Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

The medial entorhinal cortex is necessary for temporal organization of hippocampal neuronal activity

Subjects

Abstract

The superficial layers of the medial entorhinal cortex (MEC) are a major input to the hippocampus. The high proportion of spatially modulated cells, including grid cells and border cells, in these layers suggests that MEC inputs are critical for the representation of space in the hippocampus. However, selective manipulations of the MEC do not completely abolish hippocampal spatial firing. To determine whether other hippocampal firing characteristics depend more critically on MEC inputs, we recorded from hippocampal CA1 cells in rats with MEC lesions. Theta phase precession was substantially disrupted, even during periods of stable spatial firing. Our findings indicate that MEC inputs to the hippocampus are required for the temporal organization of hippocampal firing patterns and suggest that cognitive functions that depend on precise neuronal sequences in the hippocampal theta cycle are particularly dependent on the MEC.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Hippocampal firing patterns were only transiently location selective in MEC-lesioned rats.
Figure 2: Theta rhythmicity is partially retained after MEC lesions.
Figure 3: The MEC is necessary for hippocampal phase precession.
Figure 4: Spike timing between pairs of fields was disrupted in MEC-lesioned rats.
Figure 5: IFR did not predict firing phase in MEC-lesioned rats.
Figure 6: Phase precession was also diminished in the open field.
Figure 7: Substantially reduced LFP theta power and single-cell theta modulation did not preclude phase precession.
Figure 8: Phase precession was retained to a larger extent during septal inactivation than with the MEC lesion.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Quirk, G.J., Muller, R.U., Kubie, J.L. & Ranck, J.B. Jr. The positional firing properties of medial entorhinal neurons: description and comparison with hippocampal place cells. J. Neurosci. 12, 1945–1963 (1992).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Hafting, T., Fyhn, M., Molden, S., Moser, M.B. & Moser, E.I. Microstructure of a spatial map in the entorhinal cortex. Nature 436, 801–806 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sargolini, F. et al. Conjunctive representation of position, direction and velocity in entorhinal cortex. Science 312, 758–762 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Solstad, T., Boccara, C.N., Kropff, E., Moser, M.B. & Moser, E.I. Representation of geometric borders in the entorhinal cortex. Science 322, 1865–1868 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhang, S.J. et al. Optogenetic dissection of entorhinal-hippocampal functional connectivity. Science 340, 1232627 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Brandon, M.P. et al. Reduction of theta rhythm dissociates grid cell spatial periodicity from directional tuning. Science 332, 595–599 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Brandon, M.P., Koenig, J., Leutgeb, J.K. & Leutgeb, S. New and distinct hippocampal place codes are generated in a new environment during septal inactivation. Neuron 82, 789–796 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Koenig, J., Linder, A.N., Leutgeb, J.K. & Leutgeb, S. The spatial periodicity of grid cells is not sustained during reduced theta oscillations. Science 332, 592–595 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang, Y., Romani, S., Lustig, B., Leonardo, A. & Pastalkova, E. Theta sequences are essential for internally generated hippocampal firing fields. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 282–288 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hales, J.B. et al. Medial entorhinal cortex lesions only partially disrupt hippocampal place cells and hippocampus-dependent place memory. Cell Rep. 9, 893–901 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Deshmukh, S.S., Yoganarasimha, D., Voicu, H. & Knierim, J.J. Theta modulation in the medial and the lateral entorhinal cortices. J. Neurophysiol. 104, 994–1006 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. O'Keefe, J. & Recce, M.L. Phase relationship between hippocampal place units and the EEG theta rhythm. Hippocampus 3, 317–330 (1993).