Neural Plasticity
Volume 2019 (2019), Article ID 1538137, 9 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1538137

Review Article

Emerging Roles of Synapse Organizers in the Regulation of Critical Periods

Adema Ribic¹ and Thomas Biederer1,2

¹Department of Neuroscience, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02111, USA
²Department of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06511, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to Adema Ribic; adema.ribic@gmail.com and Thomas Biederer; thomas.biederer@tufts.edu

Received 29 March 2019; Revised 9 July 2019; Accepted 25 July 2019; Published 3 September 2019

Guest Editor: Hirofumi Morishita

Copyright © 2019 Adema Ribic and Thomas Biederer. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Experience remodels cortical connectivity during developmental windows called critical periods. Experience-dependent regulation of synaptic strength during these periods establishes circuit functions that are stabilized as critical period plasticity wanes. These processes have been extensively studied in the developing visual cortex, where critical period opening and closure are orchestrated by the assembly, maturation, and strengthening of distinct synapse types. The synaptic specificity of these processes points towards the involvement of distinct molecular pathways. Attractive candidates are pre- and postsynaptic transmembrane proteins that form adhesive complexes across the synaptic cleft. These synapse-organizing proteins control synapse development and maintenance and modulate structural and functional properties of synapses. Recent evidence suggests that they have pivotal roles in the onset and closure of the critical period for vision. In this review, we describe roles of synapse-organizing adhesion molecules in the regulation of visual critical period plasticity and we discuss the potential they offer to restore circuit functions in amblyopia and other neurodevelopmental disorders.

1. Introduction

Sensitive periods for the development of brain function have been described in different species and brain areas, but it was the work of Hubel and Wiesel in cat and primate visual cortexes during the 1970s and 1980s that first shed light on the underlying circuit principles [1–4]. This enabled studies of cellular mechanisms, leading to the recognition of synapses in the visual cortex as cellular substrates for critical period plasticity [5–9]. These studies showed that balanced visual input is accompanied by stereotypic developmental remodeling and pruning of synapses in the primary visual cortex, whereas visual deprivation results in synapse loss and shrinkage of axonal and dendritic arbors [5, 10–17]. The application of genetic, chemo-, and optogenetic tools in mice later revealed how vision shapes cortical connectivity during development and how the establishment of cortical connectivity instructs visual function [18–23]. These approaches have also shed light on synaptic mechanisms that control critical periods and actively restrict plasticity in the adult brain [18, 19]. This review is focused on the recently discovered roles of molecules that specify and assemble synaptic connectivity in the onset and closure of plasticity in the visual cortex, a model of cortical plasticity.

2. Synaptic Control of Critical Period Timing

Circuit functions emerge early in development and are shaped by the environment and patterns of activity during critical periods [24–27]. Heightened plasticity and adaptability of circuits during critical periods enable sensory input, vision included, to guide selective strengthening and refinement of different synapse types [22, 28]. This experience-dependent synaptic remodeling stabilizes the synaptic connectivity patterns that underlie mature circuit function. Notably, in the visual cortex, GABA(gamma-aminobutyric acid)-releasing inhibitory neurons are considered key for critical period timing [29–31]. The onset of synaptic integration of inhibitory neurons into local networks coincides with a rise in inhibitory synapse density and overall levels of inhibitory neurotransmitters in the brain [13, 22, 32–35]. A threshold level of cortical inhibition is necessary for the visual critical period to open, and manipulating GABAergic transmission with pharmacologic or genetic tools can either advance or prevent critical period opening [29–31]. As levels of cortical inhibition further rise in the maturing brain, the critical period closes and the potential for plasticity and remodeling wanes (Figure 1). In parallel, glutamatergic synapses onto both excitatory pyramidal and inhibitory neurons undergo vision-driven remodeling [22, 36]. The heightened circuit plasticity that is characteristic of critical periods is no longer present once mature circuit functions are established, and active stabilization and maintenance of function take over in the adult brain [18, 24, 26, 27] (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Circuit plasticity, stability, and levels of inhibition as functions of age. Circuit functions are shaped by external experiences during the critical period, when plasticity is high. Levels of cortical inhibitory neurotransmission rise through the critical period and, once optimal function is reached, contribute to the waning of plasticity and stabilization of circuit function in adults.

High levels of inhibition in adults are thought to contribute to the stabilization of mature brain function by limiting circuit plasticity (Figure 1) [24]. Indeed, acute reduction in levels of inhibitory neurotransmitters in the mature visual cortex can reinstate visual plasticity [37, 38]. On a cellular level, manipulation of activity of soma-targeting, fast-spiking Parvalbumin (PV) and dendrite-targeting, regular-spiking Somatostatin (SST) circuitry results in robust changes in visual plasticity [18, 39–47]. These interneuron classes exert powerful control over critical period onset: transplantation of embryonic PV and SST interneurons derived from medial ganglionic eminence into the adult visual cortex can trigger another visual critical period, with remarkably preserved timing of onset and closure [40, 48]. These precise developmental sequences indicate tight genetic control of interneuron maturation, which is well described for PV interneurons [49–52]. PV interneuron maturation is directed, at least in part, by the complex interplay of Orthodenticle Homeobox 2 (Otx2), a non-cell-autonomous transcription factor secreted from the retina and choroid plexus, and the extracellular matrix (ECM) deposited around interneurons [50, 51, 53–57]. The capture of Otx2 by the ECM that surrounds PV interneurons is essential for the onset of their maturation [57, 58], and misregulated Otx2 expression and localization lead to deficits in critical period plasticity [50, 51, 53, 57–60]. The stereotypic circuit integration of transplanted PV interneurons supports the additional involvement of cell-autonomous factors that control the development of synaptic connectivity of these cells [48]. Activity-driven assembly of local excitatory inputs onto PV interneurons prior to critical period opening in mice is pivotal for its onset [19]. The parallel increase in interneuron expression of synapse-organizing adhesion proteins such as Neuroligins and SynCAMs (see below) further supports that synaptogenesis is an important factor in PV cell maturation [61]. A recent study demonstrated that PV interneuron-expressed Synaptic Cell Adhesion Molecule 1 (SynCAM 1) is required for critical period closure, which involves the SynCAM 1-dependent formation of long-range excitatory inputs from the thalamus [18]. In the following sections, we describe known molecular regulators of synaptic connectivity in the visual cortex.

