

Furthermore, lesions in the AC impair behavioral inhibition producing an increase in premature actions in rodents (Muir et al., 1996; Hvoslef-Eide et al., 2018). More recently, it has been shown that the control of impulsive actions exerted by the AC requires intact signaling through Gi-protein in its layer 5 pyramidal neurons (van der Veen et al., 2021). Altogether, there is considerable evidence linking the activity of the areas composing the mPFC (PL, IL, and AC cortices) to the control of impulsive actions.

In addition, the optogenetic activation of DRN 5-HT neurons, a major subcortical target of mPFC projections (Geddes et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2017; Weissbourd et al., 2014; Pollak Dorocic et al., 2014), improves the performance of a delayed response task (Miyazaki et al., 2014; Miyazaki et al., 2018; Fonseca et al., 2015) through an increase in active behavioral persistence (Lottem et al., 2018), which is the converse effect of the pharmacological silencing of the mPFC (Narayanan et al., 2006; Narayanan et al., 2013; Murakami et al., 2017). Altogether, the emerging picture suggests that the individual activation of either mPFC or DRN converges into a behaviorally persistent phenotype. Consistent with this, the activation of mPFC–DRN top–down projections also has been shown to increase active persistence (Warden et al., 2012). However, previous studies have reported a net inhibitory effect of mPFC input onto 5-HT neurons in the DRN (Celada et al., 2001; Maier, 2015), particularly after prolonged trains of high-frequency stimulation (Srejic et al., 2015). This raises a question on the directionality with which mPFC input modulates DRN neuronal activity in the context of behavioral control. One possible mechanism would be a frequency dependency of the net effect, as found in thalamocortical connections (Crandall et al., 2015). In this scenario, given that the inhibitory interneurons in the DRN can track faster frequencies than 5-HT neurons (Jin et al., 2015) and that 5-HT neurons undergo 5-HT1a autoreceptor-mediated inhibition upon dendritic NMDA receptor activation (de Kock et al., 2006), a prolonged activation of mPFC afferents to the DRN may, in turn, produce inhibition of 5-HT neurons. Nevertheless, other, less explored, patterns of cortical activity in different frequency ranges may tune 5-HT neuron subpopulations in different ways under more naturalistic patterns of activation and could be the focus of future research. An alternative mechanism for the bidirectional control of DRN activity by mPFC input would be synaptic plasticity, since it has been shown that activity-dependent plasticity (Challis and Berton, 2015) and neuromodulators (Geddes et al., 2016) can bias the net excitatory or inhibitory effect that mPFC input exerts on DRN 5-HT neurons.

In addition, while it is well-described that the PL/IL cortices produce a dense innervation over the DRN, the adjacent PR and IL cortices exert opposite effects on fear conditioning (Giustino and Maren, 2015) as well as on avoidance behaviors and behavioral inhibition (Capuzzo and Floresco, 2020). This striking contraposition in their functional role leaves open the possibility of different circuit motifs in their DRN innervation that could explain a putative excitatory or inhibitory effect and this should also be the focus of future research.

The cortical subpopulation of DRN-projecting neurons manipulated in adult Rbp4-Cre mice in this study presented collateral projections that were particularly dense onto the dorsomedial striatum (Figure 3—figure supplement 3), a pathway that has been shown relevant for foraging decisions (Bari et al., 2019). Although it has been shown that the cortico-striatal pathway is fully developed after P14 using Rbp4-Cre mice (Peixoto et al., 2016) and therefore unlikely to underlie the developmental differences observed in this study, we cannot rule out an impact of the ablation of cortico-striatal collaterals in the behavioral persistence decrease observed in Caspase-treated mice.

The presence of parallel subsystems in the DRN, with complementary projections either to the prefrontal cortex or to the amygdala and responsible for different behavioral responses has recently been reported (Ren et al., 2018). In our hands, cortico-DRN descending neurons had very sparse collateralization to the amygdala (Figure 3—figure supplement 3), while collaterals to the dorsal striatum or substantia nigra were abundant. This may suggest the presence of loops of preferential interconnectivity (mPFC → DRN/DRN → mPFC and mPFC → Amygdala/Amygdala → mPFC) as it has been shown for other cortical–subcortical loops (Young et al., 2021; Li et al., 2020), with different DRN subpopulations exerting specific neuromodulatory effects in either region (Ren et al., 2018).

To summarize, our results describe a process of late postnatal development of top–down mPFC afferents onto DRN causally linked to the emergence of behavioral persistence in the transition between adolescence and adulthood. This critical period of corticofugal axonal development may also represent a period of vulnerability for maladaptive development involved in the etiopathogenesis of psychiatric disorders (Rutter et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2018; Soiza-Reilly et al., 2019; Guirado et al., 2020).

Methods

Animals

All experimental procedures were approved and performed in accordance with the Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown Ethics Committee guidelines and by the Portuguese Veterinary General Board (Direcção-Geral de Veterinária, approval 0421/000/000/2016). The mouse lines used in this study were obtained from the Mutant Mouse Resource and Research Center (MMRRC), Rbp4-Cre (stock number 031125-UCD), and from Jax Mice, Ai32(RCL-ChR2(H134R)/EYFP) (Stock number 012569) and Ai9(RCL-tdTomato) (7905). All of them were backcrossed to C57BL/6 in-house for at least 10 generations prior to their use in our experiments. Mice were kept under a standard 12 hr light/dark cycle with food and water ad libitum. Behavioral testing occurred during the light period.

Electrophysiological recordings

Male and female mice were used for whole-cell recordings. Coronal slices of 300 µm thickness containing the dorsal raphe were cut using a vibratome (Leica VT1200) in ‘ice cold’ solution containing (in mM): 2.5 KCl, 1.25 NaH2PO4, 26 NaHCO3, 10 D-glucose, 230 Sucrose, 0.5 CaCl2, 10 MgSO4, and bubbled with 5% CO2 and 95% O2. Slices were recovered in artificial cerebrospinal fluid (ACSF) containing (in mM): 127 NaCl, 2.5 KCl, 25 NaHCO3, 1.25 NaH2PO4, 25 Glucose, 2 CaCl2, 1 MgCl2 at 34°C for 30 min and then kept in the same solution at room temperature until transferred to the recording chamber. In addition, 300 µM L-tryptophan (Sigma) was added to the ACSF to maintain serotonergic tone in the ex vivo preparation as described elsewhere (Liu et al., 2005).

Patch recording pipettes (resistance 3–5 MΩ) were filled with internal solution containing (in mM): 135 K-Gluconate, 10 HEPES (4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazineethanesulfonic acid), 10 Na-Phosphocreatine, 3 Na-L-Ascorbate, 4 MgCl2, 4 Na2-ATP, and 0.4 Na-GTP. Data were acquired using a Multiclamp 700B amplifier and digitized at 10 kHz with a Digidata 1440a digitizer (both from Molecular Devices). Data were then either analyzed using Clampfit 10.7 Software (Molecular Devices, LLC) or imported into Matlab and analyzed with custom-written software.

To ensure the same recording quality across experiments, access and series resistance was calculated for every cell recorded in voltage-clamp mode using the test pulse mode of Clampex (100 ms, −10 mV). Briefly, access resistance (Ra) was determined by measuring the amplitude of the current response to the command voltage step and the membrane resistance (Rm) as the difference between the baseline and the holding current in the steady state after the capacitive decay, by applying Ohm’s law. Input resistance was the sum of the membrane resistance with the pipette resistance. The membrane time constant (Tau, τ) was determined by a single exponential fit of the decay phase in response to the square pulse. An approximation of the capacitance was obtained offline using the following formula:

Tau=AccessResistanceInputCapacitance

Only neurons with access resistance 1/10th lower than the membrane resistance were used for analysis. Only neurons with an access resistance lower than 30 MOhm were considered for analysis. The access resistance was comparable between neurons recorded at different developmental stages (ANOVA, F(3,119) = 1.78, p = 0.15).

Neurons were recorded at a holding membrane voltage of −70 mV, near the reversal potential of chloride (−68 mV) and thus, optogenetically evoked responses correspond to AMPA-mediated currents.

To activate ChR2-expressing fibers, light from a 473 nm fiber-coupled laser (PSU-H-FDA, CNI Laser) was delivered at approximately 2 mm from the sample to produce wide-field illumination of the recorded cell (Figure 2A). TTL triggered pulses of light (10 ms duration; 10 mW measured at the fiber tip) were delivered at the recording site with 10 s of intersweep interval. In >90% of the neurons considered in the current study, the stimulus consisted in a single pulse of light per sweep. In the remaining subset of recorded neurons the stimulus consisted of a train of light pulses, of same length and amplitude, delivered at frequencies ranging from 2 to 10 Hz. In this subset of recordings, only the amplitude in response to the first peak of the stimulus train was considered for amplitude analysis. Importantly, no sign of intersweep opsin desensitization (decrease of light-evoked EPSC amplitude with consecutive sweeps) was observed in either type of recordings (data not shown). Every data point represented in Figure 1B, C corresponds to the average of 6–10 sweeps per recording.

Neurons were recorded in the dorsomedial and lateral wings portions of the DRN, in two consecutive coronal slices per mouse between bregma levels ~4.3 and ~4.8 (Figure 1—figure supplement 1).

To assess ChR2-evoked photocurrent in layer 5 somas, mPFC slices were obtained using the same slicing procedure. 1 μM TTX was added to the bath to prevent escaped spikes in the voltage clamp recordings upon light activation.

Histology

Mice were deeply anesthetized with pentobarbital (Eutasil) and perfused transcardially with 4% paraformaldehyde (P6148, Sigma-Aldrich). The brain was removed from the skull, stored in 4% paraformaldehyde for 2 hr before being transferred to cryoprotectant solution (30% sucrose in phosphate-buffered saline [PBS]) until they sank. Coronal sections (50 µm) were cut with a freezing sliding microtome (SM2000, Leica).

For axonal quantification in Rbp4-ChR2 mice, we performed anti-GFP immunostaining to enhance the intrinsic signal of the ChR2-fused EYFP reporter. We incubated overnight with the anti-GFP primary antibody at 4 degrees (1:1000, A-6455 Invitrogen, 0.1 M PBS 0.3% tx100, 3% normal goat serum (NGS)). After abundant PBS washes, we incubated the secondary biotinylated anti-Rabbit antibody (711-065-152, Jackson IRL) for 2–4 hr in the same incubation solution at room temperature and finally, after PBS washes, slices were incubated in Alexa488 Streptavidin for 2–4 hr in the same incubation solution at room temperature (S32354, Invitrogen). After final PBS washes, slices were mounted and covered with FluoroGel mounting medium (17985-10, Electron Microscopy Sciences) for posterior imaging.

For NeuN detection, we incubated histological slices (from mice injected with rAAV-tdTomato or rAAV-Caspase) overnight with the anti-NeuN primary antibody at 4 degrees (1:1000, EPR12763 Abcam, 0.1 M PBS 0.3% tx100, 3% NGS). After three PBS washes of 10 min each, we incubated the secondary anti-Rabbit-Alexa488 antibody (A32731, Invitrogen) for 2–4 hr in the same incubation solution at room temperature and finally, after PBS washes, slices were mounted and covered with FluoroGel mounting medium (17985-10, Electron Microscopy Sciences).

Image acquisition and analysis

Histological sections were imaged with a Zeiss LSM 710 confocal laser scanning microscope using ×10 and ×25 magnification objectives.

To quantify the axonal density, images containing the DRN or the nucleus accumbens were background subtracted and binarized using constant thresholds in Fiji. After thresholding, binary images were imported into Matlab and analyzed with custom-written software. Images were sampled every 100 μm across the Y axis. The intersections between binary axons and these sampling lines across the Y axis were counted and averaged in bins of 100 μm to estimate axonal density.

Quantification of layer 5 soma densities was obtained in histological slices of Rbp4-tdTomato mice. Confocal images were imported into matlab, and fluorescent somas were detected using the image analysis toolbox of Matlab inside a defined region of interest containing the mPFC (PL/IL). The number of somas was then divided by the area of the region of interest (ROI) to obtain the density of neurons.

Quantification of NeuN expressing neurons was performed using the same protocol used in Rbp4-tdTomato mice. First, we visually inspected the expression pattern of tdTomato expressing neurons after injecting rAAV-tdTomato in the DRN of control mice. We found five cortical areas consistently expressing layer 5 tdTomato+ neurons in at least 5/8 control mice: PR/IL, AC, MO, TeA, Rs. We then acquired confocal images of these five areas in mice injected with rAAV-tdTomato or rAAV-Caspase for analysis. Areas showing expression in one to three mice were not included for analysis. These confocal stacks contained the green fluorescent signal of NeuN detection and the red intrinsic fluorescence of td-Tomato. All confocal images consisted of 10 images stacked in the Z plane, with 3 μm spacing, and that were max projected for analysis. Stacks from PR/IL, AC, and MO were 800 × 600 μm (cortical depth × width) and from TeA, Rs, and M1 were 1400 × 600 μm to adjust to their intrinsically different cortical thickness (Figure 3—figure supplement 2). For each brain area/mouse, bilateral stacks were acquired at Bregma levels: PR/IL: 1.5 mm, AC and M1: 1.1 mm, MO: 2.3 mm, TeA and Rs: −3.1 mm. Using custom made software based on Matlab’s image analysis toolbox, NeuN somas were detected and their densities binned in depth and averaged across mice for final representation.

Stereotaxic surgeries and virus injection

Adult mice between 8 and 9 weeks of age were anesthetized with isoflurane (2% induction and 0.5–1% for maintenance) and placed in a motorized computer-controlled Stoelting stereotaxic instrument with mouse brain atlas integration and real-time surgery probe visualization in the atlas space (Neurostar, Sindelfingen, Germany). Antibiotic (Enrofloxacin, 2.5–5 mg/kg, S.C.), pain killer (Buprenorphine, 0.1 mg/kg, S.C.), and local anesthesia over the scalp (0.2 ml, 2% Lidocaine, S.C.) were administered before incising the scalp. Virus injection (experiment group: AAV2retro-flex-EF1A-taCasp3-TEVp; control group: AAV2retro-flex-hSyn-tdTomato) was targeted to DRN at the following coordinates: −4.7 mm AP, 0.0 mm ML, and 3.1 mm DV. The vertical stereotaxic arm was tilted 32 degrees caudally to reach the target avoiding Superior sagittal sinus and Transverse sinuses. Target coordinates were adjusted as follows: −6.64 mm AP, 0.0 mm ML, and −4.02 mm DV. To infect a larger volume of the DRN with the virus, we performed six injections of 0.2 µl using two entry points along the AP axis (−6.54 and − −6.74) and three depths along the DV axis (−4.02, −3.92, and −3.82). The incision was then closed using tissue adhesive (VETBONDTM/MC, 3 M, No. 1469 SB). Mice were monitored until recovery from the surgery and returned to their homecages, where they were housed individually. Behavioral testing started at least 1 week after surgery to allow for recovery.