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hafting, T., Fyhn, M., Bonnevie, T., Moser, M.B. & Moser, E.I. Hippocampus-independent phase precession in entorhinal grid cells. Nature 453, 1248–1252 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mizuseki, K., Sirota, A., Pastalkova, E. & Buzsaki, G. Theta oscillations provide temporal windows for local circuit computation in the entorhinal-hippocampal loop. Neuron 64, 267–280 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Skaggs, W.E., McNaughton, B.L., Wilson, M.A. & Barnes, C.A. Theta phase precession in hippocampal neuronal populations and the compression of temporal sequences. Hippocampus 6, 149–172 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jensen, O. & Lisman, J.E. Hippocampal CA3 region predicts memory sequences: accounting for the phase precession of place cells. Learn. Mem. 3, 279–287 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Melamed, O., Gerstner, W., Maass, W., Tsodyks, M. & Markram, H. Coding and learning of behavioral sequences. Trends Neurosci. 27, 11–14, discussion 14–15 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dragoi, G. & Buzsaki, G. Temporal encoding of place sequences by hippocampal cell assemblies. Neuron 50, 145–157 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bi, G. & Poo, M. Synaptic modification by correlated activity: Hebb's postulate revisited. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 24, 139–166 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Byrnes, S., Burkitt, A.N., Grayden, D.B. & Meffin, H. Learning a sparse code for temporal sequences using STDP and sequence compression. Neural Comput. 23, 2567–2598 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tsodyks, M.V., Skaggs, W.E., Sejnowski, T.J. & McNaughton, B.L. Population dynamics and theta rhythm phase precession of hippocampal place cell firing: A spiking neuron model. Hippocampus 6, 271–280 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Robbe, D. & Buzsaki, G. Alteration of theta timescale dynamics of hippocampal place cells by a cannabinoid is associated with memory impairment. J. Neurosci. 29, 12597–12605 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Gupta, A.S., van der Meer, M.A., Touretzky, D.S. & Redish, A.D. Segmentation of spatial experience by hippocampal theta sequences. Nat. Neurosci. 15, 1032–1039 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hasselmo, M.E., Bodelon, C. & Wyble, B.P. A proposed function for hippocampal theta rhythm: separate phases of encoding and retrieval enhance reversal of prior learning. Neural Comput. 14, 793–817 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zugaro, M.B., Monconduit, L. & Buzsaki, G. Spike phase precession persists after transient intrahippocampal perturbation. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 67–71 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Moser, E.I. et al. A test of the reverberatory activity hypothesis for hippocampal 'place' cells. Neuroscience 130, 519–526 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mehta, M.R. Neuronal dynamics of predictive coding. Neuroscientist 7, 490–495 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Harvey, C.D., Collman, F., Dombeck, D.A. & Tank, D.W. Intracellular dynamics of hippocampal place cells during virtual navigation. Nature 461, 941–946 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Harris, K.D. et al. Spike train dynamics predicts theta-related phase precession in hippocampal pyramidal cells. Nature 417, 738–741 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mehta, M.R., Lee, A.K. & Wilson, M.A. Role of experience and oscillations in transforming a rate code into a temporal code. Nature 417, 741–746 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Miller, V.M. & Best, P.J. Spatial correlates of hippocampal unit activity are altered by lesions of the fornix and endorhinal cortex. Brain Res. 194, 311–323 (1980).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Van Cauter, T., Poucet, B. & Save, E. Unstable CA1 place cell representation in rats with entorhinal cortex lesions. Eur. J. Neurosci. 