3. Roles of Synapse-Organizing Proteins in Visual Cortex Synaptogenesis and Plasticity

Cell adhesion proteins that instruct synapse assembly and their maintenance are expressed in diverse neuron types and in glial cells [62–66]. These proteins were initially identified as potent drivers of presynaptic differentiation in an in vitro heterologous system, and they form complexes in trans (for adhesion) and in cis (for lateral assembly) [66–70]. After instructing the assembly of pre- and postsynaptic specializations into functional synapses, these proteins can maintain synapses in the maturing brain [71–73]. Recent research suggests that distinct pairs of synaptic organizers impact different synapse types in the cortex [74, 75] as summarized below.

3.1. Neuroligins and Hevin

Neuroligins are prototypical postsynaptic synapse organizers and type 1 transmembrane proteins that interact with presynaptic Neurexins [67, 76, 77]. Neuroligins 1-4 are redundant for synapse assembly in vivo but are key for synapse maturation and function [65, 77]. Their interactions with α- and β-Neurexins affect both inhibitory and excitatory presynaptic functions, as well as recruitment of synapse scaffolding components and neurotransmitter receptors to the postsynapse [78–83]. Different combinations of Neuroligin/Neurexin complexes can potentially specify different synapse types, and the repertoire of these interactions is expanded by splicing isoforms [84] and accessory extracellular linker proteins, such as glia-expressed Hevin [85] (Figure 2). While cell-surface expression levels of Neuroligins can be regulated by visual activity [86], it is the removal of Hevin in the visual cortex that impairs Neuroligin 1/Neurexin interaction and reduces the density of thalamic inputs (Figure 2) [85, 87]. Mice that lack Hevin show impaired ocular dominance and critical period opening, suggesting that the assembly of thalamocortical synapses by Neuroligin 1/Neurexin/Hevin interactions controls the opening of the visual critical period [85]. Hevin knockout mice display a compensatory increase in local, intracortical excitatory synapses that is insufficient to open the critical period, indicating that specific synapse types are key for different circuit functions [85].

(a)

(b)

Figure 2: Synaptic connectivity of the visual thalamocortical circuit. (a) Excitatory inputs carrying visual information from the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN, green) in the thalamus innervate pyramidal (PYR, blue box) neurons and Parvalbumin (PV, red box) interneurons in thalamorecipient layers of the visual cortex (red box). PV interneurons receive inputs from neighbouring PYR neurons across cortical layers. Astrocytes (AST) express molecules that can act as synaptic bridges between thalamocortical axons and their postsynaptic targets (Hevin, blue box). (b) Red box: the synaptic immunoglobulin SynCAM 1 organizes thalamic inputs onto PV interneurons. Presynaptic interacting partners of SynCAM 1 at thalamocortical synapses are currently unknown, but other SynCAMs (2 and 3) are candidates. Blue box: Neuroligin 1 on PYR cells interacts with Neurexin-1α via the astrocytic Hevin (brown) to organize thalamic inputs onto PYR cells. Astrocytic process is depicted in orange. Presynapse (Pre) and postsynapse (Post) are indicated.

3.2. SynCAMs

Similar to Neuroligins, SynCAM cell adhesion complexes are prominently expressed in the visual cortex and recent research highlighted their role in timing the onset and offset of cortical critical periods [18, 88, 89]. SynCAMs are potent inducers of synapse differentiation in vitro [68, 90] that contribute to excitatory synapse formation and maintenance in vivo across different brain regions [18, 72, 91, 92]. SynCAMs 1-4 are immunoglobulin domain type-1 transmembrane proteins, whose homo- and heterophilic interactions across the synaptic cleft organize excitatory synapses [90, 93]. The most studied family member is SynCAM 1 that interacts with itself and SynCAMs 2 and 3 in cis and trans [90, 93–95]. SynCAM 1 controls both pre- and postsynaptic properties through its interactions across the synaptic cleft and affects cytoskeletal remodeling and receptor recruitment at the synapse through its intracellular partners [72, 88, 96, 97]. In the cortex, SynCAM 1 recruits large and potent long-range thalamocortical excitatory inputs onto PV interneurons (Figure 2) [18, 91]. Further, PV-expressed SynCAM 1 is regulated by visual activity [18]. In agreement with its role in PV maturation, SynCAM 1 is a regulatory target of Otx2 [52] and is essential for maturation of PV interneurons in the visual cortex. Similar to Hevin knockout mice, mice that lack SynCAM 1 have fewer thalamocortical synapses (Figure 2) [18]. This results in poorly developed binocular vision and an extended visual critical period [18]. SynCAM 1 is actively required to control plasticity and even a brief cell-specific removal of SynCAM 1 from PV interneurons results in increased levels of visual plasticity in the adult brain, pointing to a key role for thalamic inputs onto PV interneurons in the regulation of plasticity in mature circuits [18]. This cell-autonomous, postsynaptic requirement for SynCAM 1 in PV interneurons suggests that postsynaptic SynCAM 1 engages currently unknown transsynaptic partners in thalamic axons to assemble thalamocortical synapses (Figure 2) [18, 90].

3.3. Distinct Roles of Neuroligin/Hevin and SynCAM 1

As reviewed above, both Neuroligin/Neurexin interaction (through Hevin) and SynCAM 1 play a role in the formation of thalamocortical synapses but with opposing effects on visual plasticity [18, 85]. Lack of Hevin prevents the critical period from opening, whereas lack of SynCAM 1 prevents it from closure [18, 85]. However, Hevin appears to affect most, if not all, excitatory thalamocortical synapses formed across neuron types, while SynCAM 1 shows a PV-specific action on thalamocortical inputs [18, 85, 87]. It is possible that gross development of thalamocortical synapses mediated by Neuroligin 1/Neurexin-1α/Hevin interaction is a prerequisite for the critical period to open, and PV-specific recruitment and maintenance of thalamic inputs by SynCAM 1 is necessary for subsequent critical period closure. Future studies can address whether any cross-talk between the two pathways exists in PV interneurons, as well as whether these molecules control plasticity through thalamocortical synapses in other sensory or association areas [98, 99].