Behavioral testing

The behavioral box consisted of 1 back wall (16 × 219 cm), 2 side walls (16.7 × 219 cm), and 2 front walls (10 × 219 cm, 140-degrees angle between them), made of white acrylic (0.5 cm thick) and a transparent acrylic lead. A camera (ELP camera, ELP-USBFHD01M-L180) was mounted on top of the ceiling for monitoring purposes. Each front wall had a nose-poke port equipped with an infrared emitter/sensor pairs to report port entry and exit times (model 007120.0002, Island motion corporation) and a water valve for water delivery (LHDA1233115H, The Lee Company, Westbrook, CT). An internal white acrylic wall (8 cm) separates the two nose-poke ports forcing the animals to walk around it to travel between ports. All signals from sensors were processed by Arduino Mega 2560 microcontroller board (Arduino, Somerville, US), and outputs from the Arduino Mega 2560 microcontroller board were implemented to control water delivery in drops of 4 μl. Arduino Mega 2560 microcontroller was connected to the sensors and controllers through an Arduino Mega 2560 adaptor board developed by the Champalimaud Foundation Scientific Hardware Platform.

Subjects have to probe two foraging sites (nose-poke ports, for mice, or virtual magic wands, for humans) to obtain rewards (4 μl water drops, for mice, or virtual points for humans). At any given time, only one of the sites is active and, when probed, delivers a reward with a fixed 90% probability (pREW). Each attempt also triggers a fixed 90% probability of transition (pTRS) to inactivate the current foraging site and activate the other. These transitions are not cued; thus, subjects are required to alternate probing the current site and traveling to the other to track the hidden active state and obtain rewards. In this work, we focus on assessing differences in the baseline patience/impulsivity, measured as the ability to withhold adverse outcomes. Therefore naive subjects were only tested once.

Five days before testing, water dispensers were removed from the animals’ home cages, and their weights were recorded. In the following days, progressively less water (1000, 800, and 600 μl) was given in a metal dish inside the homecage. Weight loss was monitored every day before water delivery, and no animal lost more than 20% of their body weight. On the fifth day of water deprivation, animals were weighed and introduced to the behavioral box. A small quantity of water was present at the start of the session to stimulate the mice to probe the nose-ports. Sessions lasted a minimum of 1 hr. By that time, if animals did not perform at least 30 trials, the session was extended for thirty more minutes.

Animals were handled during water deprivation to reduce stress levels, but they were completely naive about the task environment and functioning on the testing day. One juvenile female mouse was excluded from the experiment batch before the task assessment because of congenital blindness. One caspase adult mouse was excluded after the task assessment because of abnormal behavior. Rather than nose poking to seek water, this animal spent most of the task time biting the nose-port, to anomalous levels. In chronological order, we tested a batch of only male juvenile and adult animals, followed by testing of male and female tdTomato and Caspase animals, and finally only female juvenile and adult animals. Separate analysis for females and males on the effect of age reveals that juveniles are less persistent in both cases.

Data and statistical analysis

Behavioral data analysis was performed using custom-written scripts in Julia-1.4.1.

Behavioral results were represented as median ± 95% CIs, and statistical significance was accepted for p-values <0.05. The statistical analysis was done in Julia-1.4.1 (Bezanson et al., 2017) with the HypothesisTests (https://juliastats.org/HypothesisTests.jl/v0.9/) and MixedModels (Bates et al., 2021) existing packages. The effect of a specific factor on the probability of leaving was tested by applying logistic regression on a generalized linear mixed-effects model, using a Bernoulli distribution for the dependent variable and a Logit link function. For each foraging nose poke, we assigned a boolean label according to whether the animal left the patch after that poke (True) or not (False). We then use logistic regression to explain this leaving choice for each poke according to the elapsed time in the trial (PokeTime), the elapsed trials in the session (Trial), the animal group (Age or Virus), and their interactions. This statistical approach allows us to examine the question of behavioral persistence in terms of probability of leaving after each single poke, expanding the amount of usable data, per animal and counterbalancing the limitation of studying the phenomenon in naive animals exposed to a single session. Furthermore, this technique can test for both additive and multiplicative effects of the factors contributing to behavioral persistence. The individual variability was accounted for through generalized linear mixed models with random intercept and slopes for each mouse (see Methods for the implementation). Before testing we checked for co-linearity between the continuous predictors and confirmed that there was no correlation between the time of poking (Poke Time) and trials elapsed from the beginning of the session (Trial) (PokeTime ~ 1 + Trial + (1 + Trial|MouseID): p = 0.99, Figure 2—figure supplement 1A). First, to assess the significance of the estimated coefficients, we calculated their 95% CI by performing a parametric bootstrap of 1000 samples. Only factors whose CI did not include 0 were considered to be significantly affecting the probability of leaving. Next, to validate the relevance of the experimental manipulation (age or virus), we compared nested models (a general model and a special case model, excluding or including the experimental factor, respectively) using a likelihood ratio test: Chi-squared test on the difference of the deviance of the two nested models, with degrees of freedom equal to the difference in degrees of freedom between the general model (lacking the predictor) and its special case (with the predictor of interest). For each analysis, we report the median and 95% CI of the median for the groups of interest, followed by the test statistics. We use Wilkinson annotation to describe the models with denoting random effects.

Electrophysiological and histological results were analyzed with Matlab and GraphPad Software. Normality of the residuals was tested with the D’Agostino–Pearson omnibus K2 test. When normally distributed, either a t-test, one-way ANOVA or repeated measures ANOVA were performed to compare groups at different developmental phases. In the cases where residuals were not normally distributed, we performed a Mann–Whitney or Kruskal–Wallis test to assess significance. For testing differences in connection probability, a Chi-square test was performed. Finally, a Kolmogorov–Smirnoff test was performed to compare the neuronal density distribution between Caspase-treated animals and tdTomato expressing controls. Error bar plots represent mean ± SEM. Significance was noted as *p < 0.05.

Acknowledgements

We thank Drs. Cindy Poo and Constanze Lenschow for helpful comments on the manuscript and the Champalimaud Foundation Advanced Bio-optics and Bio-imaging platform for the microscopy technical assistance. This work was supported by the Champalimaud Foundation (ZFM), European Research Council (671251, ZFM), and Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT-PTDC/MED-NEU/28830/2017, ZFM; SFRH/BD/132172/2017, DS). This work was further supported by Portuguese national funds Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT; UIDB/04443/2020); CONGENTO, co-financed by Lisboa Regional Operational Programme (Lisboa2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (Portugal) under the project LISBOA-01-0145-FEDER-022170, the imaging platform has been financed under the project LISBOA-01-0145-FEDER-022122.

Funding Statement

The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Contributor Information

Zachary F Mainen, Email: zmainen@neuro.fchampalimaud.org.

Geoffrey Schoenbaum, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, United States.

Michael J Frank, Brown University, United States.

Funding Information

This paper was supported by the following grants:

  • European Research Council 671251 to Zachary F Mainen.

  • Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia FCT-PTDC/MED-NEU/28830/2017 to Zachary F Mainen.

  • Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia SFRH/BD/132172/2017 to Dario Sarra.

  • Champalimaud Foundation to Zachary F Mainen.

Additional information

Competing interests

No competing interests declared.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft.

Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review and editing.

Investigation.

Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing.

Ethics

All experimental procedures were approved and performed in accordance with the Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown Ethics Committee guidelines and by the Portuguese Veterinary General Board (Direcèäo-Geral de Veterinâria, approval 0421/000/000/2016).

Additional files

MDAR checklist

Data availability

All data analyzed and visualized during this study are included in form of Source Data files that have been provided for all figures present in the current manuscript.