27, 1933–1946 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ylinen, A. et al. Intracellular correlates of hippocampal theta rhythm in identified pyramidal cells, granule cells, and basket cells. Hippocampus 5, 78–90 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kamondi, A., Acsady, L., Wang, X.J. & Buzsaki, G. Theta oscillations in somata and dendrites of hippocampal pyramidal cells in vivo: activity-dependent phase-precession of action potentials. Hippocampus 8, 244–261 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kempter, R., Leibold, C., Buzsaki, G., Diba, K. & Schmidt, R. Quantifying circular-linear associations: hippocampal phase precession. J. Neurosci. Methods 207, 113–124 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Maurer, A.P., Cowen, S.L., Burke, S.N., Barnes, C.A. & McNaughton, B.L. Organization of hippocampal cell assemblies based on theta phase precession. Hippocampus 16, 785–794 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Huxter, J., Burgess, N. & O'Keefe, J. Independent rate and temporal coding in hippocampal pyramidal cells. Nature 425, 828–832 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Huxter, J.R., Senior, T.J., Allen, K. & Csicsvari, J. Theta phase–specific codes for two-dimensional position, trajectory and heading in the hippocampus. Nat. Neurosci. 11, 587–594 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hargreaves, E.L., Rao, G., Lee, I. & Knierim, J.J. Major dissociation between medial and lateral entorhinal input to dorsal hippocampus. Science 308, 1792–1794 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Aghajan, Z.M. et al. Impaired spatial selectivity and intact phase precession in two-dimensional virtual reality. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 121–128 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lengyel, M., Szatmary, Z. & Erdi, P. Dynamically detuned oscillations account for the coupled rate and temporal code of place cell firing. Hippocampus 13, 700–714 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Thurley, K., Leibold, C., Gundlfinger, A., Schmitz, D. & Kempter, R. Phase precession through synaptic facilitation. Neural Comput. 20, 1285–1324 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Magee, J.C. Dendritic mechanisms of phase precession in hippocampal CA1 pyramidal neurons. J. Neurophysiol. 86, 528–532 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ekstrom, A.D., Meltzer, J., McNaughton, B.L. & Barnes, C.A. NMDA receptor antagonism blocks experience-dependent expansion of hippocampal “place fields”. Neuron 31, 631–638 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Klausberger, T. et al. Complementary roles of cholecystokinin- and parvalbumin-expressing GABAergic neurons in hippocampal network oscillations. J. Neurosci. 25, 9782–9793 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Feng, T., Silva, D. & Foster, D.J. Dissociation between the experience-dependent development of hippocampal theta sequences and single-trial phase precession. J. Neurosci. 35, 4890–4902 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Jaramillo, J., Schmidt, R. & Kempter, R. Modeling inheritance of phase precession in the hippocampal formation. J. Neurosci. 34, 7715–7731 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Harris, K.D., Hirase, H., Leinekugel, X., Henze, D.A. & Buzsaki, G. Temporal interaction between single spikes and complex spike bursts in hippocampal pyramidal cells. Neuron 32, 141–149 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Chance, F.S. Hippocampal phase precession from dual input components. J. Neurosci. 32, 16693–16703 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Leung, L.S. A model of intracellular theta phase precession dependent on intrinsic subthreshold membrane currents. J. Neurosci. 31, 12282–12296 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Schlesiger, M.I. et al. Hippocampal activation during the recall of remote spatial memories in radial maze tasks. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 106, 324–333 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Bragin, A., Jando, G., Nadasdy, Z., van Landeghem, M. & Buzsaki, G. Dentate EEG spikes and associated interneuronal population bursts in the hippocampal hilar region of the rat. J. Neurophysiol. 73, 1691–1705 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Schmitzer-Torbert, N., Jackson, J., Henze, D., Harris, K. & Redish, A.D. Quantitative measures of cluster quality for use in extracellular recordings. Neuroscience 131, 1–11 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Skaggs, W.E., McNaughton, B.L., Gothard, K.M. & Markus, E.J. An information-theoretic approach to deciphering the hippocampal code. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 5 (eds. Hanson, S.J., Giles, C.L. & Cowan, J.D.) 1030–1037 (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1993).