3.4. Extracellular Matrix, LRRTMs, and NCAM

So far, only SynCAMs and Neuroligins (through Hevin) have demonstrated roles in visual plasticity, but recent research demonstrated that members of the leucine-rich repeat transmembrane (LRRTM) family of molecules can interact at synapses with the extracellular matrix (ECM), a powerful regulator of visual plasticity [34, 100]. LRRTMs 1-4 are another group of type 1 transmembrane proteins that bind Neurexins, potently induce excitatory presynaptic differentiation and regulate receptor composition at the synapse [70, 101, 102]. LRRTM-deficient mice show defects in both pre- and postsynaptic functions, and their repertoire of interactions with Neurexins can impact diverse synapse types [70, 74, 103, 104]. LRRTMs bind Neurexins across the synaptic cleft similar to Neuroligins, but they can also instruct differential synapse formation through interactions with components of the ECM [100–102, 105]. As the ECM in the form of perineuronal nets exerts powerful control over the maturation of PV interneurons and critical period timing [34, 58, 106–111], the role of LRRTMs in visual plasticity warrants future investigation. An ECM-related protein modification, the polysialylation of neural cell adhesion molecule (NCAM), guides the development of inhibitory connections in the visual cortex [112]. NCAM is an immunoglobulin superfamily protein that regulates early synapse development and is mostly found in a glycan-bound state [113]. Visual activity-dependent polysialylation of NCAM affects its homophilic interactions across the synapse, and removal of PSA from NCAM can shift the critical period to an earlier time point through modulation of PV connectivity [112]. SynCAM 1 can also be found in the polysialylated state, pointing to yet another way to diversify the function and interactions of synapse organizers [114, 115].

4. Therapeutic Potential of Synapse-Organizing Molecules in Amblyopia and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

The diminished plasticity of mature circuits is thought to preclude recovery from early visual insults such as amblyopia. Patching or visual stimulation can provide therapeutic interventions before the critical period closes, but the reduced capacity of visual synapses for activity-driven remodeling likely interferes with the success of interventions later in life [116–118]. The reduced potential of the adult brain to rewire itself may also impede treatments for other neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism-spectrum disorders (ASD) and schizophrenia [55, 119–122]. Studies of amblyopia and visual plasticity have identified promising interventions for recovering the potential for plasticity in the entire brain, such as neuromodulation of inhibitory connections [46, 123], systemic regulation of inhibitory neurotransmission [124], and sensory manipulations that may target the activity of thalamocortical synapses [125–127]. On a more specific level, recent research has demonstrated that the cell-specific manipulation of thalamocortical synapses reinstates plastic features to the adult visual cortex [18]. As distinct circuits regulate plasticity of binocularity and improvements in visual acuity in amblyopia models [128, 129], targeting synapses that organize different circuits may hence represent a way to precisely manipulate different brain functions.

How do we target specific synapse types? Transient genetic silencing tools in combination with cell-specific adenoviral vectors could allow manipulating synapse organizers in a cell type-and-region-specific manner [130–132]. Further, peptide fragments of extracellular domains of synapse organizers can impair their interactions in vitro and may have a similar effect in vivo [86, 93]. Indeed, a recent study using a combination of these approaches to manipulate signaling by a secreted molecule, semaphorin 3A, demonstrated its feasibility in rat models of amblyopia [133]. Such approaches may increase plasticity to a level sufficient for visual therapy to have effects in adult amblyopic patients [116–118, 133–136]. These tools could provide a localized therapy that can be restricted to the visual cortex alone, thus precluding systemic side-effects. A transient elevation of cortical plasticity may even improve therapeutic outcomes for other neurodevelopmental disorders [137–140]. Approaches that result in the elevated potential for plasticity in the mature brain could additionally enhance recovery after brain injury, including traumatic brain injury (TBI) and stroke [120, 141–147]. In combination with targeting mechanisms that control neuronal specification [148–152], tools that target specific synapse types hence offer highly specific therapeutic interventions for developmental brain disorders. Future studies on mechanisms of synapse specification within distinct circuits are likely to provide an avenue for progress in this area.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a National Institute of Health grant (R01 DA018928, to T.B.) and the Knights Templar Eye Foundation Career Starter Grant in Paediatric Ophthalmology (to A.R.).

References

D. H. Hubel and T. N. Wiesel, “The period of susceptibility to the physiological effects of unilateral eye closure in kittens,” The Journal of Physiology, vol. 206, no. 2, pp. 419–436, 1970.

D. H. Hubel, T. N. Wiesel, and S. LeVay, “Functional architecture of area 17 in normal and monocularly deprived macaque monkeys,” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, vol. 40, pp. 581–589, 1976.

D. H. Hubel, T. N. Wiesel, and S. LeVay, “Plasticity of ocular dominance columns in monkey striate cortex,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences, vol. 278, no. 961, pp. 377–409, 1977.

S. Le Vay, T. N. Wiesel, and D. H. Hubel, “The development of ocular dominance columns in normal and visually deprived monkeys,” The Journal of Comparative Neurology, vol. 191, no. 1, pp. 1–51, 1980.

A. Antonini, M. Fagiolini, and M. P. Stryker, “Anatomical correlates of functional plasticity in mouse visual cortex,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 4388–4406, 1999.

A. Antonini and M. P. Stryker, “Development of individual geniculocortical arbors in cat striate cortex and effects of binocular impulse blockade,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 3549–3573, 1993.

A. Antonini, D. C. Gillespie, M. C. Crair, and M. P. Stryker, “Morphology of single geniculocortical afferents and functional recovery of the visual cortex after reverse monocular deprivation in the kitten,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 18, no. 23, pp. 9896–9909, 1998.

J. S. Lund, S. M. Holbach, and W. W. Chung, “Postnatal development of thalamic recipient neurons in the monkey striate cortex: Influence of afferent driving on spine acquisition and dendritic growth of layer 4c spiny stellate neurons,” The Journal of Comparative Neurology, vol. 309, no. 1, pp. 129–140, 1991.