References

  1. Alexander-Bloch A, Giedd JN, Bullmore E. Imaging structural co-variance between human brain regions. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience. 2013;14:322–336. doi: 10.1038/nrn3465. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arruda-Carvalho M, Wu WC, Cummings KA, Clem RL. Optogenetic examination of prefrontal-amygdala synaptic development. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2017;37:2976–2985. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3097-16.2017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ashwell R, Ito R. Excitotoxic lesions of the infralimbic, but not prelimbic cortex facilitate reversal of appetitive discriminative context conditioning: the role of the infralimbic cortex in context generalization. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2014;8:63. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00063. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bari BA, Grossman CD, Lubin EE, Rajagopalan AE, Cressy JI, Cohen JY. Stable representations of decision variables for flexible behavior. Neuron. 2019;103:922–933. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.06.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bates D, Alday P, Kleinschmidt D, Calderón JBS, Zhan L, Noack A, Arslan A, Bouchet-Valat M, Kelman T, Baldassari A, Ehinger B, Karrasch D, Saba E, Quinn J, Hatherly M, Piibeleht M, Mogensen PK, Babayan S, Gagnon YL. Juliastats/Mixedmodels. v3.8.0Zenodo. 2021 doi: 10.5281/zenodo. [DOI]
  6. Bell MR. Comparing postnatal development of gonadal hormones and associated social behaviors in rats, mice, and humans. Endocrinology. 2018;159:2596–2613. doi: 10.1210/en.2018-00220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Berlin HA, Rolls ET, Kischka U. Impulsivity, time perception, emotion and reinforcement sensitivity in patients with orbitofrontal cortex lesions. Brain. 2004;127:1108–1126. doi: 10.1093/brain/awh135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bezanson J, Edelman A, Karpinski S, Shah VB. Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing. SIAM Review. 2017;59:65–98. doi: 10.1137/141000671. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bitzenhofer SH, Pöpplau JA, Chini M, Marquardt A, Hanganu-Opatz IL. A transient developmental increase in prefrontal activity alters network maturation and causes cognitive dysfunction in adult mice. Neuron. 2021;109:1350–1364. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2021.02.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Capuzzo G, Floresco SB. Prelimbic and infralimbic prefrontal regulation of active and inhibitory avoidance and reward-seeking. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2020;40:4773–4787. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0414-20.2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Casey BJ, Somerville LH, Gotlib IH, Ayduk O, Franklin NT, Askren MK, Jonides J, Berman MG, Wilson NL, Teslovich T, Glover G, Zayas V, Mischel W, Shoda Y. Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gratification 40 years later. PNAS. 2011;108:14998–15003. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1108561108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Celada P, Puig MV, Casanovas JM, Guillazo G, Artigas F. Control of dorsal raphe serotonergic neurons by the medial prefrontal cortex: Involvement of serotonin-1A, GABA(A), and glutamate receptors. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2001;21:9917–9929. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-24-09917.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Challis C, Beck SG, Berton O. Optogenetic modulation of descending prefrontocortical inputs to the dorsal raphe bidirectionally bias socioaffective choices after social defeat. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2014;8:43. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Challis C, Berton O. Top-Down Control of Serotonin Systems by the Prefrontal Cortex: A Path toward Restored Socioemotional Function in Depression. ACS Chem. Neurosci. 2015;6:1040–1054. doi: 10.1021/acschemneuro.5b00007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Charnov EL. Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1976;9 doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(76)90040-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Chen F, Ke J, Qi R, Xu Q, Zhong Y, Liu T, Li J, Zhang L, Lu G. Increased inhibition of the amygdala by the mpfc may reflect a resilience factor in post-traumatic stress disorder: a resting-state fmri granger causality analysis. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2018;9:516. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Chini M, Hanganu-Opatz IL. Prefrontal cortex development in health and disease: Lessons from rodents and humans. Trends in Neurosciences. 2021;44:227–240. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2020.10.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ciaramelli E, De Luca F, Kwan D, Mok J, Bianconi F, Knyagnytska V, Craver C, Green L, Myerson J, Rosenbaum RS. The role of ventromedial prefrontal cortex in reward valuation and future thinking during intertemporal choice. eLife. 2021;10:e67387. doi: 10.7554/eLife.67387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cools R, Roberts AC, Robbins TW. Serotoninergic regulation of emotional and behavioural control processes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2008;12:31–40. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.10.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Crandall SR, Cruikshank SJ, Connors BW. A Corticothalamic Switch: Controlling the Thalamus with Dynamic Synapses. Neuron. 2015;86:768–782. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.03.040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dalley JW, Robbins TW. Fractionating impulsivity: neuropsychiatric implications. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2017;18:158–171. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2017.8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dayan P, Huys QJM. Serotonin in affective control. Annual Review of Neuroscience. 2009;32:95–126. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. de Kock CPJ, Cornelisse LN, Burnashev N, Lodder JC, Timmerman AJ, Couey JJ, Mansvelder HD, Brussaard AB. NMDA receptors trigger neurosecretion of 5-HT within dorsal raphe nucleus of the rat in the absence of action potential firing. The Journal of Physiology. 2006;577:891–905. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2006.115311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Dincheva I, Drysdale AT, Hartley CA, Johnson DC, Jing D, King EC, Ra S, Gray JM, Yang R, DeGruccio AM, Huang C, Cravatt BF, Glatt CE, Hill MN, Casey BJ, Lee FS. FAAH genetic variation enhances fronto-amygdala function in mouse and human. Nature Communications. 2015;6:6395. doi: 10.1038/ncomms7395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Doremus-Fitzwater TL, Barreto M, Spear LP. Age-related differences in impulsivity among adolescent and adult Sprague-Dawley rats. Behavioral Neuroscience. 2012;126:735–741. doi: 10.1037/a0029697. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Durston S, Casey BJ. What have we learned about cognitive development from neuroimaging? Neuropsychologia. 2006;44:2149–2157. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.10.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Fair DA, Cohen AL, Power JD, Dosenbach NUF, Church JA, Miezin FM, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE. Functional brain networks develop from a “local to distributed” organization. PLOS Computational Biology. 2009;5:e1000381. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Fellows LK. Deciding how to decide: ventromedial frontal lobe damage affects information acquisition in multi-attribute decision making. Brain. 2006;129:944–952. doi: 10.1093/brain/awl017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ferguson BR, Gao WJ. Development of thalamocortical connections between the mediodorsal thalamus and the prefrontal cortex and its implication in cognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2014;8:1027. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.01027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Fonseca MS, Murakami M, Mainen ZF. Activation of dorsal raphe serotonergic neurons promotes waiting but is not reinforcing. Current Biology. 2015;25:306–315. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.12.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Geddes SD, Assadzada S, Lemelin D, Sokolovski A, Bergeron R, Haj-Dahmane S, Béïque JC. Target-specific modulation of the descending prefrontal cortex inputs to the dorsal raphe nucleus by cannabinoids. PNAS. 2016;113:5429–5434. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1522754113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Gee DG, Fetcho RN, Jing D, Li A, Glatt CE, Drysdale AT, Cohen AO, Dellarco DV, Yang RR, Dale AM, Jernigan TL, Lee FS, Casey BJ, Jernigan TL, San Diego U, McCabe C, San Diego U, Chang L, Hawaii U, Akshoomoff N, San Diego U, Newman E, San Diego U, Dale AM, San Diego U, Core MA, Ernst T, Hawaii U, Dale AM, San Diego U, Van Zijl P, Kuperman J, San Diego U, Murray S, Bloss C, Schork NJ, Appelbaum M, San Diego U, Gamst A, San Diego U, Thompson W, San Diego U, Bartsch H, San Diego U, Jernigan TL, Dale AM, Akshoomoff N, Chang L, Ernst T, Keating B, Amaral D, Sowell E, Kaufmann W, Van Zijl P, Mostofsky S, Casey BJ, Ruberry EJ, Powers A, Rosen B, Kenet T, Frazier J, Kennedy D, University Y, Gruen J, the PING Consortium. Co-PI of PING, Core PI. Co-PI of PING, Core PI. Co-PI of PING, Core PI. Co-PI of PING, Core Co-PI. Core Co-PI. KKI. Scripps Translational Science Institute, Co-PI of PING, Core PI. Scripps Translational Science Institute. Scripps Translational Science Institute Individual differences in frontolimbic circuitry and anxiety emerge with adolescent changes in endocannabinoid signaling across species. PNAS. 2016;113:4500–4505. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1600013113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Gerfen CR, Paletzki R, Heintz N. GENSAT BAC cre-recombinase driver lines to study the functional organization of cerebral cortical and basal ganglia circuits. Neuron. 2013;80:1368–1383. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.10.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Giustino TF, Maren S. The role of the medial prefrontal cortex in the conditioning and extinction of fear. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2015;9:298. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00298. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Gorelova N, Yang CR. The course of neural projection from the prefrontal cortex to the nucleus accumbens in the rat. Neuroscience. 1996;76:689–706. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4522(96)00380-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Guirado R, Perez-Rando M, Ferragud A, Gutierrez-Castellanos N, Umemori J, Carceller H, Nacher J, Castillo-Gómez E. A critical period for prefrontal network configurations underlying psychiatric disorders and addiction. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2020;14:51. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2020.00051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Hammond CJ, Potenza MN, Mayes LC. In: The Oxford Handbook of Impulse Control Disorders. Grant JE, Potenza MN, editors. Oxford University Press; 2011. Development of impulse control, inhibition, and self-regulatory behaviors in normative populations across the LifeSpan. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hvoslef-Eide M, Nilsson SRO, Hailwood JM, Robbins TW, Saksida LM, Mar AC, Bussey TJ. Effects of anterior cingulate cortex lesions on a continuous performance task for mice. Brain and Neuroscience Advances. 2018;2:2398212818772962. doi: 10.1177/2398212818772962. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Hwang K, Velanova K, Luna B. Strengthening of top-down frontal cognitive control networks underlying the development of inhibitory control: A functional magnetic resonance imaging effective connectivity study. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2010;30:15535–15545. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2825-10.2010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Itami S, Uno H. Orbitofrontal cortex dysfunction in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder revealed by reversal and extinction tasks. Neuroreport. 2002;13:2453–2457. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200212200-00016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Izquierdo A, Brigman JL, Radke AK, Rudebeck PH, Holmes A. The neural basis of reversal learning: An updated perspective. Neuroscience. 2017;345:12–26. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.03.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Jin Y, Luo B, Su YY, Wang XX, Chen L, Wang M, Wang WW, Chen L. Sodium salicylate suppresses gabaergic inhibitory activity in neurons of rodent dorsal raphe nucleus. PLOS ONE. 2015;10:e0126956. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126956. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Johnson C, Wilbrecht L. Juvenile mice show greater flexibility in multiple choice reversal learning than adults. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. 2011;1:540–551. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2011.05.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Klune CB, Jin B, DeNardo LA. Linking mPFC circuit maturation to the developmental regulation of emotional memory and cognitive flexibility. eLife. 2021;10:e64567. doi: 10.7554/eLife.64567. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Kolk SM, Rakic P. Development of prefrontal cortex. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2022;47:41–57. doi: 10.1038/s41386-021-01137-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Konstantoudaki X, Chalkiadaki K, Vasileiou E, Kalemaki K, Karagogeos D, Sidiropoulou K. Prefrontal cortical-specific differences in behavior and synaptic plasticity between adolescent and adult mice. Journal of Neurophysiology. 2018;119:822–833. doi: 10.1152/jn.00189.2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Larsen B, Luna B. Adolescence as a neurobiological critical period for the development of higher-order cognition. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2018;94:179–195. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.09.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Laviola G, Macrì S, Morley-Fletcher S, Adriani W. Risk-taking behavior in adolescent mice: psychobiological determinants and early epigenetic influence. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2003;27:19–31. doi: 10.1016/S0149-7634(03)00006-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Leone DP, Heavner WE, Ferenczi EA, Dobreva G, Huguenard JR, Grosschedl R, McConnell SK. Satb2 regulates the differentiation of both callosal and subcerebral projection neurons in the developing cerebral cortex. Cerebral Cortex. 2015;25:3406–3419. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhu156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Li Z, Chen Z, Fan G, Li A, Yuan J, Xu T. Cell-type-specific afferent innervation of the nucleus accumbens core and shell. Frontiers in Neuroanatomy. 2018;12:84. doi: 10.3389/fnana.2018.00084. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Li B, Nguyen TP, Ma C, Dan Y. Inhibition of impulsive action by projection-defined prefrontal pyramidal neurons. PNAS. 2020;117:17278–17287. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2000523117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Liu RJ, Lambe EK, Aghajanian GK. Somatodendritic autoreceptor regulation of serotonergic neurons: dependence on L-tryptophan and tryptophan hydroxylase-activating kinases. The European Journal of Neuroscience. 2005;21:945–958. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.03930.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Lottem E, Banerjee D, Vertechi P, Sarra D, Lohuis MO, Mainen ZF. Activation of serotonin neurons promotes active persistence in a probabilistic foraging task. Nature Communications. 2018;9:1000. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03438-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Luna B, Thulborn KR, Munoz DP, Merriam EP, Garver KE, Minshew NJ, Keshavan MS, Genovese CR, Eddy WF, Sweeney JA. Maturation of widely distributed brain function subserves cognitive development. NeuroImage. 2001;13:786–793. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2000.0743. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Luna B, Marek S, Larsen B, Tervo-Clemmens B, Chahal R. An integrative model of the maturation of cognitive control. Annual Review of Neuroscience. 2015;38:151–170. doi: 10.1146/annurev-neuro-071714-034054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Maier SF. Behavioral control blunts reactions to contemporaneous and future adverse events: medial prefrontal cortex plasticity and a corticostriatal network. Neurobiology of Stress. 2015;1:12–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ynstr.2014.09.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Mischel W, Shoda Y, Rodriguez MI. Delay of gratification in children. Science. 1989;244:933–938. doi: 10.1126/science.2658056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Miyazaki KW, Miyazaki K, Doya K. Activation of the central serotonergic system in response to delayed but not omitted rewards. The European Journal of Neuroscience. 2011;33:153–160. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07480.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Miyazaki KW, Miyazaki K, Doya K. Activation of dorsal raphe serotonin neurons is necessary for waiting for delayed rewards. Journal of Neuroscience. 2012;32:10451–10457. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0915-12.2012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Miyazaki KKW, Miyazaki KKW, Tanaka KF, Yamanaka A, Takahashi A, Tabuchi S, Doya K. Optogenetic activation of dorsal raphe serotonin neurons enhances patience for future rewards. Current Biology. 2014;24:2033–2040. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.07.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Miyazaki K, Miyazaki KW, Yamanaka A, Tokuda T, Tanaka KF, Doya K. Reward probability and timing uncertainty alter the effect of dorsal raphe serotonin neurons on patience. Nature Communications. 2018;9:2048. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-04496-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Miyazaki K, Miyazaki KW, Sivori G, Yamanaka A, Tanaka KF, Doya K. Serotonergic projections to the orbitofrontal and medial prefrontal cortices differentially modulate waiting for future rewards. Science Advances. 2020;6:eabc7246. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abc7246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Moffitt TE, Arseneault L, Belsky D, Dickson N, Hancox RJ, Harrington H, Houts R, Poulton R, Roberts BW, Ross S, Sears MR, Thomson WM, Caspi A. A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. PNAS. 2011;108:2693–2698. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010076108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Morris DW, Davidson DL. Optimally foraging mice match patch use with habitat differences in fitness. Ecology. 2000;81:2061–2066. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[2061:OFMMPU]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Muir JL, Everitt BJ, Robbins TW. The cerebral cortex of the rat and visual attentional function: dissociable effects of mediofrontal, cingulate, anterior dorsolateral, and parietal cortex lesions on a five-choice serial reaction time task. Cerebral Cortex. 1996;6:470–481. doi: 10.1093/cercor/6.3.470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Murakami M, Shteingart H, Loewenstein Y, Mainen ZF. Distinct sources of deterministic and stochastic components of action timing decisions in rodent frontal cortex. Neuron. 2017;94:908–919. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.04.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Nagy Z, Westerberg H, Klingberg T. Maturation of white matter is associated with the development of cognitive functions during childhood. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2004;16:1227–1233. doi: 10.1162/0898929041920441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Nakayama H, Ibañez-Tallon I, Heintz N. Cell-type-specific contributions of medial prefrontal neurons to flexible behaviors. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2018;38:4490–4504. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3537-17.2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Narayanan NS, Horst NK, Laubach M. Reversible inactivations of rat medial prefrontal cortex impair the ability to wait for a stimulus. Neuroscience. 2006;139:865–876. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.11.072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Narayanan NS, Cavanagh JF, Frank MJ, Laubach M. Common medial frontal mechanisms of adaptive control in humans and rodents. Nature Neuroscience. 2013;16:1888–1895. doi: 10.1038/nn.3549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Nishitani N, Nagayasu K, Asaoka N, Yamashiro M, Andoh C, Nagai Y, Kinoshita H, Kawai H, Shibui N, Liu B, Hewinson J, Shirakawa H, Nakagawa T, Hashimoto H, Kasparov S, Kaneko S. Manipulation of dorsal raphe serotonergic neurons modulates active coping to inescapable stress and anxiety-related behaviors in mice and rats. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2019;44:721–732. doi: 10.1038/s41386-018-0254-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Ohmura Y, Tsutsui-Kimura I, Sasamori H, Nebuka M, Nishitani N, Tanaka KF, Yamanaka A, Yoshioka M. Different roles of distinct serotonergic pathways in anxiety-like behavior, antidepressant-like, and anti-impulsive effects. Neuropharmacology. 2020;167:107703. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2019.107703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Peixoto RT, Wang W, Croney DM, Kozorovitskiy Y, Sabatini BL. Early hyperactivity and precocious maturation of corticostriatal circuits in Shank3B(-/-) mice. Nature Neuroscience. 2016;19:716–724. doi: 10.1038/nn.4260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Petreanu L, Mao T, Sternson SM, Svoboda K. The subcellular organization of neocortical excitatory connections. Nature. 2009;457:1142–1145. doi: 10.1038/nature07709. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Phillipson OT, Griffiths AC. The topographic order of inputs to nucleus accumbens in the rat. Neuroscience. 1985;16:275–296. doi: 10.1016/0306-4522(85)90002-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Pollak Dorocic I, Fürth D, Xuan Y, Johansson Y, Pozzi L, Silberberg G, Carlén M, Meletis K. A whole-brain atlas of inputs to serotonergic neurons of the dorsal and median raphe nuclei. Neuron. 2014;83:663–678. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.07.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Puig MV, Gulledge AT. Serotonin and prefrontal cortex function: neurons, networks, and circuits. Molecular Neurobiology. 2011;44:449–464. doi: 10.1007/s12035-011-8214-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Reiter AMF, Deserno L, Wilbertz T, Heinze HJ, Schlagenhauf F. Risk Factors for Addiction and Their Association with Model-Based Behavioral Control. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2016;10:26. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Ren J, Friedmann D, Xiong J, Liu CD, Ferguson BR, Weerakkody T, DeLoach KE, Ran C, Pun A, Sun Y, Weissbourd B, Neve RL, Huguenard J, Horowitz MA, Luo L. Anatomically defined and functionally distinct dorsal raphe serotonin sub-systems. Cell. 2018;175:472–487. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.07.043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Ririe DG, Eisenach JC, Martin TJ. A painful beginning: Early life surgery produces long-term behavioral disruption in the rat. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2021;15:630889. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2021.630889. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Roberts AC, Robbins TW, Weiskrantz L. The Prefrontal CortexExecutive and Cognitive Functions. Oxford University Press; 1998. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  82. Romer D. Adolescent risk taking, impulsivity, and brain development: implications for prevention. Developmental Psychobiology. 2010;52:263–276. doi: 10.1002/dev.20442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Rosati AG, Emery Thompson M, Atencia R, Buckholtz JW. Distinct developmental trajectories for risky and impulsive decision-making in chimpanzees. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General. 2023;152:1551–1564. doi: 10.1037/xge0001347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Rudebeck PH, Saunders RC, Prescott AT, Chau LS, Murray EA. Prefrontal mechanisms of behavioral flexibility, emotion regulation and value updating. Nature Neuroscience. 2013;16:1140–1145. doi: 10.1038/nn.3440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Rutter M, Beckett C, Castle J, Colvert E, Kreppner J, Mehta M, Stevens S, Sonuga-Barke E. Effects of profound early institutional deprivation: An overview of findings from a UK longitudinal study of Romanian adoptees. European Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2007;4:332–350. doi: 10.1080/17405620701401846. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  86. Sackett DA, Moschak TM, Carelli RM. Prelimbic cortical neurons track preferred reward value and reflect impulsive choice during delay discounting behavior. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2019;39:3108–3118. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2532-18.2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Sakurai T, Gamo NJ. Cognitive functions associated with developing prefrontal cortex during adolescence and developmental neuropsychiatric disorders. Neurobiology of Disease. 2019;131:104322. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2018.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Sasamori H, Ohmura Y, Kubo T, Yoshida T, Yoshioka M. Assessment of impulsivity in adolescent mice: A new training procedure for A 3-choice serial reaction time task. Behavioural Brain Research. 2018;343:61–70. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2018.01.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Schweighofer N, Bertin M, Shishida K, Okamoto Y, Tanaka SC, Yamawaki S, Doya K. Low-serotonin levels increase delayed reward discounting in humans. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2008;28:4528–4532. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4982-07.2008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Sercombe H. Risk, adaptation and the functional teenage brain. Brain and Cognition. 2014;89:61–69. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2014.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Shaw P, Greenstein D, Lerch J, Clasen L, Lenroot R, Gogtay N, Evans A, Rapoport J, Giedd J. Intellectual ability and cortical development in children and adolescents. Nature. 2006;440:676–679. doi: 10.1038/nature04513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Soiza-Reilly M, Meye FJ, Olusakin J, Telley L, Petit E, Chen X, Mameli M, Jabaudon D, Sze JY, Gaspar P. SSRIs target prefrontal to raphe circuits during development modulating synaptic connectivity and emotional behavior. Molecular Psychiatry. 2019;24:726–745. doi: 10.1038/s41380-018-0260-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Sowell ER, Thompson PM, Holmes CJ, Jernigan TL, Toga AW. In vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in frontal and striatal regions. Nature Neuroscience. 1999;2:859–861. doi: 10.1038/13154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Spear LP. Neurobehavioral changes in adolescence. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2000;9:111–114. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00072. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  95. Srejic LR, Hamani C, Hutchison WD. High-frequency stimulation of the medial prefrontal cortex decreases cellular firing in the dorsal raphe. The European Journal of Neuroscience. 2015;41:1219–1226. doi: 10.1111/ejn.12856. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Tervo DGR, Hwang BY, Viswanathan S, Gaj T, Lavzin M, Ritola KD, Lindo S, Michael S, Kuleshova E, Ojala D, Huang CC, Gerfen CR, Schiller J, Dudman JT, Hantman AW, Looger LL, Schaffer DV, Karpova AY. A designer aav variant permits efficient retrograde access to projection neurons. Neuron. 2016;92:372–382. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.09.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Tooley UA, Bassett DS, Mackey AP. Environmental influences on the pace of brain development. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience. 2021;22:372–384. doi: 10.1038/s41583-021-00457-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Ueda S, Niwa M, Hioki H, Sohn J, Kaneko T, Sawa A, Sakurai T. Sequence of molecular events during the maturation of the developing mouse prefrontal cortex. Molecular Neuropsychiatry. 2015;1:94–104. doi: 10.1159/000430095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. van der Veen B, Kapanaiah SKT, Kilonzo K, Steele-Perkins P, Jendryka MM, Schulz S, Tasic B, Yao Z, Zeng H, Akam T, Nicholson JR, Liss B, Nissen W, Pekcec A, Kätzel D. Control of impulsivity by Gi-protein signalling in layer-5 pyramidal neurons of the anterior cingulate cortex. Communications Biology. 2021;4:662. doi: 10.1038/s42003-021-02188-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Velanova K, Wheeler ME, Luna B. Maturational changes in anterior cingulate and frontoparietal recruitment support the development of error processing and inhibitory control. Cerebral Cortex. 2008;18:2505–2522. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhn012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Verharen JPH, den Ouden HEM, Adan RAH, Vanderschuren LJMJ. Modulation of value-based decision making behavior by subregions of the rat prefrontal cortex. Psychopharmacology. 2020;237:1267–1280. doi: 10.1007/s00213-020-05454-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Vertechi P, Lottem E, Sarra D, Godinho B, Treves I, Quendera T, Oude Lohuis MN, Mainen ZF. Inference-based decisions in a hidden state foraging task: Differential contributions of prefrontal cortical areas. Neuron. 2020;106:166–176. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2020.01.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Warden MR, Selimbeyoglu A, Mirzabekov JJ, Lo M, Thompson KR, Kim SY, Adhikari A, Tye KM, Frank LM, Deisseroth K. A prefrontal cortex–brainstem neuronal projection that controls response to behavioural challenge. Nature. 2012;492:428–432. doi: 10.1038/nature11617. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Warthen DM, Lambeth PS, Ottolini M, Shi Y, Barker BS, Gaykema RP, Newmyer BA, Joy-Gaba J, Ohmura Y, Perez-Reyes E, Güler AD, Patel MK, Scott MM. Activation of pyramidal neurons in mouse medial prefrontal cortex enhances food-seeking behavior while reducing impulsivity in the absence of an effect on food intake. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2016;10:63. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00063. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Weed MR, Bryant R, Perry S. Cognitive development in macaques: attentional set-shifting in juvenile and adult rhesus monkeys. Neuroscience. 2008;157:22–28. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.08.047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Weissbourd B, Ren J, DeLoach KE, Guenthner CJ, Miyamichi K, Luo L. Presynaptic partners of dorsal raphe serotonergic and gabaergic neurons. Neuron. 2014;83:645–662. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.06.024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Winstanley CA, Theobald DEH, Dalley JW, Robbins TW. Interactions between serotonin and dopamine in the control of impulsive choice in rats: therapeutic implications for impulse control disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005;30:669–682. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Wong MM, Nigg JT, Zucker RA, Puttler LI, Fitzgerald HE, Jester JM, Glass JM, Adams K. Behavioral control and resiliency in the onset of alcohol and illicit drug use: A prospective study from preschool to adolescence. Child Development. 2006;77:1016–1033. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00916.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Xu Z, Feng Z, Zhao M, Sun Q, Deng L, Jia X, Jiang T, Luo P, Chen W, Tudi A, Yuan J, Li X, Gong H, Luo Q, Li A. Whole-brain connectivity atlas of glutamatergic and GABAergic neurons in the mouse dorsal and median raphe nuclei. eLife. 2021;10:e65502. doi: 10.7554/eLife.65502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Yang CF, Chiang MC, Gray DC, Prabhakaran M, Alvarado M, Juntti SA, Unger EK, Wells JA, Shah NM. Sexually dimorphic neurons in the ventromedial hypothalamus govern mating in both sexes and aggression in males. Cell. 2013;153:896–909. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Young H, Belbut B, Baeta M, Petreanu L. Laminar-specific cortico-cortical loops in mouse visual cortex. eLife. 2021;10:e59551. doi: 10.7554/eLife.59551. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. Zhou L, Liu MZ, Li Q, Deng J, Mu D, Sun YG. Organization of functional long-range circuits controlling the activity of serotonergic neurons in the dorsal raphe nucleus. Cell Reports. 2017;18:3018–3032. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.02.077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Zuo X-N, Kelly C, Di Martino A, Mennes M, Margulies DS, Bangaru S, Grzadzinski R, Evans AC, Zang Y-F, Castellanos FX, Milham MP. Growing together and growing apart: regional and sex differences in the lifespan developmental trajectories of functional homotopy. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2010;30:15034–15043. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2612-10.2010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  114. Zuo XN, He Y, Betzel RF, Colcombe S, Sporns O, Milham MP. Human connectomics across the life span. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2017;21:32–45. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.10.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Editor's evaluation