  55. Bokil, H., Andrews, P., Kulkarni, J.E., Mehta, S. & Mitra, P.P. Chronux: a platform for analyzing neural signals. J. Neurosci. Methods 192, 146–151 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Jammalamadaka, S.R. & SenGupta, A. Topics in Circular Statistics (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank M. Wong for technical assistance, G. Diehl for recording control data and J. Lisman for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by a Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds PhD fellowship, the German Research Association (DFG) under grant LE 2250/5-1, the Ellison Medical Foundation grant AG-NS-0724-10, Walter F. Heiligenberg Professorship, National Science Foundation Collaborative Research in Computational Neuroscience grant 1010463, and US National Institutes of Health grants R21 MH100354 and R01 NS086947.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

M.I.S., S.L. and J.K.L. designed experiments, M.I.S., J.B.H. and S.L. performed surgeries, M.I.S. and B.L.B. acquired data, M.P.B. provided data, C.C.C., M.I.S., J.B.H., E.A.M., C.L. and S.L. performed analysis, and M.I.S., C.C.C, J.K.L., C.L. and S.L. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Leutgeb.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1 Sufficient LFP theta power for phase and frequency analysis was retained in all rats with lesions that included the entire extent of the medial entorhinal cortex.

(a) (Top two rows) Photographs of NeuN-stained sections through the medial entorhinal cortex (MEC) from a control rat and from an MEC-lesioned rat in which the lesion size was close to the group average. Three sagittal levels are shown for each rat (d, dorsal; v, ventral; a, anterior; p, posterior). Red lines delineate MEC borders. Scale bars are 1 mm. (Bottom left) Average lesion size in different MEC layers. The percentage of damaged tissue was quantified for each layer along the entire extent of MEC (including dorsal, intermediate and ventral MEC). Dots indicate lesion size in individual hemispheres, and matching colors are from the same rat. Bars graphs, mean ± SEM. (Bottom right) Electrode tracks in the left and right dorsal hippocampus of two MEC-lesioned rats. Termination sites in the CA1 cell layer are marked with arrows. Scale bars are 1 mm. (b,c) Example LFP traces (gray, raw signal; black, 4-12 Hz filtered) and 1/f corrected spectrograms from the selected tetrode that was used for phase and frequency analysis in the three control rats and in five MEC-lesioned rats with recordings on the linear track. An additional rat (Rat 587) with recordings from only 2 cells for which no PSSFs were identified is not shown. Scale bars are 250 μV and 100 ms. Vertical lines indicate the peak of each LFP-theta cycle.

Supplementary Figure 2 Periods of stable spatial firing were shorter in MEC-lesioned than in control rats.

Example place fields on the linear track from two control rats (a, rat 616 and rat 614) and from two MEC-lesioned rats (b, rat 645 and rat 434). Data recorded during the turn are not shown and were excluded from the analysis. Each column (from i to iii) depicts the spatial firing pattern of one cell during running in one direction (indicated by the arrow). (i) Trajectories (black lines) and spike locations (red dots) within the place field. (ii) Raster plots with each row corresponding to a run from one end of the track to the other. (iii) Firing rate versus distance on the linear track. Place field boundaries and firing rates are shown for the entire session (gray line and enclosed entire shaded area) and for the period of stable spatial firing longest PSSF (PSSF; stippled line and enclosed, darker shaded gray area).

Supplementary Figure 3 Single‐unit recordings were stable throughout periods when the spatial firing patterns in MEC‐lesioned rats shifted.

(a,b) Recording quality and cluster stability are depicted for representative tetrodes from a control rat (rat 616, black vertical line) and from an MEC‐lesioned rat (Rat 434, blue vertical line). (i) Scatter plots of spike amplitudes or spike energy (i.e., the area under the amplitude curve) for two of the four recording channels of a tetrode. The first and second half of the recording session are shown separately. In each scatter plot, spikes are represented as dots. Because spikes that are generated by individual cells tend to have consistent amplitude distributions across channels, spikes from the same cell form clusters within the scatter plots. Spikes assigned to each cluster are shown in matching colors. Spikes that did not clearly separate into clusters were not included into the analysis and are shown in gray. Within each recording session, clusters remained in a stable position in amplitude and energy space. (ii) Raster plots of spatial firing patterns with the spike locations (red dots) during each run in one direction (black arrow) on the linear track. Periods of stable spatial firing (PSSFs) that were used for phase precession analysis are highlighted in gray. (iii) Spike amplitudes over the course of a recording session are shown for the cells in the raster plots. Each tetrode channel is a different color. Cluster quality measures (L‐ratio and isolation distance) are noted for each cell. Cells recorded from MEC‐lesioned rats did not show changes in spike amplitude beyond the small variability that was also observed in controls, and these cells thus showed stable spike amplitudes even at time points when the spatial firing patterns shifted. (c) Comparison between the average spike amplitudes during the first and during second half of each recording. The amplitude difference on the channel with the highest amplitude, the percent change on the channel with the highest amplitude, as well as the Euclidean distance between the amplitudes on all four channels were calculated. None of these measurements showed differences between cells from control and cells from MEC‐lesioned rats (control, n = 74 cells; MEC‐lesioned, n = 163 cells with > 20 spikes; amplitude difference, P = 0.39; percent change, P = 0.23; Euclidean distance, P = 0.51; Mann‐Whitney U tests). (d,e) Cluster quality in control and MEC-lesioned rats. The L‐ratio indicated a better cluster quality in cells from MEC‐lesioned compared to control rats (control, n = 75 cells; MEC‐lesioned, n = 170 cells with > 12 spikes; P = 0.049, Mann‐Whitney U test) while the isolation distance was significantly lower after the MEC lesion (P = 0.040, Mann‐Whitney U test). Along with these inconsistent differences between the groups, the distributions showed substantial overlap. Together with lack of amplitude differences within the recording sessions (see c), we could therefore not find any indication that the more frequent shifts in spatial firing patterns in the cells from MEC‐lesioned rats could be explained by differences in cluster stability or quality.