E. A. Lachica, M. W. Crooks, and V. A. Casagrande, “Effects of monocular deprivation on the morphology of retinogeniculate axon arbors in a primate,” The Journal of Comparative Neurology, vol. 296, no. 2, pp. 303–323, 1990.

P. R. Huttenlocher, “Synapse elimination and plasticity in developing human cerebral cortex,” American Journal of Mental Deficiency, vol. 88, no. 5, pp. 488–496, 1984.

Y. Zhou, B. Lai, and W. B. Gan, “Monocular deprivation induces dendritic spine elimination in the developing mouse visual cortex,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, article 4977, 2017.

H. Yu, A. K. Majewska, and M. Sur, “Rapid experience-dependent plasticity of synapse function and structure in ferret visual cortex in vivo,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 108, no. 52, pp. 21235–21240, 2011.

J. De Felipe, P. Marco, A. Fairen, and E. G. Jones, “Inhibitory synaptogenesis in mouse somatosensory cortex,” Cerebral Cortex, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 619–634, 1997.

M. E. Blue and J. G. Parnavelas, “The formation and maturation of synapses in the visual cortex of the rat. II. Quantitative analysis,” Journal of Neurocytology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 697–712, 1983.

P. R. Huttenlocher, C. de Courten, L. J. Garey, and H. Van der Loos, “Synaptogenesis in human visual cortex — evidence for synapse elimination during normal development,” Neuroscience Letters, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 247–252, 1982.

A. Antonini and M. P. Stryker, “Rapid remodeling of axonal arbors in the visual cortex,” Science, vol. 260, no. 5115, pp. 1819–1821, 1993.

A. Antonini and M. P. Stryker, “Plasticity of geniculocortical afferents following brief or prolonged monocular occlusion in the cat,” The Journal of Comparative Neurology, vol. 369, no. 1, pp. 64–82, 1996.

A. Ribic, M. C. Crair, and T. Biederer, “Synapse-selective control of cortical maturation and plasticity by parvalbumin-autonomous action of SynCAM 1,” Cell Reports, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 381–393.e6, 2019.

S. J. Kuhlman, N. D. Olivas, E. Tring, T. Ikrar, X. Xu, and J. T. Trachtenberg, “A disinhibitory microcircuit initiates critical-period plasticity in the visual cortex,” Nature, vol. 501, no. 7468, pp. 543–546, 2013.

C. E. Stephany, T. Ikrar, C. Nguyen, X. Xu, and A. W. McGee, “Nogo receptor 1 confines a disinhibitory microcircuit to the critical period in visual cortex,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 36, no. 43, pp. 11006–11012, 2016.

Y. Sun, T. Ikrar, M. F. Davis et al., “Neuregulin-1/ErbB4 signaling regulates visual cortical plasticity,” Neuron, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 160–173, 2016.

Q. Miao, L. Yao, M. J. Rasch, Q. Ye, X. Li, and X. Zhang, “Selective maturation of temporal dynamics of intracortical excitatory transmission at the critical period onset,” Cell Reports, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1677–1689, 2016.

H. Ko, L. Cossell, C. Baragli et al., “The emergence of functional microcircuits in visual cortex,” Nature, vol. 496, no. 7443, pp. 96–100, 2013.

A. E. Takesian and T. K. Hensch, “Balancing plasticity/stability across brain development,” Progress in Brain Research, vol. 207, pp. 3–34, 2013.

B. S. Wang, R. Sarnaik, and J. Cang, “Critical period plasticity matches binocular orientation preference in the visual cortex,” Neuron, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 246–256, 2010.

N. W. Tien and D. Kerschensteiner, “Homeostatic plasticity in neural development,” Neural Development, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 9, 2018.

N. Vitureira, M. Letellier, and Y. Goda, “Homeostatic synaptic plasticity: from single synapses to neural circuits,” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 516–521, 2012.

R. Chittajallu and J. T. R. Isaac, “Emergence of cortical inhibition by coordinated sensory-driven plasticity at distinct synaptic loci,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 1240–1248, 2010.

M. Fagiolini and T. K. Hensch, “Inhibitory threshold for critical-period activation in primary visual cortex,” Nature, vol. 404, no. 6774, pp. 183–186, 2000.

T. K. Hensch, M. Fagiolini, N. Mataga, M. P. Stryker, S. Baekkeskov, and S. F. Kash, “Local GABA circuit control of experience-dependent plasticity in developing visual cortex,” Science, vol. 282, no. 5393, pp. 1504–1508, 1998.

Y. Iwai, M. Fagiolini, K. Obata, and T. K. Hensch, “Rapid critical period induction by tonic inhibition in visual cortex,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 23, no. 17, pp. 6695–6702, 2003.

Q. Ye and Q. L. Miao, “Experience-dependent development of perineuronal nets and chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan receptors in mouse visual cortex,” Matrix Biology, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 352–363, 2013.

C. Ferrer, H. Hsieh, and L. P. Wollmuth, “Input-specific maturation of NMDAR-mediated transmission onto parvalbumin-expressing interneurons in layers 2/3 of the visual cortex,” Journal of Neurophysiology, vol. 120, no. 6, pp. 3063–3076, 2018.

K. K. Lensjo, M. E. Lepperod, G. Dick, T. Hafting, and M. Fyhn, “Removal of perineuronal nets unlocks juvenile plasticity through network mechanisms of decreased inhibition and increased gamma activity,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1269–1283, 2017.

D. van Versendaal and C. N. Levelt, “Inhibitory interneurons in visual cortical plasticity,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 73, no. 19, pp. 3677–3691, 2016.

J. Lu, J. Tucciarone, Y. Lin, and Z. J. Huang, “Input-specific maturation of synaptic dynamics of parvalbumin interneurons in primary visual cortex,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 111, no. 47, pp. 16895–16900, 2014.

A. Harauzov, M. Spolidoro, G. DiCristo et al., “Reducing intracortical inhibition in the adult visual cortex promotes ocular dominance plasticity,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 361–371, 2010.

T. Pizzorusso, P. Medini, N. Berardi, S. Chierzi, J. W. Fawcett, and L. Maffei, “Reactivation of ocular dominance plasticity in the adult visual cortex,” Science, vol. 298, no. 5596, pp. 1248–1251, 2002.