Geoffrey Schoenbaum 1

In this important study, the authors explore the importance of developmental changes in cortico-DRN innervation in the balance of behavioral control in a foraging task. The authors report somewhat convincing evidence that while juvenile mice and adult mice both perform the task, juveniles exhibit more impulsive behavior due to reduced efficacy of cortico-DRN projections. The authors conclude that the development of cortico-DRN projections allows 5HT input to promote perseveration (or exploitation) in the balance of behavioral control.

Decision letter

Editor: Geoffrey Schoenbaum1
Reviewed by: Geoffrey Schoenbaum2, Rui Peixoto3

Our editorial process produces two outputs: i) public reviews designed to be posted alongside the preprint for the benefit of readers; ii) feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions, shown below. We also include an acceptance summary that explains what the editors found interesting or important about the work.

Decision letter after peer review:

[Editors’ note: the authors submitted for reconsideration following the decision after peer review. What follows is the decision letter after the first round of review.]

Thank you for submitting the paper "Maturation of prefrontal input to dorsal raphe nucleus increases behavioral persistence in mice" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 2 peer reviewers, including Geoffrey Schoenbaum as the Reviewing Editor and Reviewer #1, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Senior Editor.

Comments to the Authors:

We are sorry to say that, after consultation with the reviewers, we have decided that this work will not be considered further for publication by eLife. Both reviewers noted the strengths of the work, but both also thought that there were some weaknesses in the claim that the behavioral changes hinged on development of the mPFC-DRN projections and also in the behavioral effect. While it was felt these could be dealt with by modifying the text and framing, there was not a consensus that doing this would still allow meaningful conclusions to be drawn. So it was ultimately felt that addressing the concerns likely would require significant work beyond the scope of a revision.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

This study has a lot to recommend it. It is founded on the idea that 5HT promotes waiting, and tests a clear and I think novel hypothesis that input from prefrontal areas is key to promoting this, and that the increase in this relates to declines in impulsive behavior during adolescence. It also nicely tests that hypothesis with integrated behavioral, electrophysiological and tracing approaches. Overall it makes a compelling argument in favor of the authors results. The independent findings also build upon or at least are well supported by prior work, which I think is excellent and increases confidence in the conclusions.

However I think there are two main caveats or issues to address. The first is that there is a strong focus throughout on the development of mPFC projections to DRN. Yet the key causal manipulation is not specific for this input it seems to me, but instead will target equally input from anywhere really. The second issue is the behavioral evidence of major foraging or waiting problems is relatively weak. The juvenile and adult mice both did the task, and it looks like they did it similarly? Obtaining similar amounts of reward? The differences they show look meaningful and reliable, but they are in details of how they interact with the nosepoke and apparatus it seems like to me. And that they do not appear to translate to clear reductions in the ability to do the task seems to call into some question the dependence of the task on the control impulsivity regulated by the proposed DRN circuit.

As noted, I think there are two main caveats or issues to address. The first is that there is a strong focus throughout on the development of mPFC projections to DRN. Yet the key causal manipulation is not specific for this input it seems to me, but instead will target equally input from anywhere really. I believe the authors will argue still that mPFC areas had the highest density of such projections in their data, however I think this does not rule out that their behavioral effect could be partly or even exclusively due to effects on projections from elsewhere. At a minimum this should be noted in the discussion and perhaps their arguments in favor of this specific circuit made more succinctly so readers can make their own judgement.

The second issue is the behavioral evidence of major foraging or waiting problems is relatively weak. The juvenile and adult mice both did the task, and it looks like they did it similarly? Obtaining similar amounts of reward? The differences they show look meaningful and reliable, but they are in details of how they interact with the nosepoke and apparatus it seems like to me. And that they do not appear to translate to clear reductions in the ability to do the task seems to call into some question the dependence of the task on the control impulsivity regulated by the proposed DRN circuit. Possibly this would be addressed by a more straightforward analysis of the behavioral effects, similar to prior studies, or the authors should make more clear why the modest changes in leaving and port occupancy measures are related to foraging per se.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

This manuscript seeks to answer an important question about how behavioral persistence changes from adolescence to adulthood, and whether medial prefrontal top-down control of the dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN) is responsible for the observed behavioral changes in mice. Using ChR2-assisted circuit mapping, the authors show that cortical layer 5 afferents to the DRN increase in connection probability and potency during adolescence. However, based on the genetic approach used, these findings are not anatomically specific to afferents originating in medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). Furthermore, the possibility that connection differences were attributable to the number of Rbp4-cre cells at different ages rather than growth of connections from a stable population was not excluded because the authors did not identify and quantify all regions from which these connections are received. This makes the relevance of anatomical findings to the mPFC-DRN pathway unclear.

Performance in a self-paced, operant foraging task was then compared in adolescent and adult mice. Mice in the two age groups appeared to perform differently in the task, with juveniles leaving response locations sooner than adults. However, based on the underlying statistical properties of the task, the more frequent location switching displayed by juveniles may have been a more efficient strategy, compared to adults persisting in the same location for too long. More relevant behavioral measures, such as mean consecutive failed responses and rewards earned per response are needed to fully evaluate task performance. Evidence of bimodality in the behavioral data should also be noted, as it suggests that not all subjects within a given group used consistent strategies or performed similarly.

Finally, the authors sought to assess changes in task performance when this mPFC-DRN pathway was disrupted in adult mice. To address this, they ablated layer 5 cortical neurons that projected to the DRN. In some measures, ablated adults performed more like juveniles in the same foraging task. However, the ablation technique used was like the anatomical analysis not specific to projection neurons from the mPFC to the DRN. In addition, the retrograde vector used in this experiment labeled collateral projections from cortical neurons to the striatum and other regions, making the scope of potential substrates quite large. Therefore, the behavioral outcomes were likely driven at least in part by the loss of layer 5 projection neurons from other cortical areas, or from the loss of their collaterals to areas outside of the DRN.

1. The reader would benefit from more justification/background on why using Rbp4-cre mice is appropriate for addressing the research question here. Furthermore, more information about the proportion of layer 5 neurons that successfully express ChR2 using this method should be described beyond "a large fraction" (Pg 6, line 112).

2. If Rbp4-Cre/ChR2-loxP mice were used to assess the effects of laser evoked firing in the DRN, we can't be sure the excised axons originated from the mPFC. Since these data reflect changes in general cortical input to DRN, and the control experiments to rule out differences in ChR2 expression were only done in mPFC, these limitations should be addressed. The authors should either use more selective techniques and include more specific analysis of the mPFC-DRN pathway or eliminate these specific conclusions and reserve them for speculation.

3. The description of the behavioral task is confusing and seems to obscure the fact that (based on the high probability of reward and high probability of switch used-0.9 each) the optimal strategy is to be flexible in response location, rather than persistent. More details are needed on the task: what determines trial start? What is the optimal strategy to use? What is the average number of responses before a subject should switch? Why do the authors state that this task "requires persistence in poking at the port despite reward failures" when it appears subjects are meant to be switching response locations frequently?

4. The text describes that each response in the active port carries a 0.9 probability that the active site will switch to the other location. This would seem to encourage alternation behavior after about 2 responses, not persistent behavior in one location. Are these data, therefore, reflecting maladaptive perseveration in adults, rather than adaptive persistence?

