Trends in Neurosciences
Volume 26, Issue 12, December 2003, Pages 655-661
Journal home page for Trends in Neurosciences

Sperry and Hebb: oil and vinegar?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2003.10.005Get rights and content

Abstract

The interface between so-called activity-dependent and activity-independent mechanisms of circuit development is discussed here in light of recent findings that question the role of activity in brain development. This debate is presented simplistically here in terms of Sperry's chemoaffinity hypothesis versus Hebb's rules of correlation-based synaptic change, which are often presented as being mutually exclusive – much like oil and vinegar.

Section snippets

The purpose of experience-dependent refinement of synaptic connections

Sensory and motor experiences during a critical period of development sculpt the organization of afferent projections within the brain. Each animal has a different physiognomy, different gross anatomy and differences in sizes of different brain regions [8]. The ethological significance of activity-dependent refinement of sensory and motor projections is to allow individual projections to be molded according to individual gross anatomical differences, as shown in the elegant experiments in barn

The chemoaffinity hypothesis in the modern era

Sperry's chemoaffinity hypothesis stated that the specificity of mapping of presynaptic and postsynaptic partners is determined by molecular cues. Originally, Sperry proposed that different cells bear distinct cell surface proteins that serve as markers or tags [10]. Later, upon consideration that the genome was unlikely to encode as many proteins as would be required by this model, Sperry suggested that dual gradients of molecules in the afferent and target fields would allow topographic

Genetic specification of synaptic partners

It is widely accepted that learning is mediated by changes in circuit connectivity comparable to those that occur during development. If this is so, then molecular markers designating presynaptic and postsynaptic partners during development cannot establish rigid connectivity for the lifetime of the animal. So far, the most convincing evidence for a role for cadherins in synaptic connectivity comes from Drosophila [26]. However insects, like most other metazoans, do learn, and physical changes

Can Hebb help?

The limitations of the hypotheses suggesting that cell-surface adhesion molecules specify synaptic partner choice are readily addressed by including activity-dependent regulatory events in mechanistic models of brain development. Although the combined use of activity-independent and activity-dependent mechanisms to refine sensory projections is well established [33], it is worth restating in this post-genomic era. A key aspect in the idea of activity-dependent regulation of connectivity is that

Activity-dependent regulation of gene expression

With respect to spatiotemporal patterns of gene expression and protein synthesis, environmental signals, including those that affect neuronal activity, clearly regulate gene expression [37]. Protein synthesis and degradation are regulated locally by activity-dependent mechanisms in dendrites and, possibly, also in axons 19, 38. Although this topic has been recently reviewed [39], it is worth mentioning briefly because local activity-dependent regulation of protein synthesis could affect the

Activity-dependent changes in circuit properties

Examples of activity-dependent effects on circuit properties are numerous. Studies performed more than ten years ago in Drosophila demonstrated an intimate relationship between activity patterns and structural plasticity at the neuromuscular junction [44]. These initial studies have been supported by a substantial literature that demonstrates significant activity-induced changes in neuronal structure and function in Drosophila, as well as activity-dependent changes in gene expression, protein

Vinaigrette

Developmental biologists have long recognized that the formation of an organism is the result of a complex pas de deux between the environment and the genome. Such continuous and complex interactions also operate during brain development. Here, I have discussed the added value in synthesizing so-called ‘activity-independent’ and ‘activity-dependent’ mechanisms into more realistic models of brain development. In fact, these very terms have limited descriptive value in light of the high degree of

Acknowledgements

I thank Jeff Lichtman, Carla Shatz, Stephen J. Smith, Tim Tully and members of my laboratory for insightful discussions.

References (52)

  • U. Rutishauser et al.

    Polysialic acid in the vertebrate nervous system: a promoter of plasticity in cell–cell interactions

    Trends Neurosci.

    (1996)
  • K. Keleman

    Comm sorts robo to control axon guidance at the Drosophila midline

    Cell

    (2002)
  • A. Meyer-Franke

    Depolarization and cAMP elevation rapidly recruit TrkB to the plasma membrane of CNS neurons

    Neuron

    (1998)
  • C.H. Lee

    N-cadherin regulates target specificity in the Drosophila visual system

    Neuron

    (2001)
  • H.T. Cline

    Dendritic arbor development and synaptogenesis

    Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.

    (2001)
  • S. Cohen-Cory et al.

    BDNF in the development of the visual system of Xenopus

    Neuron

    (1994)
  • D.S. Campbell et al.

    Chemotropic responses of retinal growth cones mediated by rapid local protein synthesis and degradation

    Neuron

    (2001)
  • J. Dubnau

    The staufen/pumilio pathway is involved in Drosophila long-term memory

    Curr. Biol.

    (2003)
  • G.W. Davis et al.

    Genetic analysis of synaptic development and plasticity: homeostatic regulation of synaptic efficacy

    Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.

    (1998)
  • Z.J. Huang

    BDNF regulates the maturation of inhibition and the critical period of plasticity in mouse visual cortex

    Cell

    (1999)
  • J.A. Kleim

    Motor learning-dependent synaptogenesis is localized to functionally reorganized motor cortex

    Neurobiol. Learn. Mem.

    (2002)
  • A. Dufour

    Area specificity and topography of thalamocortical projections are controlled by ephrin/Eph genes

    Neuron

    (2003)
  • J.C. Crowley et al.

    Development of ocular dominance columns in the absence of retinal input

    Nat. Neurosci.

    (1999)
  • W. Lin

    Distinct roles of nerve and muscle in postsynaptic differentiation of the neuromuscular synapse

    Nature

    (2001)
  • D. Zheng et al.

    Effects of increased neural activity on brain growth

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.

    (1995)
  • E.I. Knudsen

    Instructed learning in the auditory localization pathway of the barn owl

    Nature

    (2002)
  • Cited by (58)

    • Optokinetic set-point adaptation functions as an internal dynamic calibration mechanism for oculomotor disequilibrium

      2022, iScience
      Citation Excerpt :

      Since all animals used for the present study were wild-type and carried no artificially induced factor that might cause behavioral asymmetry, we wondered why and in what situation an innate bias might evolve in animals. In the young brain, coarse neural wiring has to be in place under molecular guidance, but experience-dependent fine-tuning remains in effect and critical (Cline, 2003). Prior to the fine-tuning, it’s conceivable that inherent structural and functional asymmetry could just arise stochastically by nature.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text