P. Larimer, J. Spatazza, J. S. Espinosa et al., “Caudal ganglionic eminence precursor transplants disperse and integrate as lineage-specific interneurons but do not induce cortical plasticity,” Cell Reports, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1391–1404, 2016.

Y. Tang, M. P. Stryker, A. Alvarez-Buylla, and J. S. Espinosa, “Cortical plasticity induced by transplantation of embryonic somatostatin or parvalbumin interneurons,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 111, no. 51, pp. 18339–18344, 2014.

C. K. Pfeffer, M. Xue, M. He, Z. J. Huang, and M. Scanziani, “Inhibition of inhibition in visual cortex: the logic of connections between molecularly distinct interneurons,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 1068–1076, 2013.

Y. Fu, M. Kaneko, Y. Tang, A. Alvarez-Buylla, and M. P. Stryker, “A cortical disinhibitory circuit for enhancing adult plasticity,” eLife, vol. 4, article e05558, 2015.

R. Priya, B. Rakela, M. Kaneko et al., “Vesicular GABA transporter is necessary for transplant-induced critical period plasticity in mouse visual cortex,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 39, no. 14, pp. 2635–2648, 2019.

C. E. Yaeger, D. L. Ringach, and J. T. Trachtenberg, “Neuromodulatory control of localized dendritic spiking in critical period cortex,” Nature, vol. 567, no. 7746, pp. 100–104, 2019.

M. P. Demars and H. Morishita, “Cortical parvalbumin and somatostatin GABA neurons express distinct endogenous modulators of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors,” Molecular Brain, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 75, 2014.

M. Sadahiro, M. P. Demars, P. Burman et al., Activation of somatostatin inhibitory neurons by Lypd6-nAChRα2 system restores juvenile-like plasticity in adult visual cortex, bioRxiv, 2017.

M. Kaneko and M. P. Stryker, “Sensory experience during locomotion promotes recovery of function in adult visual cortex,” eLife, vol. 3, article e02798, 2014.

D. G. Southwell, R. C. Froemke, A. Alvarez-Buylla, M. P. Stryker, and S. P. Gandhi, “Cortical plasticity induced by inhibitory neuron transplantation,” Science, vol. 327, no. 5969, pp. 1145–1148, 2010.

J. Apulei, N. Kim, D. Testa et al., “Non-cell autonomous OTX2 homeoprotein regulates visual cortex plasticity through Gadd45b/g,” Cerebral Cortex, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 2384–2395, 2019.

S. Sugiyama, A. A. Di Nardo, S. Aizawa et al., “Experience-dependent transfer of Otx2 homeoprotein into the visual cortex activates postnatal plasticity,” Cell, vol. 134, no. 3, pp. 508–520, 2008.

C. Bernard and A. Prochiantz, “Otx2-PNN interaction to regulate cortical plasticity,” Neural Plasticity, vol. 2016, Article ID 7931693, 7 pages, 2016.

A. Sakai, R. Nakato, Y. Ling et al., “Genome-wide target analyses of Otx2 homeoprotein in postnatal cortex,” Frontiers in Neuroscience, vol. 11, p. 307, 2017.

J. Spatazza, H. H. C. Lee, A. A. di Nardo et al., “Choroid-plexus-derived Otx2 homeoprotein constrains adult cortical plasticity,” Cell Reports, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 1815–1823, 2013.

H. H. C. Lee, C. Bernard, Z. Ye et al., “Genetic Otx2 mis-localization delays critical period plasticity across brain regions,” Molecular Psychiatry, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 680–688, 2017.

H. Morishita, J. H. Cabungcal, Y. Chen, K. Q. Do, and T. K. Hensch, “Prolonged period of cortical plasticity upon redox dysregulation in fast-spiking interneurons,” Biological Psychiatry, vol. 78, no. 6, pp. 396–402, 2015.

X. Hou, N. Yoshioka, H. Tsukano et al., “Chondroitin sulfate is required for onset and offset of critical period plasticity in visual cortex,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, article 12646, 2017.

S. Miyata, Y. Komatsu, Y. Yoshimura, C. Taya, and H. Kitagawa, “Persistent cortical plasticity by upregulation of chondroitin 6-sulfation,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 414–422, 2012.

M. Beurdeley, J. Spatazza, H. H. C. Lee et al., “Otx2 binding to perineuronal nets persistently regulates plasticity in the mature visual cortex,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 32, no. 27, pp. 9429–9437, 2012.

G. Despras, C. Bernard, A. Perrot et al., “Toward libraries of biotinylated chondroitin sulfate analogues: From synthesis to in vivo studies,” Chemistry - A European Journal, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 531–540, 2013.

E. Favuzzi, A. Marques-Smith, R. Deogracias et al., “Activity-dependent gating of parvalbumin interneuron function by the perineuronal net protein brevican,” Neuron, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 639–655.e10, 2017.

E. Favuzzi, R. Deogracias, A. Marques-Smith et al., “Distinct molecular programs regulate synapse specificity in cortical inhibitory circuits,” Science, vol. 363, no. 6425, pp. 413–417, 2019.

M. Missler, T. C. Südhof, and T. Biederer, “Synaptic cell adhesion,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, vol. 4, no. 4, article a005694, 2012.

T. Biederer, P. S. Kaeser, and T. A. Blanpied, “Transcellular nanoalignment of synaptic function,” Neuron, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 680–696, 2017.

A. L. Kolodkin and M. Tessier-Lavigne, “Mechanisms and molecules of neuronal wiring: a primer,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, vol. 3, no. 6, 2011.

T. C. Sudhof, “Towards an understanding of synapse formation,” Neuron, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 276–293, 2018.

K. Shen and P. Scheiffele, “Genetics and cell biology of building specific synaptic connectivity,” Annual Review of Neuroscience, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 473–507, 2010.

P. Scheiffele, J. Fan, J. Choih, R. Fetter, and T. Serafini, “Neuroligin expressed in nonneuronal cells triggers presynaptic development in contacting axons,” Cell, vol. 101, no. 6, pp. 657–669, 2000.