5. There are key behavioral outcome measures missing from the analysis that would make it much stronger. Mean number of rewards earned per response should be provided to give the reader more information about how efficiently the juvenile vs. adult strategies performed.

6. Some background on what is known about juvenile cognition would help put the results in context and appreciate any potential confounds. For example, juveniles are more impulsive.

7. In addition, the Vertechi et al., (2020) paper referenced for this behavioral task states that, "We found that the number of consecutive failures since the last reward (ConsecutiveFailureIndex) was a better predictor of mouse choice than the time spent at the nose poke". Number of consecutive failures should be reported here. Including this more informative measure is important especially when the time-based measures used here were vulnerable to task-irrelevant exploratory behavior, which skewed foraging episode times, and required the data the be reanalyzed with an arbitrary cutoff time of 60s.

8. The measure of time spent poking does not seem informative, or at least it does not give the reader more information than the number of pokes produced in a given bout.

9. The ablated pathway was not mPFC-DRN specific, but instead targeted any Rbp4-expressing neurons projecting to the DRN. The authors concluded that the highest density of DRN projections originated in mPFC, but only provided data from a small number of cortical comparison regions (temporal association cortex, retrosplenial cortex, and M1). Furthermore, somas expressing the control rAAV were shown to send collaterals to several regions outside of the DRN, such as the VTA, PAG, and the striatum. The loss of these collaterals in the ablation group could impact behavioral outcomes. Therefore, the data presented here are not sufficient to conclude that observed behavioral effects were specifically driven by mPFC-DRN pathway ablation. The language attributing behavioral changes exclusively to mPFC-DRN pathway ablation should be changed to reflect this lack of anatomical specificity.

10. The quantification of NeuN-expressing cell density was not described in the methods or main text. Since NeuN-labeling was used to quantify/confirm neuronal density loss in ablation mice compared to controls, the quantification process should be described fully in the methods.

11. The kernel density functions for 'leaving time' appear bimodal in several cases, especially in Figure 2C. The possibility that individuals within the same group/condition are using different strategies or are displaying different behavioral pattens should be addressed.

[Editors’ note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

Thank you for submitting the paper "Maturation of cortical input to dorsal raphe nucleus increases behavioral persistence in mice" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Senior Editor.

Comments to the Authors:

While we appreciated your responses to the original reviews, because of the very long time between the initial submission and this revision, some of the prior reviewers were not available. As a result, it was necessary to obtain new reviewers, who raised additional substantial concerns regarding some of the methodology. They felt that these issues required substantial additional control work.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

This study characterizes the development of cortico-raphe projections from L5 cortical neurons and their influence on foraging and persistent behavior. The finding that cortico-raphe projections mature late in development is extremely interesting and raises several new questions regarding the role of these projections in adolescence. Most of the significant points have already been addressed by other reviewers; I will focus on a few technical aspects of the electrophysiology experiments and the caspase3-based approach.

The late development or cortico-raphe projections is well supported by the histological and optogenetic experiments depicted in Figure 1. However, the reported oEPSC values seem to be based on a single trial/stimulus, is that correct? The authors mention "TTL-triggered pulses of light (10-ms duration; 10 mW measured at the fiber tip) were delivered at the recording site with a 10-second inter-sweep interval. In cases where multiple pulses were delivered per sweep, only the first one was considered for analysis to eliminate short-term plasticity effects on the measured amplitude." – A 10-second inter-sweep interval is insufficient to recover opsin desensitization, potentially leading to the perceived short-term plasticity. Increasing the inter-sweep interval to >45 seconds should resolve this issue and enable the averaging of individual sweeps to minimize the variability inherent in opto-evoked whole-cell recordings.

The control experiments based on NeuN IHC do not provide an estimate of the fraction of cortico-raphe projections ablated by the retro caspase approach, which is an important aspect to better interpret the behavioral results. This is because AAVrg only infects a subset of neurons. There are three potential alternative approaches to characterize the extent of cortico-raphe projection loss. One is to perform a second AAVrg-tdTom injection two weeks after AAVrg-DIO-casp3 to compare how many cells can still be retro-infected after the first caspase injection. However, quantifying these experiments is not straightforward, and variability due to viral injection efficiency and targeting is always a confounding factor. A more rigorous and cleaner approach could be to inject AAVrg-DIO-casp3 in Rbp4-Cre x Ai32 mice and compare oEPSC amplitudes in injected vs non-injected mice. As ChR2 is stably expressed in these mice this would provide a better assessment of connectivity changes after caspase ablations. A third approach would be to use Rbp4-Cre x XFP mice and quantify cortico-raphe fiber density changes after AAVrg-DIO-casp3 (similar to what is shown in Figure 1).

However, these strategies would only probe the fraction of cortical neurons expressing Cre, which, in the case of Rbp4-Cre, is approximately 50% of L5 neurons. It's possible that Rbp4-negative L5 neurons also project to the raphe, and these are not affected by DIO-casp3 ablation. Quantifying the extent of total cortico-raphe ablation is an important point, as considerable remaining fibers could lead to an underestimation of the behavioral effects caused by cortico-raphe manipulations.

Unless I missed it, there is no description of the age at which the caspase injection is performed in the different experiments. This is an important experimental detail.

Regarding the specificity of mPFC>raphe projections raised by other reviewers, the authors discuss the possibility of other mPFC collaterals in the striatum. Future experiments inhibiting local terminals (perhaps using Emx1-Cre crosses) with PPO/eOPN3 or activating ChR2 fibers in juveniles will help further support these findings.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

The paper in general gives very little detail on the anatomical analysis,

For the developmental description, It would be good to show to what extent the Rbp4 labels the PFC-raphe projection. Convincing would be for instance a retrograde labeling from the raphe in the Rbp4-GFP with some quantitative estimate.

For the analysis of afferent axons, the methods authors state that the analysis was done on sagittal sections, in which the position of the DRN and accumbens is not very easy to identify. Yet In figure 1 they show coronal sections.

Additionally, at this resolution and without co-labeling with a synaptic marker they cannot distinguish an increase of fluorescence or passing fibres from a true increase in the number of terminals.

For the retrograde lesion studies, they need to show the injection site of their viral delivery to determine how this could have impacted neighbouring structures. They also could better quantify the specific loss of l5 neurons with an independent L5 marker such as Ctip2.

In all the morphological analysis they need to show where the measures were done. They also need to indicate more precisely how the measures were made (field size analyzed, precise steps of image processing, magnification, number of sections analysed /case).

eLife. 2024 Mar 13;13:e93485. doi: 10.7554/eLife.93485.sa2

Author response


[Editors’ note: the authors resubmitted a revised version of the paper for consideration. What follows is the authors’ response to the first round of review.]

Comments to the Authors:

We are sorry to say that, after consultation with the reviewers, we have decided that this work will not be considered further for publication by eLife. Both reviewers noted the strengths of the work, but both also thought that there were some weaknesses in the claim that the behavioral changes hinged on development of the mPFC-DRN projections and also in the behavioral effect. While it was felt these could be dealt with by modifying the text and framing, there was not a consensus that doing this would still allow meaningful conclusions to be drawn. So it was ultimately felt that addressing the concerns likely would require significant work beyond the scope of a revision.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

This study has a lot to recommend it. It is founded on the idea that 5HT promotes waiting, and tests a clear and I think novel hypothesis that input from prefrontal areas is key to promoting this, and that the increase in this relates to declines in impulsive behavior during adolescence. It also nicely tests that hypothesis with integrated behavioral, electrophysiological and tracing approaches. Overall it makes a compelling argument in favor of the authors results. The independent findings also build upon or at least are well supported by prior work, which I think is excellent and increases confidence in the conclusions.

We are grateful for the reviewer’s positive comments.

However I think there are two main caveats or issues to address. The first is that there is a strong focus throughout on the development of mPFC projections to DRN. Yet the key causal manipulation is not specific for this input it seems to me, but instead will target equally input from anywhere really. The second issue is the behavioral evidence of major foraging or waiting problems is relatively weak. The juvenile and adult mice both did the task, and it looks like they did it similarly? Obtaining similar amounts of reward? The differences they show look meaningful and reliable, but they are in details of how they interact with the nosepoke and apparatus it seems like to me. And that they do not appear to translate to clear reductions in the ability to do the task seems to call into some question the dependence of the task on the control impulsivity regulated by the proposed DRN circuit.

As noted, I think there are two main caveats or issues to address. The first is that there is a strong focus throughout on the development of mPFC projections to DRN. Yet the key causal manipulation is not specific for this input it seems to me, but instead will target equally input from anywhere really. I believe the authors will argue still that mPFC areas had the highest density of such projections in their data, however I think this does not rule out that their behavioral effect could be partly or even exclusively due to effects on projections from elsewhere. At a minimum this should be noted in the discussion and perhaps their arguments in favor of this specific circuit made more succinctly so readers can make their own judgement.

We agree with the reviewer’s assessment that our circuit mapping approach is not completely mPFC specific (Rbp4-Cre line). In the original manuscript we referred to cortico-DRN projections until we presented evidence that most projections indeed arise from prefrontal cortical areas (Figure 3A-C and Figure S4). We found that projections from mPFC areas are 13 times more abundant than those originating in other cortical areas, which we believe is reasonable evidence to suggest it is the principal player in the phenotypic differences we described. However, we concur with the reviewer’s comment that we can still not rule out the involvement of the minor DRN afferent projections originating outside of the mPFC (including Rs and TeA cortices). Therefore, to be more conservative in our interpretation, in our revised manuscript, we refer to “cortico-raphe” projections throughout the results (changes are highlighted in bold font):

Title: “Maturation of cortical input to dorsal raphe nucleus increases behavioral persistence in mice”

Abstract: Lines 20-28: “Here, we used a genetic approach to describe the maturation of the projection from layer 5 neurons of the neocortex to the dorsal raphe nucleus in mice. Using optogenetic assisted circuit mapping, we show that this projection undergoes a dramatic increase in synaptic potency between postnatal weeks 3 and 8, corresponding to the transition from juvenile to adult. We then show that this period corresponds to an increase in the behavioral persistence that mice exhibit in a foraging task. Finally, we used a genetic targeting strategy that primarily affected neurons in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), to selectively ablate this pathway in adulthood and show that mice revert to a behavioral phenotype similar to juveniles.”

Introduction: Lines 114-122: “First, using a transgenic line (Rbp-Cre) that targets the layer 5 neurons that provide the neocortical input to the DRN, we discovered that this input undergoes a dramatic increase in potency over the course of development from 3-4 weeks (juvenile) to 7-8 weeks (adult). Then, using a probabilistic foraging task, we found that mice’s behavior persistence increased over the same period. Finally, using a genetic ablation technique that primarily affected the mPFC, we showed that ablation of neocortical input to the DRN in adult mice recapitulated the juvenile foraging behavior. Together, these results identify a descending neocortical pathway to the DRN that is critical to the maturation of behavioral control that characterizes adulthood.”

Results: Lines 349-350: “Cortico-DRN pathway ablation in adult mice recapitulates juvenile behavioral features.”

Lines 352-355: “To test the causal link between the development of cortico-raphe afferents and the observed increase in persistence during foraging, we next ablated the cortico-raphe pathway in adult mice and assessed the impact on behavioral persistence.”

Lines 435-439: “Together, these results show that turning off the cortical input to the DRN, which mostly comes from the mPFC, makes adult mice behave like young mice when they are performing the same foraging task. This means mature cortico-DRN innervation is necessary for adult mice to be persistent in their behavior, and this pathway is likely to help mice learn to be persistent in their behavior.”

Discussion: Lines 472-478: “In the present study, we described how the postnatal maturation of the cortical innervation over the DRN during adolescence is linked to the performance of a probabilistic foraging task. Over the same period of development, the cortico-raphe projections underwent a dramatic increase in potency and mice developed an increase in persistence in foraging behavior. Ablation of this pathway in adult mice recapitulated the features observed in the behavior of juvenile mice, supporting a causal relationship between the cortico-raphe input and behavioral persistence.”

Lines 504-505: “However, the specific contribution of long-range top-down cortical circuits and the cellular mechanisms underlying its development had not been previously investigated.“

Lines 513-521: “Thus, our findings are consistent with previous observations in the literature and suggest that the maturation of cortico-DRN afferents starts early in postnatal development and undergoes an extended development period, plateauing only after reaching 7-8 weeks of age. Among the previous studies investigating the postnatal development of top-down afferents from the neocortex in rodents (Klune et al., 2021, Peixoto et al., 2016, Ferguson & Gao 2015), the latest afferent maturational process reported is the mPFC innervation over the basolateral amygdala, which occurs up to week 4 (Arruda-Carvalho et al., 2017). Thus, to our knowledge, the cortical innervation of the DRN represents the latest top-down pathway to develop.”

And leave the role of mPFC-DRN projections as a discussion topic:

Lines 532-535: “Furthermore, we localized the origin of these projections and quantified the local neuronal loss. The PL, IL, and AC cortices, areas that comprise the so called mPFC (Klune et al., 2021), suffered a significant loss with the procedure. Although we cannot rule out a contribution of the other affected areas (Rs and TeA) in our caspase manipulation experiment, it is very likely that the areas with higher neuronal loss (mPFC) made a pivotal contribution to the behavioral changes we observed.”

The second issue is the behavioral evidence of major foraging or waiting problems is relatively weak. The juvenile and adult mice both did the task, and it looks like they did it similarly? Obtaining similar amounts of reward? The differences they show look meaningful and reliable, but they are in details of how they interact with the nosepoke and apparatus it seems like to me. And that they do not appear to translate to clear reductions in the ability to do the task seems to call into some question the dependence of the task on the control impulsivity regulated by the proposed DRN circuit. Possibly this would be addressed by a more straightforward analysis of the behavioral effects, similar to prior studies, or the authors should make more clear why the modest changes in leaving and port occupancy measures are related to foraging per se.

In the present study we used a foraging task to provide a metric of behavioral persistence that was available with minimal training. We took this approach because of the need to measure persistence over the brief course of life of a juvenile animal. The behavior of such juvenile mice have only rarely been studied in any situation. The task was well-suited to this purpose because we found, to our initial surprise, that juvenile mice and adult mice both performed it to some degree on the first day of exposure, unlike any other task for measuring persistence that we are familiar with.

