Widespread nociceptive maps in the human neonatal somatosensory cortex

  1. Laura Jones  Is a corresponding author
  2. Madeleine Verriotis
  3. Robert J Cooper
  4. Maria Pureza Laudiano-Dray
  5. Mohammed Rupawala
  6. Judith Meek
  7. Lorenzo Fabrizi
  8. Maria Fitzgerald  Is a corresponding author
  1. University College London, United Kingdom
  2. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom

Abstract

Topographic cortical maps are essential for spatial localisation of sensory stimulation and generation of appropriate task-related motor responses. Somatosensation and nociception are finely mapped and aligned in the adult somatosensory (S1) cortex, but in infancy, when pain behaviour is disorganised and poorly directed, nociceptive maps may be less refined. We compared the topographic pattern of S1 activation following noxious (clinically required heel lance) and innocuous (touch) mechanical stimulation of the same skin region in newborn infants (n=32) using multi-optode functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). Within S1 cortex, touch and lance of the heel elicit localised, partially overlapping increases in oxygenated haemoglobin concentration (D[HbO]), but while touch activation was restricted to the heel area, lance activation extended into cortical hand regions. The data reveals a widespread cortical nociceptive map in infant S1, consistent with their poorly directed pain behaviour.

Data availability

All raw data files are open access and are available to download from Figshare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13252388.v2).

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Laura Jones

    Department of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    laura.a.jones@ucl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5755-4977
  2. Madeleine Verriotis

    Department of Developmental Neuroscience, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3019-0370
  3. Robert J Cooper

    Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Maria Pureza Laudiano-Dray

    Department of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Mohammed Rupawala

    Department of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Judith Meek

    Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Obstetric Wing, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Lorenzo Fabrizi

    Department of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9582-0727
  8. Maria Fitzgerald

    Department of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    m.fitzgerald@ucl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4188-0123

Funding

Medical Research Council (MR/M006468/1)

  • Judith Meek
  • Lorenzo Fabrizi
  • Maria Fitzgerald

Medical Research Council (MR/L019248/1)

  • Lorenzo Fabrizi

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/N025946/1)

  • Robert J Cooper

Medical Research Council (MR/S003207/1)

  • Judith Meek
  • Lorenzo Fabrizi
  • Maria Fitzgerald

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Chris I Baker, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, United States

Ethics

Human subjects: Ethical approval for this study was given by the NHS Health Research Authority (London - Surrey Borders) and the study conformed to the standards set by the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed written parental consent was obtained before each study (REC no: 11/LO/0350; NIHR Portfolio Study ID: 12036). Separate media consent was obtained from the parent to use a photo of their child in academic publications (Figure 4a).

Version history

  1. Received: June 25, 2021
  2. Preprint posted: July 30, 2021 (view preprint)
  3. Accepted: April 22, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: April 22, 2022 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: May 10, 2022 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2022, Jones et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 947
    views
  • 227
    downloads
  • 8
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Laura Jones
  2. Madeleine Verriotis
  3. Robert J Cooper
  4. Maria Pureza Laudiano-Dray
  5. Mohammed Rupawala
  6. Judith Meek
  7. Lorenzo Fabrizi
  8. Maria Fitzgerald
(2022)
Widespread nociceptive maps in the human neonatal somatosensory cortex
eLife 11:e71655.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71655

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71655

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Kenta Abe, Yuki Kambe ... Tatsuo Sato
    Research Article

    Midbrain dopamine neurons impact neural processing in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) through mesocortical projections. However, the signals conveyed by dopamine projections to the PFC remain unclear, particularly at the single-axon level. Here, we investigated dopaminergic axonal activity in the medial PFC (mPFC) during reward and aversive processing. By optimizing microprism-mediated two-photon calcium imaging of dopamine axon terminals, we found diverse activity in dopamine axons responsive to both reward and aversive stimuli. Some axons exhibited a preference for reward, while others favored aversive stimuli, and there was a strong bias for the latter at the population level. Long-term longitudinal imaging revealed that the preference was maintained in reward- and aversive-preferring axons throughout classical conditioning in which rewarding and aversive stimuli were paired with preceding auditory cues. However, as mice learned to discriminate reward or aversive cues, a cue activity preference gradually developed only in aversive-preferring axons. We inferred the trial-by-trial cue discrimination based on machine learning using anticipatory licking or facial expressions, and found that successful discrimination was accompanied by sharper selectivity for the aversive cue in aversive-preferring axons. Our findings indicate that a group of mesocortical dopamine axons encodes aversive-related signals, which are modulated by both classical conditioning across days and trial-by-trial discrimination within a day.

    1. Neuroscience
    Baiwei Liu, Zampeta-Sofia Alexopoulou, Freek van Ede
    Research Article

    Working memory enables us to bridge past sensory information to upcoming future behaviour. Accordingly, by its very nature, working memory is concerned with two components: the past and the future. Yet, in conventional laboratory tasks, these two components are often conflated, such as when sensory information in working memory is encoded and tested at the same location. We developed a task in which we dissociated the past (encoded location) and future (to-be-tested location) attributes of visual contents in working memory. This enabled us to independently track the utilisation of past and future memory attributes through gaze, as observed during mnemonic selection. Our results reveal the joint consideration of past and future locations. This was prevalent even at the single-trial level of individual saccades that were jointly biased to the past and future. This uncovers the rich nature of working memory representations, whereby both past and future memory attributes are retained and can be accessed together when memory contents become relevant for behaviour.