T. Biederer, Y. Sara, M. Mozhayeva et al., “SynCAM, a synaptic adhesion molecule that drives synapse assembly,” Science, vol. 297, no. 5586, pp. 1525–1531, 2002.

K. Czondor and O. Thoumine, “Synaptogenic assays using neurons cultured on micropatterned substrates,” Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 1538, pp. 29–44, 2017.

M. W. Linhoff, J. Lauren, R. M. Cassidy et al., “An unbiased expression screen for synaptogenic proteins identifies the LRRTM protein family as synaptic organizers,” Neuron, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 734–749, 2009.

N. Korber and V. Stein, “In vivo imaging demonstrates dendritic spine stabilization by SynCAM 1,” Scientific Reports, vol. 6, no. 1, article 24241, 2016.

E. M. Robbins, A. J. Krupp, K. Perez de Arce et al., “SynCAM 1 adhesion dynamically regulates synapse number and impacts plasticity and learning,” Neuron, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 894–906, 2010.

P. Mendez, M. De Roo, L. Poglia, P. Klauser, and D. Muller, “N-cadherin mediates plasticity-induced long-term spine stabilization,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 189, no. 3, pp. 589–600, 2010.

A. Schroeder, J. Vanderlinden, K. Vints et al., “A modular organization of LRR protein-mediated synaptic adhesion defines synapse identity,” Neuron, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 329–344.e7, 2018.

R. Sando, X. Jiang, and T. C. Sudhof, “Latrophilin GPCRs direct synapse specificity by coincident binding of FLRTs and teneurins,” Science, vol. 363, no. 6429, article eaav7969, 2019.

C. Dean, F. G. Scholl, J. Choih et al., “Neurexin mediates the assembly of presynaptic terminals,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 708–716, 2003.

P. Scheiffele, “Cell-cell signaling during synapse formation in the CNS,” Annual Review of Neuroscience, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 485–508, 2003.

F. Varoqueaux, G. Aramuni, R. L. Rawson et al., “Neuroligins determine synapse maturation and function,” Neuron, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 741–754, 2006.

A. Poulopoulos, G. Aramuni, G. Meyer et al., “Neuroligin 2 drives postsynaptic assembly at perisomatic inhibitory synapses through gephyrin and collybistin,” Neuron, vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 628–642, 2009.

J. S. Martenson, T. Yamasaki, N. H. Chaudhury, D. Albrecht, and S. Tomita, “Assembly rules for GABAA receptor complexes in the brain,” Elife, vol. 6, 2017.

G. S. Maro, S. Gao, A. M. Olechwier et al., “MADD-4/punctin and neurexin organize C. elegans GABAergic postsynapses through neuroligin,” Neuron, vol. 86, no. 6, pp. 1420–1432, 2015.

B. Chih, H. Engelman, and P. Scheiffele, “Control of excitatory and inhibitory synapse formation by neuroligins,” Science, vol. 307, no. 5713, pp. 1324–1328, 2005.

M. Heine, O. Thoumine, M. Mondin, B. Tessier, G. Giannone, and D. Choquet, “Activity-independent and subunit-specific recruitment of functional AMPA receptors at neurexin/neuroligin contacts,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, no. 52, pp. 20947–20952, 2008.

B. Chih, L. Gollan, and P. Scheiffele, “Alternative splicing controls selective trans-synaptic interactions of the neuroligin-neurexin complex,” Neuron, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 171–178, 2006.

S. K. Singh, J. A. Stogsdill, N. S. Pulimood et al., “Astrocytes assemble thalamocortical synapses by bridging NRX1α and NL1 via hevin,” Cell, vol. 164, no. 1-2, pp. 183–196, 2016.

R. T. Peixoto, P. A. Kunz, H. Kwon et al., “Transsynaptic signaling by activity-dependent cleavage of neuroligin-1,” Neuron, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 396–409, 2012.

W. C. Risher, S. Patel, I. H. Kim et al., “Astrocytes refine cortical connectivity at dendritic spines,” Elife, vol. 3, 2014.

L. A. Thomas, M. R. Akins, and T. Biederer, “Expression and adhesion profiles of SynCAM molecules indicate distinct neuronal functions,” The Journal of Comparative Neurology, vol. 510, no. 1, pp. 47–67, 2008.

A. W. Lyckman, S. Horng, C. A. Leamey et al., “Gene expression patterns in visual cortex during the critical period: synaptic stabilization and reversal by visual deprivation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, no. 27, pp. 9409–9414, 2008.

A. I. Fogel, M. R. Akins, A. J. Krupp, M. Stagi, V. Stein, and T. Biederer, “SynCAMs organize synapses through heterophilic adhesion,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 27, no. 46, pp. 12516–12530, 2007.

K. A. Park, A. Ribic, F. M. Laage Gaupp et al., “Excitatory synaptic drive and feedforward inhibition in the hippocampal CA3 circuit are regulated by SynCAM 1,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 36, no. 28, pp. 7464–7475, 2016.

A. Ribic, X. Liu, M. C. Crair, and T. Biederer, “Structural organization and function of mouse photoreceptor ribbon synapses involve the immunoglobulin protein synaptic cell adhesion molecule 1,” The Journal of Comparative Neurology, vol. 522, no. 4, pp. 900–920, 2014.

A. I. Fogel, M. Stagi, K. Perez de Arce, and T. Biederer, “Lateral assembly of the immunoglobulin protein SynCAM 1 controls its adhesive function and instructs synapse formation,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 30, no. 23, pp. 4728–4738, 2011.

J. A. Frei, I. Andermatt, M. Gesemann, and E. T. Stoeckli, “The SynCAM synaptic cell adhesion molecules are involved in sensory axon pathfinding by regulating axon-axon contacts,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 127, no. 24, pp. 5288–5302, 2014.

F. M. Ranaivoson, L. S. Turk, S. Ozgul et al., “A proteomic screen of neuronal cell-surface molecules reveals IgLONs as structurally conserved interaction modules at the synapse,” Structure, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 893–906.e9, 2019.

L. Cheadle and T. Biederer, “The novel synaptogenic protein Farp1 links postsynaptic cytoskeletal dynamics and transsynaptic organization,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 199, no. 6, pp. 985–1001, 2012.