The main point we want to argue is that there are differences in persistence in poking between the two groups. We summarized the differences in foraging behavior between juvenile/adult and caspase/control mice in terms of elapsed time because we found that leaving decisions were better explained as a function of time than pokes. This evidence came from comparing which model (under a constant number of degrees of freedom) fitted better the data using the Akaike information criterion (AIC): Leave~1+PokeTime+(1+PokeTime|MouseID) versus Leave~1+PokeNumber+(1+PokeNumber|MouseID): AICtime=1.13e4, AICnumber=1.14e4 p: 1.52e-23).

However, to address the reviewer's concern, we now include the analysis of pokes after last, as shown in previous reports from our group (data now included in Figure 2 panel F and Figure 3 panel E). This analysis confirms that juvenile mice display reduced persistence compared to controls, and also that the caspase ablation recapitulates the same effect which strengthens the claims we describe to the reader:

Lines 297-309: “Although the time elapsed from the beginning of a trial is a better metric to explain leaving decisions, it does not distinguish between active persistence and spurious pauses in poking. Changes in leaving time could be caused either by an increase in the number of attempts performed or by an increase in the time between attempts. We therefore compared the number of attempts per trial in adults and juveniles, both as overall number of pokes and as consecutive unrewarded pokes performed after the last reward (Vertechi et al., 2020) (Figure 2F). Adults made more pokes per trial than juveniles (Figure 2F; Adults: median = 3.65 pokes per trial, 95% CI = [0.42, 0.51], Juveniles: median = 2.92 pokes per trial, 95% CI = [0.35, 0.50]; Mann-Whitney U test (N Adults = 21, N Juveniles = 23) = 354.5, p = 0.008, effect size = 0.73), and more consecutive failures after the last reward (Figure 2F; Adults: median = 2.69 pokes after last reward, 95% CI = [0.39, 0.53], Juveniles: median = 1.96 pokes after last reward, 95% CI = [0.41, 0.52]; Mann-Whitney U test (N Adults = 21, N Juveniles = 23) = 351.0, p = 0.009, effect size = 0.73).”

While the phenotypic differences we report are relatively small in magnitude, as noted by the reviewer, they were reliable across our experimental groups. Importantly, in a previous study from our group, it was shown that the direct optogenetic stimulation of DRN 5HT neurons produces similarly small and reliable persistence differences in mice performing a probabilistic foraging task (Lottem et al., 2018). Thus, the magnitude of the differences here reported are in line with our predictions for the manipulation of excitatory afferent pathways onto DRN neurons, as we now report in the discussion:Lines 522-530: “Importantly, we found that the structural development of cortico-DRN projections is causally linked to the maturation of behavioral persistence in adult mice. Using a genetically driven ablation approach (Yang et al., 2013), we selectively eliminated layer 5 cortical neurons projecting to DRN in adult mice. The procedure resulted in a behavioral phenotype that replicated key features of the juvenile foraging behavior. We observed a reduction in behavioral persistence.

This difference in behavioral persistence was small but reliable, and of similar magnitude (but, as expected, in the opposite direction) to the difference observed when optogenetically stimulating 5HT DRN neurons in mice performing a probabilistic foraging task (Lottem et al., 2018).”

Finally, despite these differences, we do not argue that the foraging strategy adopted by juvenile mice is worse than that of adult mice or that the cortico-raphe projection is responsible for the ability of mice to perform the task adequately. To the contrary, we highlight the overall similar performance, suggesting that the foraging behavior is relatively “innate” and its basic execution does not solely depend on cortico-raphe activity.

Indeed, as the reviewer suggests, juvenile and adult mice performed the task overall similarly, as illustrated by the fact that they gathered rewards at a similar rate (data now included in Figure 2 panel C and Figure 3 panel E):

Lines 249-259: “We compared the behavior of juvenile (weeks 3-4) and adult mice (weeks 7-8) on their first exposure to the apparatus and task, ensuring that differences in persistence do not arise from differences in learning about the task. We used an environment characterized by high reward probability (Prwd = 90%) and high site-switching probability (Psw = 90%) (Figure 2A). These statistics produce a small number of rewards per trial (Rewards per trial: minimum = 0, maximum = 3) (Figure 2B), and maximize the number of trials performed in one session. Both groups obtained a comparable reward rate (Figure 2C; Adults: median = 0.02 rewards per second, 95% CI = [0.0020, 0.003], Juveniles: median = 0.023 rewards per second, 95% CI = [0.001, 0.012]; Mann-Whitney U test (N Adults = 21, N Juveniles = 23) = 182.0, p = 0.16), indicating that juveniles and adults do not differ in terms of overall competence in performing the task. “

Lines 398-404: “We then assessed the impact of ablation of cortical input to the DRN on behavioral persistence using the same foraging paradigm and analysis we adopted to assess persistence in adults and juveniles (Figure 3D). First, we confirmed that both groups can perform the task comparatively well, obtaining a similar reward rate (Figure 3E; tdTomato: median = 0.033 rewards per second, 95% CI = [0.019, 0.003], Caspase: median = 0.034 rewards per second, 95% CI = [0.010, 0.008]; Mann-Whitney U test (N tdTomato = 8, N Caspase = 7) = 21.0, p = 0.46). ”

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

This manuscript seeks to answer an important question about how behavioral persistence changes from adolescence to adulthood, and whether medial prefrontal top-down control of the dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN) is responsible for the observed behavioral changes in mice. Using ChR2-assisted circuit mapping, the authors show that cortical layer 5 afferents to the DRN increase in connection probability and potency during adolescence. However, based on the genetic approach used, these findings are not anatomically specific to afferents originating in medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). Furthermore, the possibility that connection differences were attributable to the number of Rbp4-cre cells at different ages rather than growth of connections from a stable population was not excluded because the authors did not identify and quantify all regions from which these connections are received. This makes the relevance of anatomical findings to the mPFC-DRN pathway unclear.

Performance in a self-paced, operant foraging task was then compared in adolescent and adult mice. Mice in the two age groups appeared to perform differently in the task, with juveniles leaving response locations sooner than adults. However, based on the underlying statistical properties of the task, the more frequent location switching displayed by juveniles may have been a more efficient strategy, compared to adults persisting in the same location for too long. More relevant behavioral measures, such as mean consecutive failed responses and rewards earned per response are needed to fully evaluate task performance. Evidence of bimodality in the behavioral data should also be noted, as it suggests that not all subjects within a given group used consistent strategies or performed similarly.

Finally, the authors sought to assess changes in task performance when this mPFC-DRN pathway was disrupted in adult mice. To address this, they ablated layer 5 cortical neurons that projected to the DRN. In some measures, ablated adults performed more like juveniles in the same foraging task. However, the ablation technique used was like the anatomical analysis not specific to projection neurons from the mPFC to the DRN. In addition, the retrograde vector used in this experiment labeled collateral projections from cortical neurons to the striatum and other regions, making the scope of potential substrates quite large. Therefore, the behavioral outcomes were likely driven at least in part by the loss of layer 5 projection neurons from other cortical areas, or from the loss of their collaterals to areas outside of the DRN.

1. The reader would benefit from more justification/background on why using Rbp4-cre mice is appropriate for addressing the research question here. Furthermore, more information about the proportion of layer 5 neurons that successfully express ChR2 using this method should be described beyond "a large fraction" (Pg 6, line 112).

We wanted a method that could select the prefrontal input to the DRN. We chose the Rb4-cre line because, as reported by Gerfen and colleagues: “The BAC-Cre driver line Rbp4_KL100 may be considered a pan layer 5 line, displaying expression restricted to most layer 5 neurons throughout neocortical and peri-allocortical areas.” (Gerfen et al., Neuron 2014). Furthermore, Tervo and colleagues have used the Rbp4 line to validate the efficiency of retroAAV vectors, showing that the pattern of cortical projections observed after pontine injections matches that one obtained with standard tracing methods (i.e Fluorogold) and therefore supporting the pan-cortical behavior of the Rbp4 line (Tervo et al., Cell 2016). These references have now been added to the manuscript. While this did not leave us with a perfectly selective labeling of the target pathway, it was in our view the most precise method readily available to us. And, as we observed, mPFC projections are 13.1 times more abundant than those coming from outside the mPFC. Furthermore, other more specific methods based on local virus injections suffer from significant experimental caveats. To assess behavior of juvenile mice at P21-P25, surgeries should be performed at around P10. At this stage, not only virus injection volumes and locations are challenging to match with adults to obtain comparable transfections, but specially, invasive surgical procedures in juvenile rodents have been shown to exert significant early life stress that leads to long lasting behavioral perturbations (Ririe et al., 2021. Front Behav Neurosci).

Therefore we selected an unbiased method that does not depend on injection size or location, that does not suffer from expression artifacts over development (as shown in Figure S1) and that does not represent a source of unwanted early life stress. The current approach allowed us to confirm the behavioral contribution of cortical projections to DRN, and to identify which areas are more likely to be crucial. Future study will benefit from this unbiased approach to guide the use of more selective techniques. A summary of these arguments has now been added to the manuscript:

Results:

Lines 127-136: “First, to characterize the development of neocortical projections to the DRN, we focused on the afferents of layer 5 neurons, which are the primary origin of these projections (Pollak Dorocic, 2014). To do so, we used a mouse line expressing channelrhodopsin-2 (ChR2) under the Rbp4 promoter (Rbp4-Cre/ChR2-loxP) which targets both intra- and extracortical projecting layer 5 neurons (Leone et al., 2015; Gerfen et al., 2013; Tervo et al., 2016) and that has been previously used to map the postnatal development of extracortical projections (Peixoto et al., 2015). Importantly, this approach represents key advantages over alternative viral based strategies as it is insensitive to injection size and location and avoids surgeries in pup mice, thus not introducing an unwanted source of early life stress (Ririe et al., 2021). ”

2. If Rbp4-Cre/ChR2-loxP mice were used to assess the effects of laser evoked firing in the DRN, we can't be sure the excised axons originated from the mPFC. Since these data reflect changes in general cortical input to DRN, and the control experiments to rule out differences in ChR2 expression were only done in mPFC, these limitations should be addressed. The authors should either use more selective techniques and include more specific analysis of the mPFC-DRN pathway or eliminate these specific conclusions and reserve them for speculation.

As pointed out in the response to reviewer 1, we acknowledge that the use of Rbp4 line is not restricted to mPFC. Therefore, in the submitted version we presented these results as “maturation of cortico-DRN input” until providing evidence that most input is, in fact, originating in the mPFC. When injecting, in the DRN of Rbp4 mice, retroAAV viral vectors expressing td-Tomato in a cre dependent manner, we reliably observe retrogradely labeled neurons in 5 cortical areas (in more than 5 out of 8 mice): MO, PL/IL, AC, TeA and Rs. In a recent study mapping whole-brain inputs to the DRN (Xu et al., ELife 2021), 8 major areas of projection are identified from the neocortex, 5 of which overlap with our observations. Out of the areas in which we observed projections, not only the majority of them were part of the mPFC, but also the density of these mPFC projections was much higher than those originating outside the mPFC. When dividing the overall projection density of mPFC areas (MO, PL/IL, AC) by non-mPFC areas (TeA, Rs) we obtained a ratio of 13.1, indicating that the mPFC projection to the DRN is 13.1 times higher than the non-mPFC one. We consider this likely indicates a stronger involvement of mPFC areas in the observations described in this study. However, we agree with the reviewer in this criticism and we have now provided a new version in which we limit our interpretation to cortico-DRN input, leaving the case of mPFC-DRN input as a likely scenario given our results, but not ruling out alternative explanations:

Lines 530-535: “Furthermore, we localized the origin of these projections and quantified the local neuronal loss. The PL, IL, and AC cortices, areas that comprise the so called mPFC (Klune et al., 2021), suffered a significant loss with the procedure. Although we cannot rule out the contribution of the other affected areas (Rs and TeA) in our caspase manipulation experiment, it is very likely that the areas with higher neuronal loss (mPFC) made a pivotal contribution to the behavioral changes we observed. ”

3. The description of the behavioral task is confusing and seems to obscure the fact that (based on the high probability of reward and high probability of switch used-0.9 each) the optimal strategy is to be flexible in response location, rather than persistent. More details are needed on the task: what determines trial start? What is the optimal strategy to use? What is the average number of responses before a subject should switch? Why do the authors state that this task "requires persistence in poking at the port despite reward failures" when it appears subjects are meant to be switching response locations frequently?

There are no signals to the mouse that a trial has started. The only feedback the mouse gets about the state of the port is the availability of water itself. In this sense is it not really a task with correct and incorrect trials signaled by clear feedback as in psychophysical tasks. We chose this deliberately because it resembles more closely a natural foraging situation and, perhaps for this reason, was quick for the mice to begin performing.

The reviewer is correct that the task calls for a relatively short amount of time poking compared to a version where the switch probability was lower. It is not simple to calculate the true optimal strategy in this task and we make no arguments concerning optimality. This is the case because the cost function of the mouse is not readily known. We do not claim or intend to imply that juvenile mice are less optimal or that the cortico-raphe pathway has an effect on task “success” or optimality. In fact, juveniles and adults receive a similar number of rewards per trial. We are solely using the task to measure persistence, which we define, following previous studies (Vertechi et al. Neuron 2020; Lottem et al., Nat. Comm. 2018), by the duration or number of pokes at a site. Persistence does not have an absolute reference point. A mouse may be slightly more persistent by showing a small increase in a relatively short time scale behavior, as the one we studied. At p = 0.9 switching probability, switching after 1 poke, i.e. simply alternating, would be ‘correct’ 90% of the time, which could be close enough to optimal to avoid a more complex strategy. Yet to avoid the cost of switching, an animal in a stochastic environment, which might also be changing over time (even though the actual environment we used was stationary) would require making more than 1 poke per side at least some of the time in order to collect information about the dynamics of the ports. This information seeking behavior is likely to be part of optimal behavior. Indeed, even juveniles make more than 1 poke per trial on average. We could speculate as to exactly what the raphe and cortico-raphe projection contribute to the orchestration of this behavior, but this is aside the point of our claims, which are solely about the tendency to stay and wait or repeat the same action rather than leaving. We now clarify this in the text:

Lines 238-259: “To investigate the development of behavioral persistence in mice, we employed a self-paced probabilistic foraging task (Vertechi et al., 2020). The setup consists of a box with two nose-ports separated by a barrier (Figure 2A). Each nose-port constitutes a foraging site that water-deprived mice can actively probe in order to receive water rewards. Only one foraging site is active at a time, delivering reward with a fixed probability. Each try in the active site can also cause a switch of the active site’s location with a fixed probability (Figure 2B). After a state switch, mice have to travel to the other port to obtain more reward, bearing a time cost to travel. In this task, a trial is defined as a bout of consecutive attempts on the same port, before leaving, and the amount of time spent attempting to obtain reward in one port before switching is the primary measure of persistence, independent of the specific strategy used by the mice (see Discussion).