Supplementary Figure 4 Phase precession is substantially disrupted in all MEC-lesioned rats.

Additional examples of spatial and temporal firing patterns on the linear track. Pooled and single pass phase precession analysis from a control rat (a, rat 614) and two MEC-lesioned rats (b, rat 434 and rat 645). For each PSSF, the place field, LFP traces and spike trains are shown. (Top left of each panel) Firing rate on the linear track (stippled line) with the extent of the field during the PSSF indicated by a shaded box. Arrows indicate the running direction. (Top right of each panel) Firing phase versus relative distance in the field for all passes through the field. A regression line (black) is added when the circular-linear correlation was significant (P < 0.05). For better visualization, the phase of each spike is replotted in a second cycle. (Lower panels in each box) For passes through the place field, the LFP trace (gray, raw signal; black, 4-12 Hz filtered) and the spike times are depicted (red ticks). Black vertical lines indicate the peak of each LFP-theta cycle. Scale bars are 250 µV and 100 ms. To the right of the trace for each pass, the corresponding firing phase of each spike is plotted as a function of the relative distance through the field. A regression line (black) is added when the circular-linear correlation was significant (P < 0.05). Analysis of pooled passes and single passes revealed a deficit of phase precession in cells from MEC-lesioned rats, while prominent phase precession was observed in control cells.

Supplementary Figure 5 MEC lesions resulted in highly variable and a lower proportion of significant phase-distance correlations during single passes through hippocampal place fields.

(a,b) Firing phase-distance regression slopes for single passes (blue ticks) through each field. Corresponding field-averaged slope (black tick) and SEM (error bars) are shown on the horizontal axis. Fields are arranged from top to bottom by increasing field-averaged slope. All slopes (top) and only slopes where the circular-linear correlation was significant (P < 0.05) (bottom) are shown for control rats (left) and MEC-lesioned rats (right). (a) Single pass slopes and corresponding field-averages for the entire recording session. (b) Same as in a for periods of stable spatial firing (PSSFs). (c) Slopes were first calculated for single passes through each field and then averaged per field (n = 47 control fields and 133 fields from MEC-lesioned rats). Insets: field-average of only significant slopes (P < 0.05, circular-linear correlation; n = 39 control fields and 89 fields from MEC-lesioned rats). (d) Same as in c for PSSFs (see also Fig. 3; n = 31 control fields and 50 fields from MEC-lesioned rats; only significant slopes: control, n = 25 fields; MEC-lesioned, n = 27 fields). Within each graph, the stippled orange line indicates the mean of the field-averaged slopes. Gray shading highlights the region of the graph where slopes are negative. Compared to control rats, the CA1 cells from MEC-lesioned rats exhibited phase-distance slopes that were less frequently negative (entire recording session: 88.9 % for control fields and 61.5 % for fields from MEC-lesioned rats, P = 1.3 x 10−6, Mann-Whitney U test; PSSFs: 88.9 % for control fields and 60.0 % for fields from MEC-lesioned rats, P = 0.00020, Mann-Whitney U test), less frequently significant (entire recording session: 40.0 % for control fields and 20.0 % for fields from MEC-lesioned rats, P = 0.00019, Mann-Whitney U test; PSSFs: 50.0 % for control fields and 9.6 % for fields from MEC-lesioned rats, P = 0.0045, Mann-Whitney U test), and more variable (median standard deviation in entire recording session: 0.35 for control fields and 0.91 for fields from MEC-lesioned rats, P = 3.5 x 10−9, Mann-Whitney U test; PSSFs: 0.22 for control fields and 0.87 for fields from MEC-lesioned rats, P = 0.0023, Mann-Whitney U test) during single passes through their respective place fields.