J. L. Hoy, J. R. Constable, S. Vicini, Z. Fu, and P. Washbourne, “SynCAM1 recruits NMDA receptors via protein 4.1B,” Molecular and Cellular Neurosciences, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 466–483, 2009.

J. A. Blundon, N. C. Roy, B. J. W. Teubner et al., “Restoring auditory cortex plasticity in adult mice by restricting thalamic adenosine signaling,” Science, vol. 356, no. 6345, pp. 1352–1356, 2017.

A. Barre, C. Berthoux, D. De Bundel et al., “Presynaptic serotonin 2A receptors modulate thalamocortical plasticity and associative learning,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 113, no. 10, pp. E1382–E1391, 2016.

T. J. Siddiqui, P. K. Tari, S. A. Connor et al., “An LRRTM4-HSPG complex mediates excitatory synapse development on dentate gyrus granule cells,” Neuron, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 680–695, 2013.

R. T. Roppongi, B. Karimi, and T. J. Siddiqui, “Role of LRRTMs in synapse development and plasticity,” Neuroscience Research, vol. 116, pp. 18–28, 2017.

T. J. Siddiqui, R. Pancaroglu, Y. Kang, A. Rooyakkers, and A. M. Craig, “LRRTMs and neuroligins bind neurexins with a differential code to cooperate in glutamate synapse development,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 30, no. 22, pp. 7495–7506, 2010.

M. Bhouri, W. Morishita, P. Temkin et al., “Deletion of LRRTM1 and LRRTM2 in adult mice impairs basal AMPA receptor transmission and LTP in hippocampal CA1 pyramidal neurons,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 115, no. 23, pp. E5382–E5389, 2018.

J. Ko, G. J. Soler-Llavina, M. V. Fuccillo, R. C. Malenka, and T. C. Sudhof, “Neuroligins/LRRTMs prevent activity- and Ca²⁺/calmodulin-dependent synapse elimination in cultured neurons,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 194, no. 2, pp. 323–334, 2011.

P. Zhang, H. Lu, R. T. Peixoto et al., “Heparan sulfate organizes neuronal synapses through neurexin partnerships,” Cell, vol. 174, no. 6, pp. 1450–1464.e23, 2018.

D. Carulli, J. C. F. Kwok, and T. Pizzorusso, “Perineuronal nets and CNS plasticity and repair,” Neural Plasticity, vol. 2016, Article ID 4327082, 2 pages, 2016.

D. Carulli, T. Pizzorusso, J. C. F. Kwok et al., “Animals lacking link protein have attenuated perineuronal nets and persistent plasticity,” Brain, vol. 133, no. 8, pp. 2331–2347, 2010.

G. Cornez, F. N. Madison, A. Van der Linden et al., “Perineuronal nets and vocal plasticity in songbirds: a proposed mechanism to explain the difference between closed-ended and open-ended learning,” Developmental Neurobiology, vol. 77, no. 8, pp. 975–994, 2017.

C. De Luca and M. Papa, “Looking inside the matrix: perineuronal nets in plasticity, maladaptive plasticity and neurological disorders,” Neurochemical Research, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 1507–1515, 2016.

K. Ohira, R. Takeuchi, T. Iwanaga, and T. Miyakawa, “Chronic fluoxetine treatment reduces parvalbumin expression and perineuronal nets in gamma-aminobutyric acidergic interneurons of the frontal cortex in adult mice,” Molecular Brain, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 43, 2013.

B. A. Sorg, S. Berretta, J. M. Blacktop et al., “Casting a wide net: role of perineuronal nets in neural plasticity,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 36, no. 45, pp. 11459–11468, 2016.

G. Di Cristo, B. Chattopadhyaya, S. J. Kuhlman et al., “Activity-dependent PSA expression regulates inhibitory maturation and onset of critical period plasticity,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 1569–1577, 2007.

J. Z. Kiss and D. Muller, “Contribution of the neural cell adhesion molecule to neuronal and synaptic plasticity,” Reviews in the Neurosciences, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 297–310, 2001.

R. Guirado, D. La Terra, M. Bourguignon et al., “Effects of PSA removal from NCAM on the critical period plasticity triggered by the antidepressant fluoxetine in the visual cortex,” Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, vol. 10, p. 22, 2016.

M. Muhlenhoff, M. Rollenhagen, S. Werneburg, R. Gerardy-Schahn, and H. Hildebrandt, “Polysialic acid: versatile modification of NCAM, SynCAM 1 and neuropilin-2,” Neurochemical Research, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1134–1143, 2013.

D. M. Levi and R. W. Li, “Perceptual learning as a potential treatment for amblyopia: a mini-review,” Vision Research, vol. 49, no. 21, pp. 2535–2549, 2009.

Y. Zhou, C. Huang, P. Xu et al., “Perceptual learning improves contrast sensitivity and visual acuity in adults with anisometropic amblyopia,” Vision Research, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 739–750, 2006.

U. Polat, T. Ma-Naim, M. Belkin, and D. Sagi, “Improving vision in adult amblyopia by perceptual learning,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 101, no. 17, pp. 6692–6697, 2004.

H. K. Chang, J. W. Hsu, J. C. Wu et al., “Traumatic brain injury in early childhood and risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder: a nationwide longitudinal study,” The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, vol. 79, no. 6, 2018.

F. Y. Ismail, A. Fatemi, and M. V. Johnston, “Cerebral plasticity: windows of opportunity in the developing brain,” European Journal of Paediatric Neurology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 23–48, 2017.

J. J. LeBlanc and M. Fagiolini, “Autism: a “critical period” disorder?” Neural Plasticity, vol. 2011, Article ID 921680, 17 pages, 2011.

S. D. Greenhill, K. Juczewski, A. M. de Haan, G. Seaton, K. Fox, and N. R. Hardingham, “Neurodevelopment. Adult cortical plasticity depends on an early postnatal critical period,” Science, vol. 349, no. 6246, pp. 424–427, 2015.

H. Morishita, J. M. Miwa, N. Heintz, and T. K. Hensch, “Lynx1, a cholinergic brake, limits plasticity in adult visual cortex,” Science, vol. 330, no. 6008, pp. 1238–1240, 2010.

J. F. M. Vetencourt, A. Sale, A. Viegi et al., “The antidepressant fluoxetine restores plasticity in the adult visual cortex,” Science, vol. 320, no. 5874, pp. 385–388, 2008.

S. Murase, C. L. Lantz, and E. M. Quinlan, “Light reintroduction after dark exposure reactivates plasticity in adults via perisynaptic activation of MMP-9,” Elife, vol. 6, 2017.

K. L. Montey and E. M. Quinlan, “Recovery from chronic monocular deprivation following reactivation of thalamocortical plasticity by dark exposure,” Nature Communications, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 317, 2011.

G. Rodriguez, D. Chakraborty, K. M. Schrode et al., “Cross-modal reinstatement of thalamocortical plasticity accelerates ocular dominance plasticity in adult mice,” Cell Reports, vol. 24, no. 13, pp. 3433–3440.e4, 2018.

C.-E. Stephany, L. L. H. Chan, S. N. Parivash et al., “Plasticity of binocularity and visual acuity are differentially limited by Nogo receptor,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 34, no. 35, pp. 11631–11640, 2014.

C. E. Stephany, X. Ma, H. M. Dorton et al., “Distinct circuits for recovery of eye dominance and acuity in murine amblyopia,” Current Biology, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 1914–1923.e5, 2018.

J. Dimidschstein, Q. Chen, R. Tremblay et al., “A viral strategy for targeting and manipulating interneurons across vertebrate species,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 1743–1749, 2016.

L. T. Graybuck, A. Sedeño-Cortés, T. N. Nguyen et al., Prospective, brain-wide labeling of neuronal subclasses with enhancer-driven AAVs, bioRxiv, 2019.

J. Jüttner, A. Szabo, B. Gross-Scherf et al., “Targeting neuronal and glial cell types with synthetic promoter AAVs in mice, non-human primates and humans,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 1345–1356, 2019.

E. M. Boggio, E. M. Ehlert, L. Lupori et al., “Inhibition of semaphorin3A promotes ocular dominance plasticity in the adult rat visual cortex,” Molecular Neurobiology, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 5987–5997, 2019.

J. Bonaccorsi, N. Berardi, and A. Sale, “Treatment of amblyopia in the adult: insights from a new rodent model of visual perceptual learning,” Frontiers in Neural Circuits, vol. 8, p. 82, 2014.

Z. Hussain, B. S. Webb, A. T. Astle, and P. V. McGraw, “Perceptual learning reduces crowding in amblyopia and in the normal periphery,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 474–480, 2012.

X. Y. Liu, T. Zhang, Y. L. Jia, N. L. Wang, and C. Yu, “The therapeutic impact of perceptual learning on juvenile amblyopia with or without previous patching treatment,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 1531–1538, 2011.

C. L. Gatto and K. Broadie, “Genetic controls balancing excitatory and inhibitory synaptogenesis in neurodevelopmental disorder models,” Frontiers in Synaptic Neuroscience, vol. 2, p. 4, 2010.

S. B. Nelson and V. Valakh, “Excitatory/inhibitory balance and circuit homeostasis in autism spectrum disorders,” Neuron, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 684–698, 2015.

L. Baroncelli, C. Braschi, M. Spolidoro, T. Begenisic, L. Maffei, and A. Sale, “Brain plasticity and disease: a matter of inhibition,” Neural Plasticity, vol. 2011, Article ID 286073, 11 pages, 2011.

O. Marin, “Developmental timing and critical windows for the treatment of psychiatric disorders,” Nature Medicine, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 1229–1238, 2016.

M. Nahmani and G. G. Turrigiano, “Adult cortical plasticity following injury: recapitulation of critical period mechanisms?” Neuroscience, vol. 283, pp. 4–16, 2014.

T. K. Hensch and P. M. Bilimoria, “Re-opening windows: manipulating critical periods for brain development,” Cerebrum, vol. 2012, p. 11, 2012.

J. C. F. Kwok, G. Dick, D. Wang, and J. W. Fawcett, “Extracellular matrix and perineuronal nets in CNS repair,” Developmental Neurobiology, vol. 71, no. 11, pp. 1073–1089, 2011.

S. C. Cramer, M. Sur, B. H. Dobkin et al., “Harnessing neuroplasticity for clinical applications,” Brain, vol. 134, no. 6, pp. 1591–1609, 2011.

S. Prilloff, P. Henrich-Noack, S. Kropf, and B. A. Sabel, “Experience-dependent plasticity and vision restoration in rats after optic nerve crush,” Journal of Neurotrauma, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 2295–2307, 2010.

J. Fawcett, “Molecular control of brain plasticity and repair,” Progress in Brain Research, vol. 175, pp. 501–509, 2009.

M. Spolidoro, A. Sale, N. Berardi, and L. Maffei, “Plasticity in the adult brain: lessons from the visual system,” Experimental Brain Research, vol. 192, no. 3, pp. 335–341, 2009.

B. Tasic, Z. Yao, L. T. Graybuck et al., “Shared and distinct transcriptomic cell types across neocortical areas,” Nature, vol. 563, no. 7729, pp. 72–78, 2018.

T. L. Daigle, L. Madisen, T. A. Hage et al., “A suite of transgenic driver and reporter mouse lines with enhanced brain-cell-type targeting and functionality,” Cell, vol. 174, no. 2, pp. 465–480.e22, 2018.

A. B. Rosenberg, C. M. Roco, R. A. Muscat et al., “Single-cell profiling of the developing mouse brain and spinal cord with split-pool barcoding,” Science, vol. 360, no. 6385, pp. 176–182, 2018.

J. F. Poulin, B. Tasic, J. Hjerling-Leffler, J. M. Trimarchi, and R. Awatramani, “Disentangling neural cell diversity using single-cell transcriptomics,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 1131–1141, 2016.

A. Paul, M. Crow, R. Raudales, M. He, J. Gillis, and Z. J. Huang, “Transcriptional architecture of synaptic communication delineates GABAergic neuron identity,” Cell, vol. 171, no. 3, pp. 522–539.e20, 2017.