We compared the behavior of juvenile (weeks 3-4) and adult mice (weeks 7-8) on their first exposure to the apparatus and task, ensuring that differences in persistence do not arise from differences in learning about the task. We used an environment characterized by high reward probability (Prwd = 90%) and high site-switching probability (Psw = 90%) (Figure 2A). These statistics produce a small number of rewards per trial (Rewards per trial: minimum = 0, maximum = 3) (Figure 2B), and maximize the number of trials performed in one session. Both groups obtained a comparable reward rate (Figure 2C; Adults: median = 0.02 rewards per second, 95% CI = [0.0020, 0.003], Juveniles: median = 0.023 rewards per second, 95% CI = [0.001, 0.012]; Mann-Whitney U test (N Adults = 21, N Juveniles = 23) = 182.0, p = 0.16), indicating that juveniles and adults do not differ in terms of overall competence in performing the task. ”

4. The text describes that each response in the active port carries a 0.9 probability that the active site will switch to the other location. This would seem to encourage alternation behavior after about 2 responses, not persistent behavior in one location. Are these data, therefore, reflecting maladaptive perseveration in adults, rather than adaptive persistence?

While it is difficult to quantify what is optimal behavior in this task and we did not attempt to do so, we fully agree with the reviewer that we cannot make conclusions about juveniles being ‘worse’ than adults in this foraging environment. It is important to note that both groups of mice are naive to the task and perform under a suboptimal “stimulus bound” strategy instead of an “inferencebased” one, as described by Vertechi et al. Neuron 2020. In the revised manuscript we clarify this in the manuscript:

Lines 486-498: “In line with pre-adolescent humans’ lack of delay gratification ability (Mischel et al., 1989), and with studies assessing impulsive behavior in mice over development (Sasamori et al., 2018), we found that mice of 3-4 weeks of age tend to be less persistent than 7-8 weeks old mice in a probabilistic foraging task. In a previous study we showed that adult mice are capable of performing the task by adopting an effective inference-based strategy (Vertechi et al., 2020) which involves tolerating a fixed number of consecutive failures after the last received reward independent of the total number of rewards obtained in that trial. This strategy is optimal because the state switch probability is independent of the reward probability. However, before learning this strategy, mice use a simpler “stimulus-bound” strategy in which the number of rewards received tends to increase persistence during a trial (Vertechi et al., 2020). Altogether, our observations suggest that naive juvenile and adult mice forage in a similar manner

5. There are key behavioral outcome measures missing from the analysis that would make it much stronger. Mean number of rewards earned per response should be provided to give the reader more information about how efficiently the juvenile vs. adult strategies performed.

We thank the reviewer for this point. We now include the suggested outcome measure, which shows that indeed the juvenile and adult mice have similar efficiency in terms of reward per trial. We also highlight this in the discussion as described above (See response to reviewer 1).

6. Some background on what is known about juvenile cognition would help put the results in context and appreciate any potential confounds. For example, juveniles are more impulsive.

We have now expanded the introduction of our manuscript to include several references (from rodents, primates and humans) illustrating the point raised by the reviewer:

Lines 52-60: “For instance, humans and macaques with prefrontal cortical damage display deficits in behavioral flexibility, decision making, and emotional processing (Izquierdo et al., 2017; Rudebeck et al., 2013; Roberts et al., 1998), as well as a notable increase in impulsive behavior (Berlin, 2004; Dalley and Robbins, 2017; Fellows, 2006; Itami and Uno, 2002), all of which, at least partially recapitulate features of juvenile behavior over healthy development in humans, non-human primates, and rodents (Rosati et al., 2023; Doremus-Fitzwater et al., 2012; Romer, 2010; Weed et al., 2008). In line with this, local pharmacological inhibition of mPFC significantly limits rats’ ability to wait for a delayed reward (Murakami et al., 2017; Narayanan et al., 2006).”

Lines 62-67: “Crucially, the mPFC undergoes intense postnatal maturation from childhood to adulthood, particularly during adolescence (Chini & Hanganu-Opatz., 2021), which in humans spans from years ~10-18 of life and in mice from weeks ~3-8 of life, and is a period of intense somatic maturation, including sexual development (Bell, 2018), and that correlates with a decrease in impulsive behavior characteristic of the juvenile phase (Rosati et al., 2023; Doremus-Fitzwater et al., 2012; Hammond et al., 2012; Konstantoudaki et al., 2018).”

7. In addition, the Vertechi et al., (2020) paper referenced for this behavioral task states that, "We found that the number of consecutive failures since the last reward (ConsecutiveFailureIndex) was a better predictor of mouse choice than the time spent at the nose poke". Number of consecutive failures should be reported here. Including this more informative measure is important especially when the time-based measures used here were vulnerable to task-irrelevant exploratory behavior, which skewed foraging episode times, and required the data the be reanalyzed with an arbitrary cutoff time of 60s.

In adult mice which are very familiar with the task, pokes rather than time is the best predictor of behavior. In untrained and juvenile mice we found that this was not the case. This might reflect the fact that early in task exposure, mice do not “realize” that individual pokes trigger water delivery and state changes. It is true that time-based measures are more susceptible to taskirrelevant behavior. We explored carefully various alternative measures and found generally consistent effects regardless of measure and precise cutoff values. As requested by the reviewer, we have now included the “pokes after last” measure (See below and Figures 2F and 3E of the updated manuscript) and excluded the analysis using an arbitrary cutoff. We hope the reviewer will agree that the consistency of results strengthens the robustness of our interpretation.

8. The measure of time spent poking does not seem informative, or at least it does not give the reader more information than the number of pokes produced in a given bout.

In adult mice which are very familiar with the task, pokes rather than time is the best predictor of behavior. In untrained and juvenile mice we found that this was not the case. This might reflect the fact that early in task exposure, mice do not “realize” that individual pokes trigger water delivery and state changes. It is true that time-based measures are more susceptible to taskirrelevant behavior. We explored carefully various alternative measures and found generally consistent effects regardless of measure and precise cutoff values. As requested by the reviewer, we have now included the “pokes after last” measure (See Author response image 1 and Figures 2F and 3E of the updated manuscript) and excluded the analysis using an arbitrary cutoff. We hope the reviewer will agree that the consistency of results strengthens the robustness of our interpretation.

Author response image 1.

Author response image 1.

9. The ablated pathway was not mPFC-DRN specific, but instead targeted any Rbp4-expressing neurons projecting to the DRN. The authors concluded that the highest density of DRN projections originated in mPFC, but only provided data from a small number of cortical comparison regions (temporal association cortex, retrosplenial cortex, and M1). Furthermore, somas expressing the control rAAV were shown to send collaterals to several regions outside of the DRN, such as the VTA, PAG, and the striatum. The loss of these collaterals in the ablation group could impact behavioral outcomes. Therefore, the data presented here are not sufficient to conclude that observed behavioral effects were specifically driven by mPFC-DRN pathway ablation. The language attributing behavioral changes exclusively to mPFC-DRN pathway ablation should be changed to reflect this lack of anatomical specificity.

Given that the Rbp4 line expresses Cre in all cortical areas, and being aware that any Rbp4+ neuron projecting to the DRN would be susceptible to be infected by rAAV vectors, we performed a careful characterization of the areas in which we found robust expression of tdTomato in control animals. In our hands, only 5 areas showed tdTomato+ neurons in at least 5/8 control mice, these areas were PR/IL, AC, MO, TeA and Rs. Areas showing expression in 1-3 mice were not included for analysis. This information has been included in the methods and results for clarity:

Methods:

Lines 696-701: “We found five cortical areas consistently expressing layer 5 tdTomato+ neurons in at least 5/8 control mice: PR/IL, AC, MO, TeA, Rs. We then acquired confocal images of these 5 areas in mice injected with rAAV-tdTomato or rAAV-Caspase for analysis. Areas showing expression in 1-3 mice were not included for analysis”

Results:

Lines 364-391: “We found tdTomato+ expressing neurons in five cortical areas (Figure S4AG), which is largely consistent with previous reports (Xu et al., 2021). Furthermore, these neurons mainly originated in the prefrontal cortex, being 13 times more abundant than those from other cortical areas outside the prefrontal cortex. The prelimbic/infralimbic (PL/IL) and anterior cingulate (AC) cortices, which constitute the mPFC, were the areas with the highest density of DRN-projecting tdTomato+ somas in control animals (Figure S4B-D-E, median = 3.41 neurons per layer 5 bin, 95% CI = [1.45, 3.81] for PL/IL and median = 1.54 neurons per layer 5 bin, 95% CI = [1.18, 3.64] for AC) and consistently more extensive neuron density loss in caspase injected mice, quantified using the pan-neuronal marker NeuN (Figure 3A-C, control n=8 mice vs. caspase n=7 mice, two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnoff Test = 0.028, p = 0.002 for PL/IL and D = 0.024, p = 0.01 for AC). We also found tdTomato+ somata in the medial orbitofrontal cortex (MO) of the control group; however, this projection was less robust in terms of tdTomato+ labeled neurons across animals (Figure S4B-C, median = 1.34 neurons per layer 5 bin, 95% CI = [0.37, 4.81]) and, consistently, the difference in layer 5 NeuN densities between control and caspase mice was not significant (Figures 3C, S4, D = 0.017, p = 0.08).

Apart from the mPFC, sparse labeling of tdTom+ neurons was found in more posterior levels of the neocortex, namely in the retrosplenial cortex (RS) and in the temporal association cortex (TeA) (Figure S4B,F,G; median = 0.11 neurons per layer 5 bin, 95% CI = [0.0, 0.56] for Rs and median = 0.0 neurons per layer 5 bin, 95% CI = [0.0, 0.52] for TeA). However, it is worth noting that tdTom+ neurons were only found in the RS of 5 out of 8 control animals, and in the TeA of 3 out of 8 control animals. Consistently, the reduction in NeuN layer 5 neuronal density in these two areas was minimal and non-significant compared to controls (Figure 3C, D = 0.034, p = 0.12 for RS and D = 0.025, p = 0.19 for TeA). In addition, no differences in NeuN density were observed between caspase- and tdTomato-injected animals in an area that does not contain tdTomato expressing somas and therefore not projecting to the DRN which serves as a negative control to rule out unspecific biases in our quantification method (M1, Figure 3C, D = 0.019, p = 0.15). These observations suggest that our ablation approach primarily affected mPFC-DRN projecting neurons, particularly from PL/IL and AC cortices.”

M1 was included as a negative control for the specificity in the method of quantifying NeuN densities. Given that M1 did not contain tdTomato+ neurons in any control animal, we should expect that M1 is not susceptible to present layer 5 cell death in Caspase injected mice compared to controls. As expected, we observed comparable NeuN density in control and caspase injected mice in M1, which indicated that our NeuN quantification method did not show any systematic artifactual bias:

Lines 386-391: “In addition, no differences in NeuN density were observed between caspase- and tdTomato-injected animals in an area that does not contain tdTomato expressing somas and therefore not projecting to the DRN which serves as a negative control to rule out unspecific biases in our quantification method (M1, Figure 3C, D = 0.019, p = 0.15). These observations suggest that our ablation approach primarily affected mPFC-DRN projecting neurons, particularly from the PL/IL and AC cortices.”

Regarding the characterization of collateral projections affected in the caspase manipulation, we note that this is an important and often overlooked piece of information in many studies using “pathway specific” optogenetic stimulation of axons without comment on the possibility that this activates collaterals through action potential backpropagation. We completely agree with the reviewer that we cannot unequivocally attribute the phenotypic effect of the ablation to only one pathway (as we emphasize in the discussion), but in comparison to the standards for studies using similar methods to address similar questions we would suggest that ours is not less precise than many others making as or more specific claims.

10. The quantification of NeuN-expressing cell density was not described in the methods or main text. Since NeuN-labeling was used to quantify/confirm neuronal density loss in ablation mice compared to controls, the quantification process should be described fully in the methods.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue and we apologize for not having included this important information in the submitted manuscript. We have now incorporated this information into the methods section.

Lines 696-706: “Quantification of NeuN expressing neurons was performed using the same protocol used in Rbp4-tdTomato mice. First, we visually inspected the expression pattern of tdTomato expressing neurons after injecting rAAV-tdTomato in the DRN of control mice. We found 5 cortical areas consistently expressing layer 5 tdTomato+ neurons in at least 5/8 control mice: PR/IL, AC, MO, TeA, Rs. We then acquired confocal images of these 5 areas in mice injected with rAAV-tdTomato or rAAV-Caspase for analysis. Areas showing expression in 1-3 mice were not included for analysis. These confocal stacks contained the green fluorescent signal of NeuN detection and the red intrinsic fluorescence of tdTomato and were all constant in size. Using custom made software based on Matlab's image analysis toolbox, NeuN somas were detected and their densities binned in depth and averaged across mice for final representation. ”

11. The kernel density functions for 'leaving time' appear bimodal in several cases, especially in Figure 2C. The possibility that individuals within the same group/condition are using different strategies or are displaying different behavioral pattens should be addressed.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. As noticed by the reviewer, the mean group distributions of leaving times exhibit a bimodal pattern with long and short leaving durations (Figure S3A) which could potentially stem from multiple sources.

Author response image 2. Kernel density function of leaving times of control animals, in blue, and experimental animals, in red.

Author response image 2.

Solid and dashed lines indicate animal and group functions, respectively.

One possibility is that animals, being new to the box environment, intermingle trials of focused foraging with those involving exploratory interactions with the box. Alternatively, it could arise from averaging individual mice adopting distinct strategies. To investigate the homogeneity within groups, i.e., to validate if individual animals within a group exhibit both strategies, we employed k-means clustering to categorize trials into long and short leaving times at the group level:

Author response image 3. K-means based categorization of each trial in short and long leaving times.

Author response image 3.

Individual control and experimental animals are colored with shades of blue and red respectively.