Supplementary Figure 6 Spatial and temporal firing characteristics of example place fields recorded in the open field.

All cells recorded on one representative tetrode per rat are shown for two control rats (a, black vertical line) and three MEC-lesioned rats (b, blue vertical line). (First column of each cell’s panel) Color-coded rate maps (blue to red, 0 Hz to peak rate). Scale bars are 50 cm. (Second column) Corresponding trajectory plot with the rat’s path (gray line) and the location of spikes (red dots). The place field boundaries are overlaid in black. (Third column) Spike-time autocorrelogram. (Fourth column) The phases of all in-field spikes fired during the 10-min session are plotted as a function of the relative distance through the field. A regression line (black) is added when the circular-linear correlation was significant (P < 0.05, circular-linear correlation). Significant negative slopes, which indicate phase precession, are found for most fields from control rats (35/46, 76.1 %) but only for few fields from MEC-lesioned rats (5/21, 23.8 %).

Supplementary Figure 7 Example passes through place fields in the open field.

Pooled and single pass analysis for (a) a place cell from a control rat and (b,c) two simultaneously recorded cells from an MEC-lesioned rat. (Top row of each panel, from left to right) Color-coded rate map (blue to red, 0 Hz to peak rate), trajectory plot with the rat’s path (gray line) and the location of spikes (red dots), spike-time autocorrelogram, phase-distance plot for all in-field spikes fired during a 10-min session. (Additional pairs of plots in each panel) Trajectory and phase-distance plots for all individual passes through the place field. The place field boundaries (black line) are overlaid on all trajectory plots. A regression line is added to the phase-distance plots when significant (P < 0.05, circular-linear correlation).

Supplementary Figure 8 Field-averaged single-pass analysis during septal inactivation.