Next we employed Fisher's exact test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the likelihood of individual mice displaying long leaving times is equivalent to the remainder of their respective groups. Applying this methodology, we identified that only one adult animal (Plong-leaving = 0.37, p = 0.0372) and one caspase animal (Plong-leaving = 0.29, p = 0.0016) exhibited a significantly lower probability of adopting extended leaving times in comparison to their respective groups. Subsequently, we re-executed the leaving time logistic regression analysis in the main text after excluding these two animals. Notably, the exclusion did not induce any alteration in the identification of significant factors (data not included). Overall, these findings indicate that even though differences between short and long leaving times exist (as expected given their phenotype), all animals engage in both types of trials (see Supplementary Figure 3A). This contributes to a cohesive behavioral pattern within each group. Furthermore, our analytical approach to estimate the likelihood of leaving following each poking action remains robust against these features of our dataset.

Author response image 4. Scatter plot of the difference in the frequency use of short and long leaving time for each animal.

Author response image 4.

Control and experimental animals are colored in blue and red respectively.

Lines 1243-1250: “Supplementary Figure 3. Description of poking behavior over the session progression and according to sex. (A) Distribution of the trial durations for naive juveniles and naive adults (left) and for Caspase and tdTomato control mice (right). Note that the bimodality of the data visibly arises at the single mouse level, indicating each mouse performs short and long leaving times. Indeed, when using Fisher's exact test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the likelihood of individual mice displaying long leaving times (obtained using k=2 K-means based categorization) is equivalent to the remainder of their respective groups, 57/59 mice were unable to reject the null hypothesis (data not shown).”

[Editors’ note: what follows is the authors’ response to the second round of review.]

Comments to the Authors:

While we appreciated your responses to the original reviews, because of the very long time between the initial submission and this revision, some of the prior reviewers were not available. As a result, it was necessary to obtain new reviewers, who raised additional substantial concerns regarding some of the methodology. They felt that these issues required substantial additional control work.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

This study characterizes the development of cortico-raphe projections from L5 cortical neurons and their influence on foraging and persistent behavior. The finding that cortico-raphe projections mature late in development is extremely interesting and raises several new questions regarding the role of these projections in adolescence. Most of the significant points have already been addressed by other reviewers; I will focus on a few technical aspects of the electrophysiology experiments and the caspase3-based approach.

The late development or cortico-raphe projections is well supported by the histological and optogenetic experiments depicted in Figure 1. However, the reported oEPSC values seem to be based on a single trial/stimulus, is that correct? The authors mention "TTL-triggered pulses of light (10-ms duration; 10 mW measured at the fiber tip) were delivered at the recording site with a 10-second inter-sweep interval. In cases where multiple pulses were delivered per sweep, only the first one was considered for analysis to eliminate short-term plasticity effects on the measured amplitude." – A 10-second inter-sweep interval is insufficient to recover opsin desensitization, potentially leading to the perceived short-term plasticity. Increasing the inter-sweep interval to >45 seconds should resolve this issue and enable the averaging of individual sweeps to minimize the variability inherent in opto-evoked whole-cell recordings.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out and we apologize if the phrasing used in the optogenetic circuit mapping methods led to confusion. Every data point represented in figure 1B-C corresponds to the average of 6-10 sweeps (trials) per recording (with an intersweep interval of 10 seconds). The phrase “In cases where multiple pulses were delivered per sweep, only the first one was considered for analysis to eliminate short-term plasticity effects on the measured amplitude” present in the methods refers to a subset of recorded neurons in which instead of a single optogenetic pulse per sweep, the stimulus consisted of a train of light pulses delivered at frequencies ranging from 2-10Hz. In this subset of recordings (<10% of the total of recorded neurons), only the amplitude in response to the first peak of the stimulus train was considered for amplitude analysis.

To address the reviewer's concern about possible intersweep desensitization issues of the opsin in our recording conditions, we have plotted the amplitudes per consecutive sweep normalized to the amplitude of the first sweep per recording for the 63 connected neurons reported in this manuscript throughout all ages. As it can be seen, no sign of desensitization (decrease of oEPSC amplitude with consecutive sweeps) can be observed (see Author response image, panel A). Furthermore, this holds true for the neurons in which a train of light pulses was delivered (see Author response image, panel A and B). The neuron depicted in panel B, despite its low connection amplitude does not show any sign of desensitization over consecutive sweeps (data represented in blue line is the amplitude per sweep of the first oEPSC of the stimulus train normalized to the first sweep). These recordings represent 9/63 of the reported connected neurons (all ages), the remaining 54 had a single pulse as illustrated in Author response image 5, panel C.

Author response image 5.

Author response image 5.

To clarify this point, we added the following explanation to the methods section:Lines 578-587: “TTL triggered pulses of light (10-ms duration; 10 mW measured at the fiber tip) were delivered at the recording site with 10 seconds of intersweep interval. In >90% of the neurons considered in the current study, the stimulus consisted in a single pulse of light per sweep. In the remaining subset of recorded neurons the stimulus consisted of a train of light pulses, of same length and amplitude, delivered at frequencies ranging from 2-10Hz. In this subset of recordings, only the amplitude in response to the first peak of the stimulus train was considered for amplitude analysis. Importantly, no sign of intersweep opsin desensitization (decrease of light evoked EPSC amplitude with consecutive sweeps) was observed in either type of recordings (data not shown). Every data point represented in figure 1B-C corresponds to the average of 6-10 sweeps per recording”.

The control experiments based on NeuN IHC do not provide an estimate of the fraction of cortico-raphe projections ablated by the retro caspase approach, which is an important aspect to better interpret the behavioral results. This is because AAVrg only infects a subset of neurons. There are three potential alternative approaches to characterize the extent of cortico-raphe projection loss. One is to perform a second AAVrg-tdTom injection two weeks after AAVrg-DIO-casp3 to compare how many cells can still be retro-infected after the first caspase injection. However, quantifying these experiments is not straightforward, and variability due to viral injection efficiency and targeting is always a confounding factor. A more rigorous and cleaner approach could be to inject AAVrg-DIO-casp3 in Rbp4-Cre x Ai32 mice and compare oEPSC amplitudes in injected vs non-injected mice. As ChR2 is stably expressed in these mice this would provide a better assessment of connectivity changes after caspase ablations. A third approach would be to use Rbp4-Cre x XFP mice and quantify cortico-raphe fiber density changes after AAVrg-DIO-casp3 (similar to what is shown in Figure 1).

However, these strategies would only probe the fraction of cortical neurons expressing Cre, which, in the case of Rbp4-Cre, is approximately 50% of L5 neurons. It's possible that Rbp4-negative L5 neurons also project to the raphe, and these are not affected by DIO-casp3 ablation. Quantifying the extent of total cortico-raphe ablation is an important point, as considerable remaining fibers could lead to an underestimation of the behavioral effects caused by cortico-raphe manipulations.

In response to points 2 and 3, Tervo and colleagues (Neuron, 2016) reported that a Cre-dependent fluorescent reporter expressing retroAAV injected in the basal pontine nuclei of Rbp4-Cre mice produces a comparable density of labeled layer 5 cortical neurons as obtained with a standard retrograde tracer such as fluorogold. This suggests that the Rbp4 promoter grants genetic access to virtually all layer 5 projecting neurons, at least in the case of cortico-pontine projection neurons. However, we cannot conclude that this holds true for the case of cortico-raphe projections. Therefore, in response to the reviewer’s concern, we have now added the following sentence to our manuscript to clearly state this possibility:

Lines 454-465: “It should be noted that the extent of layer 5 neurons affected by the caspase ablation in these cortical areas will be defined by the total percentage of layer 5 neurons expressing Rbp4. A previous study has shown that a Cre-dependent fluorescent reporter expressing retroAAV injected in the basal pontine nuclei of Rbp4-Cre mice produces a comparable density of labeled layer 5 cortical neurons as obtained with a standard retrograde tracer such as fluorogold (Tervo et al., 2016). This suggests that, at least for the case of cortico-pontine projection neurons, the Rbp4 promoter grants genetic access to virtually all layer 5 projecting neurons. However, we cannot conclude that this holds true for the case of cortico-raphe projections and therefore future work will have to assess whether additional non-Rbp4 populations of projecting neurons in these, or other cortical areas, contribute as well to the development of behavioral persistence”.

Unless I missed it, there is no description of the age at which the caspase injection is performed in the different experiments. This is an important experimental detail.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have now updated our methods section to include this information:

Lines 646-647: “Adult mice between 8 and 9 weeks of age were anesthetized with isoflurane (2% induction and 0.5 – 1% for maintenance) and placed in a motorized computer-controlled Stoelting stereotaxic instrument”.

Regarding the specificity of mPFC>raphe projections raised by other reviewers, the authors discuss the possibility of other mPFC collaterals in the striatum. Future experiments inhibiting local terminals (perhaps using Emx1-Cre crosses) with PPO/eOPN3 or activating ChR2 fibers in juveniles will help further support these findings.

While we agree with the reviewer on this point, as openly discussed in our manuscript, the fact that cortico-striatal connections are fully developed by p14 (Peixoto et al., Nat. Neurosci. 2016) makes it unlikely that these projections per se are responsible for the persistent behavior observed in adults. We believe that the fact that juveniles have cortico-striatal mature synapses but not cortico-raphe mature synapses early during adolescence, strengthens the case for the role of developing cortico-raphe projections as a crucial process for the development of behavioral persistence. Thus, while we see the value of the experiments proposed by the reviewer, we believe they represent a large amount of work for what exceeds the scope of our results.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

The paper in general gives very little detail on the anatomical analysis,

For the developmental description, It would be good to show to what extent the Rbp4 labels the PFC-raphe projection. Convincing would be for instance a retrograde labeling from the raphe in the Rbp4-GFP with some quantitative estimate.

In line with the concern expressed by reviewer 2, we have now included this text in the manuscript aiming to acknowledge the possibility that the Rbp4 promoter does not grant access to virtually all cortico-raphe projecting neurons:

Lines 454-465: “It should be noted that the extent of layer 5 neurons affected by the caspase ablation in these cortical areas will be defined by the total percentage of layer 5 neurons expressing Rbp4. A previous study has shown that a Cre-dependent fluorescent reporter expressing retroAAV injected in the basal pontine nuclei of Rbp4-Cre mice produces a comparable density of labeled layer 5 cortical neurons as obtained with a standard retrograde tracer such as fluorogold (Tervo et al., 2016). This suggests that, at least for the case of cortico-pontine projection neurons, the Rbp4 promoter grants genetic access to virtually all layer 5 projecting neurons. However, we cannot conclude that this holds true for the case of cortico-raphe projections and therefore future work will have to assess whether additional non-Rbp4 populations of projecting neurons in these, or other cortical areas, contribute as well to the development of behavioral persistence”.

For the analysis of afferent axons, the methods authors state that the analysis was done on sagittal sections, in which the position of the DRN and accumbens is not very easy to identify. Yet In figure 1 they show coronal sections.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this mistake in the methods section. No sagittal slices were obtained in the present study (only coronal, as shown in figure 1). We have now corrected this in the methods.

Lines 598-599: “Coronal sections (50 µm) were cut with a freezing sliding microtome (SM2000, Leica)”.

Additionally, at this resolution and without co-labeling with a synaptic marker they cannot distinguish an increase of fluorescence or passing fibres from a true increase in the number of terminals.

While we agree with the reviewer’s point that axonal densities do not necessarily reflect the density of synaptic contacts (given the lack of specificity between passing vs. connecting axons), we believe that our electrophysiology results using optogenetic circuit mapping addresses this point more precisely than using immunohistochemistry for synaptic markers. The fact that the axonal densities reported and optogenetic circuit mapping responses show a consistent progression over adolescence, strengthens our point about a developing cortico-raphe pathway.

For the retrograde lesion studies, they need to show the injection site of their viral delivery to determine how this could have impacted neighbouring structures. They also could better quantify the specific loss of l5 neurons with an independent L5 marker such as Ctip2.

In line with the reviewer’s suggestion, we have now included injection site examples and a quantification of NeuN density at the site of injection (Figure 3 Suppl. 1). Since both viruses are retrograde and Cre dependent, the injection site usually contains none, or just a handful of locally transfected neurons (see Figure 3 Suppl. 1). Consistent with this, the density of NeuN neurons in the injection site is comparable across groups (see Figure 3 Suppl. 1, Caspase average binned NeuN densities subtracted to tdTomato controls show values close to zero), indicating absence of neuronal loss. Moreover, in all control injections we found a dense cortical axonal innervation specifically over the DRN, which is consistent with cortico-DRN projections being retrogradely labeled (see below binned fluorescent signal from cortical axons over the DRN).

In all the morphological analysis they need to show where the measures were done. They also need to indicate more precisely how the measures were made (field size analyzed, precise steps of image processing, magnification, number of sections analysed /case).

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have now updated our methods section to include this information.

Lines 635-641: “We found five cortical areas consistently expressing layer 5 tdTomato+ neurons in at least 5/8 control mice: PR/IL, AC, MO, TeA, Rs. We then acquired confocal images of these 5 areas in mice injected with rAAV-tdTomato or rAAV-Caspase for analysis. Areas showing expression in 1-3 mice were not included for analysis. These confocal stacks contained the green fluorescent signal of NeuN detection and the red intrinsic fluorescence of tdTomato. All confocal images consisted of 10 images stacked in the Z plane, with 3 μm spacing, and that were max projected for analysis. Stacks from PR/IL, AC, MO were 800x600 μm (cortical depth x width) and from TeA, Rs and M1 were 1400x600 μm to adjust to their intrinsically different cortical thickness (Figure 3 Suppl. 2). For each brain area/mouse, bilateral stacks were acquired at Bregma levels: PR/IL: 1.5 mm, AC and M1: 1.1 mm, MO: 2.3 mm, TeA and Rs: -3.1 mm. Using custom made software based on Matlab's image analysis toolbox, NeuN somas were detected and their densities binned in depth and averaged across mice for final representation”.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Figure 1—source data 1. Electrophygiological recordings and axonal quantification.
    Figure 1—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Electrophysiological properties of DRN neurons and optogenetic controls.
    Figure 2—source data 1. Foraging task behavior over development.
    Figure 2—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Behavioral controls across experiments.
    Figure 3—source data 1. Cell loss and behavioral quantification in caspase and control mice.
    elife-93485-fig3-data1.xlsx (391.3KB, xlsx)
    Figure 3—figure supplement 1—source data 1. NeuN and tdTomato density in the DRN.
    Figure 3—figure supplement 2—source data 1. NeuN and tdTomato densities across cortical areas.
    MDAR checklist

    Data Availability Statement

    All data analyzed and visualized during this study are included in form of Source Data files that have been provided for all figures present in the current manuscript.


    Articles from eLife are provided here courtesy of eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd

    RESOURCES