Single trial phase precession was analyzed during a 10-minute session before and at two time points during septal inactivation. (ac) Phase-distance plots of example cells that were recorded before inactivation, 30 min into the inactivation, and 2 h into the inactivation. For each cell the phase-distance plot is shown for all passes through the place field (pooled passes, left in each panel) as well as for one representative pass through the place field (single pass, right in each panel). For better visualization, the phase of each spike is replotted in a second cycle. Regression lines (black) are added when the circular-linear correlation was significant (P < 0.05). (d, top row) Representative time-averaged and 1/f corrected spectrograms of LFP recordings used for theta phase analysis. (d, bottom row) Distributions of phase-distance slopes. For each cell, slopes were first calculated for single passes through each field and then averaged per field (see Fig. 7 for the analysis of pooled passes). Insets: field-average of only significant slopes (P < 0.05, circular-linear correlation). (e, top) To calculate theta phase and frequency, a recording tetrode with theta power of at least 1.5 times over the 1/f baseline was chosen for each recording session (n = 5, one tetrode per session). Mean theta power on tetrodes selected for phase and frequency analysis. Dots indicate individual sessions, and matching colors are used for the same tetrode. Mean theta power on selected tetrodes in the MEC-lesioned group is shown for comparison (blue line). (e, bottom) The mean field-averaged slope was less than zero before the inactivation (all slopes, n = 52, P = 1.01 x 10−5, t test; only significant slopes, n = 45, P = 9.33 x 10−9, sign test), not different from zero during the session 30 min into the inactivation (all slopes, n = 46, P = 0.54, t test; only significant slopes, n = 30, P = 0.86, sign test), and again less than zero during the session 2h into the inactivation (all slopes, n = 44, P = 2.09 x 10−5, t test; only significant slopes, n = 32, P = 0.020, sign test). The session at 30 min but not at 2 h into the inactivation was different from baseline (P = 0.00027 and P = 0.22, Mann-Whitney U test). The mean field-averaged slope in MEC-lesioned rats (all slopes, n = 25) was different from baseline, but not different from recordings in either of the septal inactivation sessions (P = 0.028, P = 0.97, P = 0.13, Mann-Whitney U test). Bar graphs include mean ± SEM. See Supplementary Table 4 for detailed statistics. ***P < 0.001, * P < 0.05, compared to MEC lesion group. ### P < 0.001, baseline compared to septal inactivation, Holm-Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons. (f) Schematic of the relation between spikes (red ticks) and theta oscillations (black lines) with and without jitter. Vertical gray lines indicate the peak of each theta cycle. (Top) Schematic of a spike train that exhibits clear phase precession over the course of three theta cycles. (Middle) Same spike train as shown on top after the application of spike-timing jitter. Spike-timing jitter was simulated by adding zero-mean Gaussian noise with a particular standard deviation (σt) to each spike time prior to phase estimation. (bottom) Same spike train as shown on top after the application of phase-onset jitter. Phase onset jitter was simulated by adding zero-mean Gaussian noise with a particular standard deviation (σϕ) to the phase of all spikes within a theta-associated burst (TAB; see Online Methods). Single spikes not included in a TAB were treated analogously. (g) Phase-distance plots corresponding to spikes pooled from all passes through the same field before and after applying the same jitter as shown in f. Note that, despite the ambiguity introduced at the level of single passes, the overall phase-distance relationship over all passes remains largely unchanged after the application of a relatively large degree of jitter. (h) Phase-distance plots and corresponding circular-linear regression lines obtained from two example passes through a place field (top) before jitter was applied, (middle) after the application of spike time jitter (σt = 20 ms), and (bottom) after the application of phase onset jitter (σϕ = 15.00 % theta cycle). Each spike is replotted in a second cycle for clarity. Note the ambiguity introduced in the phase-distance relationship after the application of jitter and its effect on the slope of the regression line. (i) Spike time (top) and phase onset (bottom) jitter were applied separately to the spikes of cells recorded during baseline conditions, where clear phase precession was observed (see Fig. 7). Data without the application of jitter (Baseline) are represented at a standard deviation of zero. All other symbols (circles) represents the average of 100 iterations (that is for each iteration, jitter applied to all fields) per degree of jitter (that isi.e., standard deviation on horizontal axis). For each iteration, a t test was used to test the means of the resulting field-averaged single pass (green lines) and pooled pass (purple lines) slope distributions against zero at the α = 0.05 significance level. The shading of each circle corresponds to the proportion of trial distributions with mean values that were significantly different from zero for each degree of jitter (white to black, 0 to 1). Note that the degree of jitter required to render phase precession undetectable (e.g. obtain an average distribution mean close to 0) is lower for field-averaged single pass distributions than for pooled pass distributions, irrespective of the type of jitter simulated. Phase precession measures based on field-averaged single pass slopes are thus less robust to jitter than slopes obtained by pooling spikes from all passes through a field.

Supplementary Figure 9 Schematic model of CA1 intracellular dynamics that require MEC inputs for phase precession.

Our results can be explained if we assume three input pathways (top three traces) combined at the CA1 pyramidal cell: the local theta oscillation (Hippocampus), a non-oscillatory but spatially modulated input from the LEC, and an oscillatory and spatially modulated input induced by MEC. In the model, the MEC-induced oscillator is assumed to be faster than the local oscillator (gray and white bars), which reflects our finding that cellular oscillations are slower in the MEC-lesioned rats. Mechanistically this could be explained by resonance properties in the dendrites, as described in ref. 50. A weighted linear superposition of the three inputs yields a membrane potential that comprises both ramp like and oscillatory character and an additional increase in the oscillation amplitude as reported in ref. 28. Setting a constant action potential threshold (red) defines a distinct space-dependent phase range (blue) during which the cell may fire. In the control case with all three inputs intact (left column) the mean of the phase range decreases with space. In the MEC-lesioned case (right column) the mean of the phase range stays stationary. The width of the place field, however, is not substantially affected be the absence of MEC input.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–9 and Supplementary Tables 1–4 (PDF 11404 kb)

Source data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schlesiger, M., Cannova, C., Boublil, B. et al. The medial entorhinal cortex is necessary for temporal organization of hippocampal neuronal activity. Nat Neurosci 18, 1123–1132 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4056

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4056

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing