The cerebellum plays a critical role in refining motor control through learning. The cerebellar nuclei (CbN), which constitute the major outputs of the cerebellum, are proposed to relay predictive computations of the cerebellar cortex and store well-learned patterns, placing them in a central position to implement cerebellar control (Eccles and Szentágothai, 1967Ohyama et al., 2003; Chan-Palay, 1977). The CbN are a collection of nuclei that house diverse neuronal subtypes that differ in their targets. Recent studies have greatly expanded our understanding of this diversity, using approaches such as genomic profiling and projection specific tracing (Bagnall et al., 2009; Low et al., 2018; Fujita et al., 2020; Kebschull et al., 2020; Uusisaari et al., 2007; Uusisaari and Knöpfel, 2010; Uusisaari and Knöpfel, 2011; Husson et al., 2014; Ankri et al., 2015; Canto et al., 2016). Through these studies, we know that multiple diverse output channels intermingle (Fujita et al., 2020; Low et al., 2018; Sathyamurthy et al., 2020), widespread collateralization is common, and genetic diversity of excitatory projection neurons varies systematically along the mediolateral extent of the CbN which encompasses the medial (fastigial), interposed, lateral (dentate), interstitial, and vestibular nuclei (Kebschull et al., 2020).

The mouse cerebellar interposed nucleus has received recent attention at the anatomical and functional levels with studies identifying specific projection patterns and functional roles for neuronal subtypes within the structure. Interposed excitatory neurons project to a variety of motor-related spinal cord and brainstem targets, as well as collateralize to motor thalamus (Low et al., 2018; Sathyamurthy et al., 2020; Kebschull et al., 2020). Ablation of a subset of anterior interposed (IntA) glutamatergic cells that express Urocortin3, for example, disrupts accurate limb positioning and timing during a reach to grasp task and locomotion (Low et al., 2018). Chemogenetic silencing of excitatory neurons that project ipsilaterally to the cervical spinal cord also impaired reach success in mice (Sathyamurthy et al., 2020). Moreover, closed-loop manipulation of IntA disrupts reach endpoint in real time (Becker and Person, 2019). The interposed nucleus also mediates conditioned eyelid responses, sculpts reach and gait kinematics, and is responsive to tactile stimulation (Darmohray et al., 2019; Ten Brinke et al., 2017; Rowland and Jaeger, 2005). How anatomical organization of the structure confers such functions is an open question.

Functional consequences of cell-type-specific manipulations have not been limited to excitatory neurons. Ablation of inhibitory nucleo-olivary cells demarcated with Sox14 expression also resulted in motor coordination deficits (Prekop et al., 2018). These cells were traced from the lateral nucleus and suggested to project solely to the inferior olive (IO), consistent with conclusions from experiments using dual labeling methods (Ruigrok and Teune, 2014). Nevertheless, older reports of inhibitory projections from the CbN that target regions other than the IO raise the question of whether inhibitory outputs might also play a role in regulating brainstem nuclei outside the olivocerebellar system. Combined immunostaining with horseradish peroxidase tracing from the basilar pontine nuclei (i.e., pontine grey [PG]) in rats and cats showed GABA immunopositive neurons in the lateral nucleus (Aas and Brodal, 1989; Border et al., 1986), although the literature is inconsistent (Schwarz and Schmitz, 1997). Glycinergic output projections from the medial nucleus (fastigial) inhibitory output population include large glycinergic neurons that project to ipsilateral brainstem targets outside the IO (Bagnall et al., 2009), unlike its Gad2-expressing neurons which exclusively target the IO (Fujita et al., 2020). In aggregate, these various observations indicate that better understanding of whether the interposed nucleus houses inhibitory output neurons that project to targets outside IO is needed.

Here, we use a range of viral tracing methods to isolate and map projections from and to inhibitory and excitatory neurons of the intermediate cerebellar nuclear groups, defined through intersectional labeling methods using single or multiple recombinases coupled with pathway-specific labeling (Fenno et al., 2014). This method permitted analysis of collateralization more specific than traditional dual-retrograde labeling strategies since it leverages genetic specification and projection specificity and permits entire axonal fields to be traced. We elucidate the projection ‘fingerprints’ of genetic- and projection-defined cell groups. Surprisingly, we observed widespread inhibitory outputs, comprised at least in part of putative collaterals of some IO-projecting neurons, that target both ipsilateral and contralateral brainstem and midbrain structures. Monosynaptic rabies transsynaptic tracing (Kim et al., 2016; Wickersham et al., 2010) restricted to excitatory premotor neuron populations through the selective expression of Cre recombinase under the Slc17a6 (Vglut2) promoter (Gong et al., 2007) and inhibitory neurons through Cre expression controlled under the Slc32a1 (Vgat) promoter revealed reproducible patterns of presynaptic inputs largely shared across cell types. Taken together, these experiments provide new insight into input/output organization of the intermediate cerebellum, suggest potential functional diversity of parallel channels, and provide anatomical targets for functional studies aimed at evaluating these putative roles.

Here, we systematically examined the input and output patterns of diverse cell populations of the interposed cerebellar nucleus, Int, using intersectional viral tracing techniques. Consistent with previous work, we found that the putative excitatory output neurons of Int collateralize to regions of the contralateral brainstem, spinal cord, and thalamus and more restrictedly to the caudal ipsilateral brainstem, including to regions recently shown to control forelimb musculature. However, we also found that Int GABAergic projection neurons innervate brainstem regions other than IO, including the pontine nuclei, medullary reticular nuclei, and sensory brainstem structures. Interestingly, at least some IO-projecting neurons collateralize to comprise a subset of these projections. Inputs to these distinct cell types were also mapped using monosynaptic rabies tracing. We found that inputs to glutamatergic and Vgat neurons of the intermediate cerebellum are largely similar with only the LRN standing out as preferentially targeting Vgat neurons. Merging anterograde and retrograde datasets, region-level reciprocal loops between Int and brainstem targets were similar across both cell types.

The most surprising results were the diverse projections of GABAergic neurons of Int. To address concerns that these projections may be the result of a methodological artifact, we note a variety of data that support our interpretation. First, ISH and immunolabel support the view that Vgat-Cre is restricted to Slc32a1 expressing neurons that express Gad65/67 in terminal boutons. Second, projection patterns of excitatory neurons were distinct, particularly within the ipsilateral caudal brainstem and diencephalon, thus non-specific viral label cannot account for the data. Third, AAV-retroCre injections into RN—a putative target of both Int-Vgat and Int-Ntsr—labeled targets matching mixed projections of excitatory and inhibitory neurons, including terminal label in IO. Finally, we used an intersectional approach, targeting Vgat-Cre expressing neurons that project to the IO. This method of isolating Int inhibitory neurons also consistently labeled terminals elsewhere in the brainstem. Taken together, leak of Cre cannot explain the sum of these observations.

Another study restricting tracer to lateral (dentate) nucleus Sox14-Cre expressing neurons, a transcription factor marking nucleo-olivary neurons, showed terminal label in the IO as well as the oculomotor nucleus (III). Based on retrograde tracing from III, terminals there were interpreted to reflect virus uptake by nucleus Y near the injection site (Prekop et al., 2018). This finding raised the question of whether brainstem and midbrain targets of Int-Vgat neurons described in the present study are merely a consequence of viral uptake in regions neighboring the interposed nucleus. Although projections were more extensive following larger injections in Vgat-Cre mice, we observed axon varicosities outside IO following injections that were completely restricted to the interposed nucleus. As has been noted in previous studies, the ventral border of the interposed nucleus is poorly distinguished but houses numerous islets of cells within the white matter tracts (Sugihara and Shinoda, 2007; Sugihara, 2011). These regions receive Purkinje input from zebrin negative zones, and have been proposed to be distinct subregions of the CbN. A medial population, named the interstitial cell group, resides ventrally between the medial and interposed nuclei. An anterior extension, the anterior interstitial cell group, resides ventral to the interposed nucleus, and more posterior and laterally, the parvocellular interposed and lateral cell groups, neighboring nucleus Y, complete this constellation of loosely organized cell groups. Our data, which include injections of these regions, hint that these areas may house Vgat neurons that produce more extensive extra-IO projections, including nucleocortical beaded axons distinct from nucleocortical mossy fibers, although this conjecture will remain speculative until methodological advances permit cell-type-specific tracing from such minute regions to be carried out.

While these inhibitory projections were unknown, these data, combined with previous literature from the medial nucleus, suggest that inhibitory projections from the CbN may be a more prominent circuit motif than is widely appreciated. The medial nucleus contains glycinergic projection neurons that innervate ipsilateral brainstem nuclei matching contralateral targets of excitatory neurons (Bagnall et al., 2009). Additional evidence of inhibitory outputs includes dual retrograde tracing suggesting that nucleo-olivary projections from medial nucleus and the vestibular complex collateralize to the VM hypothalamic nucleus (Diagne et al., 2001; Li et al., 2017). Studies combining retrograde horse radish peroxidase tracing from the basilar pontine nuclei (i.e., PG) with immunohistochemistry observed double-labeled GABA immunopositive neurons in the lateral nucleus of rats and cats (Aas and Brodal, 1989), although the literature is inconsistent (Schwarz and Schmitz, 1997). More recent work in mice tracing Vgat-Cre neurons of the lateral nucleus listed projections to a variety of brainstem structures as well as IO (Locke et al., 2018), but these results were not discussed.

Despite these corroborating experimental results, we note that our data may appear to contradict conclusions drawn from a dual-retrograde tracing study, in which only minor dual retrograde label was observed in the lateral and interposed nuclei following tracer injections into IO and RN or IO and TRN (Ruigrok and Teune, 2014). This study concluded that two distinct populations exist within the CbN: one which projects widely to several regions and one which projects exclusively to IO. However, this study did report a small number of cells colabeled by retrograde injections to IO and TRN as well as IO and RN. This observation may account for the present finding that a population of neurons that projects to both IO and premotor nuclei exists in smaller numbers, and that topographic specificity may have precluded previous methods from fully detecting the collateralization of inhibitory populations. Importantly, our results focus on all Int-Vgat neurons, and thus may label subsets of neurons that project exclusively to IO or exclusively outside of IO, which is not resolvable with dual retrograde methods.

Projection patterns of glycinergic medial and vestibular nucleus neurons have an ipsilateral bias relative to excitatory contralateral projections. (Bagnall et al., 2009; Prekop et al., 2018; Sekirnjak et al., 2003; Shin et al., 2011). This organizational structure has been proposed to potentially mediate axial muscular opponency. While there was also a trend for an ipsilateral targeting of Int-Vgat neurons, this bias was not significant when accounting for false discovery rates (p=0.02), with both excitatory and inhibitory cells projecting bilaterally. Future studies investigating the functional roles of these projections may explore agonist/antagonist opponency in motor targets of these projections, which remain lateralized for limb musculature. Additionally, the widespread observation of Purkinje neurons that increase rates during cerebellar dependent behaviors may suggest the potential for a double disinhibitory pathway through the CbN, if these Purkinje neurons converged on inhibitory nuclear output neurons (De Zeeuw and Berrebi, 1995; Zeeuw and Chris, 2020).

What might be the role of inhibitory projections from the CbN? Two intriguing patterns emerged that are suggestive of potential function. First, inhibitory projections targeted more sensory brainstem structures than excitatory outputs. Predicting sensory consequences of self-generated movement, termed forward models, is a leading hypothesis for the role of cerebellum in sensorimotor behaviors. While populations of Purkinje neurons may perform this computation, it is unknown how forward models are used by downstream targets. Inhibitory projections from cerebellum to sensory areas would seem to be ideally situated to modulate the sensory gain of predicted sensory consequences of movement (Brooks et al., 2015; Shadmehr, 2020). Moreover, negative sensory prediction error could be used to actively cancel predicted sensory reafference (Kim et al., 2020; Requarth and Sawtell, 2014; Shadmehr, 2020; Conner et al., 2021), raising implications for a combined role of negative sensory prediction error in guiding learning both through modulation of climbing fiber signaling in IO and through modulation of sensory signals reaching the cerebellum upon which associative learning is built. Second, GABAergic projections to the pontine nuclei, which are themselves a major source of mossy fiber inputs to the cerebellum, suggest a regulatory feedback pathway that could operate as a homeostat akin to the feedback loops through the IO (Medina et al., 2002). The pontine nuclei are a major relay of cortical information into the cerebellum. Thus, through inhibitory feedback, cortical information could potentially be gated to facilitate strategic (i.e., cortical) control for novel skill learning or turned down to facilitate automatic (i.e., ascending/non-cortical) control of movements (Schwarz and Thier, 1999).

The present study compliments a recent collection of papers examining cerebellar nuclear cell types. Transcriptomics analyses of the CbN identified three distinct excitatory cell types within IntA. These classes included two broad projection types: those that target a wide array of brainstem nuclei and those that target the ZI (Kebschull et al., 2020). Another recent study identified two distinct interposed cell types based on projection patterns to the spinal cord, which were shown to constitute a minority of neurons (<20%). Nevertheless, these spinal-projecting neurons collateralized to many other targets, including the MDRNv, RN, and the VAL (Sathyamurthy et al., 2020). Inhibitory projections were not examined in these studies, thus it will be interesting to examine how the inhibitory projection neurons identified in the present study map onto transcript clusters of the inhibitory cell types, five total across the CbN. At a minimum, these clusters would include IO-projecting neurons, interneurons, MN glycinergic projection neurons, and a collateralizing population of inhibitory neurons identified here (Ankri et al., 2015; Bagnall et al., 2009; Fujita et al., 2020; Husson et al., 2014; Kebschull et al., 2020; Sathyamurthy et al., 2020).

Inputs to these neuronal populations were largely similar, though we observed minor differences in the input signatures of Int-Vglut2 and Int-Vgat. Many more neurons in the LRN were labeled following Vgat-Cre starting cells for monosynaptic rabies tracing, suggesting a predominant innervation of inhibitory neurons by LRN. It remains unclear if there are differences in input connectivity between Vgat subgroups, specifically interneurons and projection neurons, or whether Gad65/67 expressing neurons co-express GlyT2. In comparing input and outputs to diverse cell types, we noticed that reciprocal loops were common, broadening themes of reciprocal loops demonstrated previously (Tsukahara et al., 1983; Beitzel et al., 2017; Murakami et al., 1981), to also include inhibitory neurons. Such loops resemble neural integrators used in gaze maintenance or postural limb stabilization (Albert et al., 2020; Cannon and Robinson, 1987), another potential functional role of the anatomy presented here. Interestingly, we observed a few neocortical inputs to the intermediate/interstitial groups of the CbN. We speculate that these regions may conform to the reciprocal loop motif, albeit polysynaptically, predicting that thalamic targets innervate neocortical areas that project back to the CbN.

In conclusion, the anatomical observations presented here open the door to many potential functional studies that could explore the roles of inhibitory projections in real-time motor control, sensory prediction and cancellation, and dynamic cerebellar gain control. Taken together, the present results suggest distinct computational modules within the interposed CbN based on cell types and shared, but likely distinct, participation in motor execution.

All data analysis is included in the manuscript and supporting files.

1. 1. Aas JE
   2. Brodal P

   (1989) Demonstration of a mamillo-ponto-cerebellar pathway

   The European Journal of Neuroscience 1:61–74.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.1989.tb00775.x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Albert ST
   2. Hadjiosif AM
   3. Jang J
   4. Zimnik AJ
   5. Soteropoulos DS
   6. Baker SN
   7. Churchland MM
   8. Krakauer JW
   9. Shadmehr R

   (2020) Postural control of arm and fingers through integration of movement commands

   eLife 9:e52507.

   https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52507

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Ankri L
   2. Husson Z
   3. Pietrajtis K
   4. Proville R
   5. Léna C
   6. Yarom Y
   7. Dieudonné S
   8. Uusisaari MY

   (2015) A novel inhibitory nucleo-cortical circuit controls cerebellar golgi cell activity

   eLife 4:e06262.

   https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06262

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Aumann TD
   2. Rawson JA
   3. Finkelstein DI
   4. Horne MK

   (1994) Projections from the lateral and interposed cerebellar nuclei to the thalamus of the rat: A light and electron microscopic study using single and double anterograde labelling

   The Journal of Comparative Neurology 349:165–181.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.903490202

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Bagnall MW
   2. Zingg B
   3. Sakatos A
   4. Moghadam SH
   5. Zeilhofer HU
   6. du Lac S

   (2009) Glycinergic projection neurons of the cerebellum

   The Journal of Neuroscience 29:10104–10110.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2087-09.2009

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Balaban CD
   2. Beryozkin G

   (1994) Organization of vestibular nucleus projections to the caudal dorsal cap of kooy in rabbits

   Neuroscience 62:1217–1236.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4522(94)90354-9

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Barmack NH

   (2003) Central vestibular system: Vestibular nuclei and posterior cerebellum

   Brain Research Bulletin 60:511–541.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/s0361-9230(03)00055-8

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Batini C
   2. Compoint C
   3. Buisseret-Delmas C
   4. Daniel H
   5. Guegan M

   (1992) Cerebellar nuclei and the nucleocortical projections in the rat: Retrograde tracing coupled to gaba and glutamate immunohistochemistry

   The Journal of Comparative Neurology 315:74–84.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.903150106

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Becker MI
   2. Person AL

   (2019) Cerebellar control of reach kinematics for endpoint precision

   Neuron 103:335–348.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.05.007

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Beitzel CS
    2. Houck BD
    3. Lewis SM
    4. Person AL

    (2017) Rubrocerebellar feedback loop isolates the interposed nucleus as an independent processor of corollary discharge information in mice

    The Journal of Neuroscience 37:10085–10096.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1093-17.2017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Border BG
    2. Kosinski RJ
    3. Azizi SA
    4. Mihailoff GA

    (1986) Certain basilar pontine afferent systems are GABA-ergic: combined HRP and immunocytochemical studies in the rat

    Brain Research Bulletin 17:169–179.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-9230(86)90113-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Brooks JX
    2. Carriot J
    3. Cullen KE

    (2015) Learning to expect the unexpected: Rapid updating in primate cerebellum during voluntary self-motion

    Nature Neuroscience 18:1310–1317.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4077

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Cannon SC
    2. Robinson DA

    (1987) Loss of the neural integrator of the oculomotor system from brain stem lesions in Monkey

    Journal of Neurophysiology 57:1383–1409.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1987.57.5.1383

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Canto CB
    2. Witter L
    3. De Zeeuw CI

    (2016) Whole-cell properties of cerebellar nuclei neurons in vivo

    PLOS ONE 11:e0165887.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165887

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Carta I
    2. Chen CH
    3. Schott AL
    4. Dorizan S
    5. Khodakhah K

    (2019) Cerebellar modulation of the reward circuitry and social behavior

    Science 363:eaav0581.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav0581

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. Book

    1. Chan-Palay V

    (1977) The Cerebellar Dentate Nucleus

    In: Chan-Palay V, editors. Cerebellar Dentate Nucleus. Springer. pp. 1–24.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-66498-4

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Chen CH
    2. Fremont R
    3. Arteaga-Bracho EE
    4. Khodakhah K

    (2014) Short latency cerebellar modulation of the basal ganglia

    Nature Neuroscience 17:1767–1775.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3868

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Cicirata F
    2. Serapide MF
    3. Parenti R
    4. Pantò MR
    5. Zappalà A
    6. Nicotra A
    7. Cicero D

    (2005) The basilar pontine nuclei and the nucleus reticularis tegmenti pontis subserve distinct cerebrocerebellar pathways

    Progress in Brain Research 148:259–282.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(04)48021-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. Preprint

    1. Conner JM
    2. Bohannon A
    3. Igarashi M
    4. Taniguchi J
    5. Baltar N
    6. Azim E

    (2021) Modulation of Tactile Feedback for the Execution of Dexterous Movement

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.04.433649

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Darmohray DM
    2. Jacobs JR
    3. Marques HG
    4. Carey MR

    (2019) Spatial and temporal locomotor learning in mouse cerebellum

    Neuron 102:217–231.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.01.038

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. De Zeeuw CI
    2. Berrebi AS

    (1995) Postsynaptic targets of purkinje cell terminals in the cerebellar and vestibular nuclei of the rat

    The European Journal of Neuroscience 7:2322–2333.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.1995.tb00653.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Diagne M
    2. Delfini C
    3. Angaut P
    4. Buisseret P
    5. Buisseret-Delmas C

    (2001) Fastigiovestibular projections in the rat: Retrograde tracing coupled with gammaamino-butyric acid and glutamate immunohistochemistry

    Neuroscience Letters 308:49–53.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3940(01)01969-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Doykos TK
    2. Gilmer JI
    3. Person AL
    4. Felsen G

    (2020) Monosynaptic inputs to specific cell types of the intermediate and deep layers of the superior colliculus

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 528:2254–2268.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.24888

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. Preprint

    1. Dumas DB
    2. Gornati S
    3. Adolfs Y
    4. Shimogori T
    5. Pasterkamp RJ
    6. Hoebeek FE

    (2019) Anatomical Development of the Cerebellothalamic Tract in Embryonic Mice

    bioRxiv.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/731968

    • Google Scholar
25. Book

    1. Eccles JC
    2. Szentágothai J

    (1967) The Cerebellum as a Neuronal Machine

    Springer.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-13147-3

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Esposito MS
    2. Capelli P
    3. Arber S

    (2014) Brainstem nucleus MDV mediates skilled forelimb motor tasks

    Nature 508:351–356.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13023

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Fenno LE
    2. Mattis J
    3. Ramakrishnan C
    4. Hyun M
    5. Lee SY
    6. He M
    7. Tucciarone J
    8. Selimbeyoglu A
    9. Berndt A
    10. Grosenick L
    11. Zalocusky KA
    12. Bernstein H
    13. Swanson H
    14. Perry C
    15. Diester I
    16. Boyce FM
    17. Bass CE
    18. Neve R
    19. Huang ZJ
    20. Deisseroth K

    (2014) Targeting cells with single vectors using multiple-feature boolean logic

    Nature Methods 11:763–772.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2996

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Fenno LE
    2. Mattis J
    3. Ramakrishnan C
    4. Deisseroth K

    (2017) A guide to creating and testing new intrsect constructs

    Current Protocols in Neuroscience 80:4.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cpns.30

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Ferreira-Pinto MJ
    2. Kanodia H
    3. Falasconi A
    4. Sigrist M
    5. Esposito MS
    6. Arber S

    (2021) Functional diversity for body actions in the mesencephalic locomotor region

    Cell 184:S0092-8674(21)00828-X.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.07.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Fredette BJ
    2. Mugnaini E

    (1991) The gabaergic cerebello-olivary projection in the rat

    Anatomy and Embryology 184:225–243.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01673258

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Fu Y
    2. Tvrdik P
    3. Makki N
    4. Paxinos G
    5. Watson C

    (2011) Precerebellar cell groups in the hindbrain of the mouse defined by retrograde tracing and correlated with cumulative Wnt1-cre genetic labeling

    Cerebellum 10:570–584.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-011-0266-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Fujita H
    2. Kodama T
    3. du Lac S

    (2020) Modular output circuits of the fastigial nucleus for diverse motor and nonmotor functions of the cerebellar vermis

    eLife 9:e58613.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58613

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Gao Z
    2. Proietti-Onori M
    3. Lin Z
    4. Ten Brinke MM
    5. Boele HJ
    6. Potters JW
    7. Ruigrok TJH
    8. Hoebeek FE
    9. De Zeeuw CI

    (2016) Excitatory cerebellar nucleocortical circuit provides internal amplification during associative conditioning

    Neuron 89:645–657.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.01.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Gayer NS
    2. Faull RL

    (1988) Connections of the paraflocculus of the cerebellum with the superior colliculus in the rat brain

    Brain Research 449:253–270.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(88)91042-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Gong S
    2. Doughty M
    3. Harbaugh CR
    4. Cummins A
    5. Hatten ME
    6. Heintz N
    7. Gerfen CR

    (2007) Targeting cre recombinase to specific neuron populations with bacterial artificial chromosome constructs

    The Journal of Neuroscience 27:9817–9823.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2707-07.2007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Higo S
    2. Akashi K
    3. Sakimura K
    4. Tamamaki N

    (2009) Subtypes of gabaergic neurons project axons in the neocortex

    Frontiers in Neuroanatomy 3:25.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.05.025.2009

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Houck BD
    2. Person AL

    (2015) Cerebellar premotor output neurons collateralize to innervate the cerebellar cortex

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 523:2254–2271.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.23787

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Husson Z
    2. Rousseau CV
    3. Broll I
    4. Zeilhofer HU
    5. Dieudonné S

    (2014) Differential gabaergic and glycinergic inputs of inhibitory interneurons and purkinje cells to principal cells of the cerebellar nuclei

    The Journal of Neuroscience 34:9418–9431.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0401-14.2014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Kalil K

    (1981) Projections of the cerebellar and dorsal column nuclei upon the thalamus of the rhesus monkey

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 195:25–50.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.901950105

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Kebschull JM
    2. Richman EB
    3. Ringach N
    4. Friedmann D
    5. Albarran E
    6. Kolluru SS
    7. Jones RC
    8. Allen WE
    9. Wang Y
    10. Cho SW
    11. Zhou H
    12. Ding JB
    13. Chang HY
    14. Deisseroth K
    15. Quake SR
    16. Luo L

    (2020) Cerebellar nuclei evolved by repeatedly duplicating a conserved cell-type set

    Science 370:eabd5059.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd5059

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Kim EJ
    2. Jacobs MW
    3. Ito-Cole T
    4. Callaway EM

    (2016) Improved monosynaptic neural circuit tracing using engineered Rabies virus glycoproteins

    Cell Reports 15:692–699.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.03.067

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Kim OA
    2. Ohmae S
    3. Medina JF

    (2020) A cerebello-olivary signal for negative prediction error is sufficient to cause extinction of associative motor learning

    Nature Neuroscience 23:1–5.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-00732-1

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Lein ES
    2. Hawrylycz MJ
    3. Ao N
    4. Ayres M
    5. Bensinger A
    6. Bernard A
    7. Boe AF
    8. Boguski MS
    9. Brockway KS
    10. Byrnes EJ
    11. Chen L
    12. Chen L
    13. Chen T-M
    14. Chin MC
    15. Chong J
    16. Crook BE
    17. Czaplinska A
    18. Dang CN
    19. Datta S
    20. Dee NR
    21. Desaki AL
    22. Desta T
    23. Diep E
    24. Dolbeare TA
    25. Donelan MJ
    26. Dong H-W
    27. Dougherty JG
    28. Duncan BJ
    29. Ebbert AJ
    30. Eichele G
    31. Estin LK
    32. Faber C
    33. Facer BA
    34. Fields R
    35. Fischer SR
    36. Fliss TP
    37. Frensley C
    38. Gates SN
    39. Glattfelder KJ
    40. Halverson KR
    41. Hart MR
    42. Hohmann JG
    43. Howell MP
    44. Jeung DP
    45. Johnson RA
    46. Karr PT
    47. Kawal R
    48. Kidney JM
    49. Knapik RH
    50. Kuan CL
    51. Lake JH
    52. Laramee AR
    53. Larsen KD
    54. Lau C
    55. Lemon TA
    56. Liang AJ
    57. Liu Y
    58. Luong LT
    59. Michaels J
    60. Morgan JJ
    61. Morgan RJ
    62. Mortrud MT
    63. Mosqueda NF
    64. Ng LL
    65. Ng R
    66. Orta GJ
    67. Overly CC
    68. Pak TH
    69. Parry SE
    70. Pathak SD
    71. Pearson OC
    72. Puchalski RB
    73. Riley ZL
    74. Rockett HR
    75. Rowland SA
    76. Royall JJ
    77. Ruiz MJ
    78. Sarno NR
    79. Schaffnit K
    80. Shapovalova NV
    81. Sivisay T
    82. Slaughterbeck CR
    83. Smith SC
    84. Smith KA
    85. Smith BI
    86. Sodt AJ
    87. Stewart NN
    88. Stumpf K-R
    89. Sunkin SM
    90. Sutram M
    91. Tam A
    92. Teemer CD
    93. Thaller C
    94. Thompson CL
    95. Varnam LR
    96. Visel A
    97. Whitlock RM
    98. Wohnoutka PE
    99. Wolkey CK
    100. Wong VY
    101. Wood M
    102. Yaylaoglu MB
    103. Young RC
    104. Youngstrom BL
    105. Yuan XF
    106. Zhang B
    107. Zwingman TA
    108. Jones AR

    (2007) Genome-wide atlas of gene expression in the adult mouse brain

    Nature 445:168–176.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05453

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Li B
    2. Zhuang QX
    3. Gao HR
    4. Wang JJ
    5. Zhu JN

    (2017) Medial cerebellar nucleus projects to feeding-related neurons in the ventromedial hypothalamic nucleus in rats

    Brain Structure & Function 222:957–971.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-016-1257-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Liu K
    2. Kim J
    3. Kim DW
    4. Zhang YS
    5. Bao H
    6. Denaxa M
    7. Lim SA
    8. Kim E
    9. Liu C
    10. Wickersham IR
    11. Pachnis V
    12. Hattar S
    13. Song J
    14. Brown SP
    15. Blackshaw S

    (2017) Lhx6-positive gaba-releasing neurons of the Zona Incerta promote sleep

    Nature 548:582–587.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23663

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Locke TM
    2. Soden ME
    3. Miller SM
    4. Hunker A
    5. Knakal C
    6. Licholai JA
    7. Dhillon KS
    8. Keene CD
    9. Zweifel LS
    10. Carlson ES

    (2018) Dopamine D1 Receptor-Positive Neurons in the Lateral Nucleus of the Cerebellum Contribute to Cognitive Behavior

    Biological Psychiatry 84:401–412.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.01.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Low AYT
    2. Thanawalla AR
    3. Yip AKK
    4. Kim J
    5. Wong KLL
    6. Tantra M
    7. Augustine GJ
    8. Chen AI

    (2018) Precision of discrete and rhythmic forelimb movements requires a distinct neuronal subpopulation in the interposed anterior nucleus

    Cell Reports 22:2322–2333.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2018.02.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Medina JF
    2. Nores WL
    3. Mauk MD

    (2002) Inhibition of climbing fibres is a signal for the extinction of conditioned eyelid responses

    Nature 416:330–333.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/416330a

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Murakami F
    2. Ozawa N
    3. Katsumaru H
    4. Tsukahara H

    (1981) Reciprocal connections between the nucleus interpositus of the cerebellum and precerebellar nuclei

    Neuroscience Letters 25:209–213.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3940(81)90393-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Ohyama T
    2. Nores WL
    3. Murphy M
    4. Mauk MD

    (2003) What the cerebellum computes

    Trends in Neurosciences 26:222–227.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(03)00054-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Parenti R
    2. Cicirata F
    3. Pantò MR
    4. Serapide MF

    (1996) The projections of the lateral reticular nucleus to the deep cerebellar nuclei. An experimental analysis in the rat

    The European Journal of Neuroscience 8:2157–2167.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.1996.tb00737.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. Book

    1. Paxinos G

    (2008)

    The Mouse Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates, Compact: The Coronal Plates and Diagrams

    Elsevier Science.

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Prekop HT
    2. Kroiss A
    3. Rook V
    4. Zagoraiou L
    5. Jessell TM
    6. Fernandes C
    7. Delogu A
    8. Wingate RJT

    (2018) Sox14 Is Required for a Specific Subset of Cerebello-Olivary Projections

    The Journal of Neuroscience 38:9539–9550.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1456-18.2018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Requarth T
    2. Sawtell NB

    (2014) Plastic corollary discharge predicts sensory consequences of movements in a cerebellum-like circuit

    Neuron 82:896–907.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.03.025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Rowland NC
    2. Jaeger D

    (2005) Coding of tactile response properties in the rat deep cerebellar nuclei

    Journal of Neurophysiology 94:1236–1251.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00285.2005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Ruigrok TJ
    2. Voogd J

    (1990) Cerebellar nucleo-olivary projections in the rat: an anterograde tracing study with Phaseolus vulgaris-leucoagglutinin (PHA-L

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 298:315–333.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902980305

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Ruigrok TJ
    2. Voogd J

    (2000) Organization of projections from the inferior olive to the cerebellar nuclei in the rat

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 426:209–228.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/1096-9861(20001016)426:2<209::aid-cne4>3.0.co;2-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Ruigrok TJH
    2. Teune TM

    (2014) Collateralization of cerebellar output to functionally distinct brainstem areas. A retrograde, non-fluorescent tracing study in the rat

    Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 8:23.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00023

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Sathyamurthy A
    2. Barik A
    3. Dobrott CI
    4. Matson KJE
    5. Stoica S
    6. Pursley R
    7. Chesler AT
    8. Levine AJ

    (2020) Cerebellospinal neurons regulate motor performance and motor learning

    Cell Reports 31:S2211-1247(20)30544-1.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2020.107595

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Schwarz C
    2. Schmitz Y

    (1997) Projection from the cerebellar lateral nucleus to precerebellar nuclei in the mossy fiber pathway is glutamatergic: A study combining anterograde tracing with immunogold labeling in the rat

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 381:320–334.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1096-9861(19970512)381:3<320::aid-cne5>3.0.co;2-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Schwarz C
    2. Thier P

    (1999) Binding of signals relevant for action: Towards a hypothesis of the functional role of the pontine nuclei

    Trends in Neurosciences 22:443–451.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-2236(99)01446-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Sekirnjak C
    2. Vissel B
    3. Bollinger J
    4. Faulstich M
    5. du Lac S

    (2003) Purkinje cell synapses target physiologically unique brainstem neurons

    The Journal of Neuroscience 23:6392–6398.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-15-06392.2003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Shadmehr R

    (2020) Population coding in the cerebellum: A machine learning perspective

    Journal of Neurophysiology 124:2022–2051.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00449.2020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Shin M
    2. Moghadam SH
    3. Sekirnjak C
    4. Bagnall MW
    5. Kolkman KE
    6. Jacobs R
    7. Faulstich M
    8. du Lac S

    (2011) Multiple types of cerebellar target neurons and their circuitry in the vestibulo-ocular reflex

    The Journal of Neuroscience 31:10776–10786.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0768-11.2011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Stanton GB

    (1980) Topographical organization of ascending cerebellar projections from the dentate and interposed nuclei in Macaca Mulatta: An anterograde degeneration study

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 190:699–731.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.901900406

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Sugihara I
    2. Shinoda Y

    (2007) Molecular, topographic, and functional organization of the cerebellar nuclei: Analysis by three-dimensional mapping of the olivonuclear projection and aldolase c labeling

    The Journal of Neuroscience 27:9696–9710.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1579-07.2007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Sugihara I

    (2011) Compartmentalization of the deep cerebellar nuclei based on afferent projections and aldolase c expression

    Cerebellum 10:449–463.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-010-0226-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Sugimoto T
    2. Mizuno N
    3. Uchida K

    (1982) Distribution of cerebellar fiber terminals in the midbrain visuomotor areas: An autoradiographic study in the cat

    Brain Research 238:353–370.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(82)90110-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Ten Brinke MM
    2. Heiney SA
    3. Wang X
    4. Proietti-Onori M
    5. Boele H-J
    6. Bakermans J
    7. Medina JF
    8. Gao Z
    9. De Zeeuw CI

    (2017) Dynamic modulation of activity in cerebellar nuclei neurons during pavlovian eyeblink conditioning in mice

    eLife 6:e28132.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.28132

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Tervo DGR
    2. Hwang B-Y
    3. Viswanathan S
    4. Gaj T
    5. Lavzin M
    6. Ritola KD
    7. Lindo S
    8. Michael S
    9. Kuleshova E
    10. Ojala D
    11. Huang C-C
    12. Gerfen CR
    13. Schiller J
    14. Dudman JT
    15. Hantman AW
    16. Looger LL
    17. Schaffer DV
    18. Karpova AY

    (2016) A designer AAV variant permits efficient retrograde access to projection neurons

    Neuron 92:S0896-6273(16)30580-3.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.09.021

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Teune TM
    2. van der Burg J
    3. van der Moer J
    4. Voogd J
    5. Ruigrok TJ

    (2000) Topography of cerebellar nuclear projections to the brain stem in the rat

    Progress in Brain Research 124:141–172.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(00)24014-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Tolbert DL
    2. Bantli H
    3. Bloedel JR

    (1978) Organizational features of the cat and monkey cerebellar nucleocortical projection

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 182:39–56.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.901820104

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Tsukahara N
    2. Bando T
    3. Murakami F
    4. Oda Y

    (1983) Properties of cerebello-precerebellar reverberating circuits

    Brain Research 274:249–259.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(83)90702-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Uusisaari M
    2. Obata K
    3. Knöpfel T

    (2007) Morphological and electrophysiological properties of gabaergic and non-gabaergic cells in the deep cerebellar nuclei

    Journal of Neurophysiology 97:901–911.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00974.2006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Uusisaari M
    2. Knöpfel T

    (2010) Glyt2+ neurons in the lateral cerebellar nucleus

    Cerebellum 9:42–55.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-009-0137-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Uusisaari M
    2. Knöpfel T

    (2011) Functional classification of neurons in the mouse lateral cerebellar nuclei

    Cerebellum 10:637–646.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-010-0240-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Vaaga CE
    2. Brown ST
    3. Raman IM

    (2020) Cerebellar modulation of synaptic input to freezing-related neurons in the periaqueductal gray

    eLife 9:e54302.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54302

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Van der Want JJ
    2. Wiklund L
    3. Guegan M
    4. Ruigrok T
    5. Voogd J

    (1989) Anterograde tracing of the rat olivocerebellar system with Phaseolus vulgaris leucoagglutinin (pha-l). Demonstration of climbing fiber collateral innervation of the cerebellar nuclei

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 288:1–18.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/CNE.902880102

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Wall NR
    2. Wickersham IR
    3. Cetin A
    4. De La Parra M
    5. Callaway EM

    (2010) Monosynaptic circuit tracing in vivo through cre-dependent targeting and complementation of modified rabies virus

    PNAS 107:21848–21853.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011756107

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Watabe-Uchida M
    2. Zhu L
    3. Ogawa SK
    4. Vamanrao A
    5. Uchida N

    (2012) Whole-brain mapping of direct inputs to midbrain dopamine neurons

    Neuron 74:858–873.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.03.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Wickersham IR
    2. Lyon DC
    3. Barnard RJO
    4. Mori T
    5. Finke S
    6. Conzelmann KK
    7. Young JAT
    8. Callaway EM

    (2007) Monosynaptic restriction of transsynaptic tracing from single, genetically targeted neurons

    Neuron 53:639–647.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.01.033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Wickersham IR
    2. Sullivan HA
    3. Seung HS

    (2010) Production of glycoprotein-deleted rabies viruses for monosynaptic tracing and high-level gene expression in neurons

    Nature Protocols 5:595–606.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2009.248

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Zeeuw D
    2. Chris I

    (2020) Bidirectional learning in upbound and downbound microzones of the cerebellum

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 22:e00392-x.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-020-00392-x

    • Google Scholar

Acceptance summary:

There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating that the cerebellum is involved in motor and non-motor functions. In this paper, Judd and colleagues present compelling evidence that cerebellar output neurons are more diverse in their projections than previously appreciated. They show that excitatory and inhibitory cerebellar nuclei neurons innervate a range of extra-cerebellar loci. The anatomical maps uncovered in this work could support diverse cerebellar functions that control different behaviors.

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "Widespread inhibitory projections from the interposed cerebellar nucleus" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by Roy V Sillitoe as Reviewing Editor and Reviewer #1, and Ronald Calabrese as the Senior Editor. The following individuals involved in review of your submission have agreed to reveal their identity: Albert I Chen (Reviewer #3); Hirofumi Fujita (Reviewer #4).

The reviewers have discussed their reviews with one another, and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this to help you prepare a revised submission.

Summary:

In this study, Judd and colleagues use a combination of mouse genetics and viral marking to expand the extra-cerebellar map of projections. These data will impact our understanding of how the cerebellum contributes to behavior and in general how brain function is packaged at the anatomical level. These data will not only impact cerebellar scientists but also those workers interested in how inter-regional brain connectivity is organized and how fine input-output circuit relationships are structured.

Essential revisions:

1) The reviewers felt that further validation of the mouse Cre lines is necessary for the authors to make the major conclusion of the paper.

2) The reviewers pointed to a significant number of errors and omissions throughout the paper, including missing data and organizational problems between the text and figure panels.

3) The reviewers have identified instances in which additional and/or revised statistical analyses are necessary.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

General Comments:

1. The major conclusions of this paper rely on the assumption that Gad1 and Vgat-Cre lines are restrictive to inhibitory neurons and the Ntsr1-Cre line to excitatory neurons. Did the authors confirm the expression of the Gad1-Cre and Vgat-Cre line are indeed restricted to those inhibitory neurons and the Ntsr1-Cre line only to the presumed excitatory neurons? The analyses presented in this paper do not demonstrate overlap or restricted expression between any of the three lines, as they rely on previous expression patterns of genes, not the Cre recombination capability and specificity in the Cre-line(s) itself. The nearly 20% pixel overlap between Ntsr1 and Vgat or Gad1 cells (supplemental figure 1) is also large enough to be a potential confound in the core findings of this paper.

We suggest to test the assumption that each of the Cre-lines is expressed in the intended cell types by co-labelling Cre and Ntsr1/Gad1/Vgat/Vglut2 in your mouse lines using in situ hybridization or co-staining of projections using antibodies for Vglut2 or Vgat. These experiments need to be performed on all three Cre-lines to validate the Cre expression.

2. It is surprising that there are Vgat-positive, Gad1-negative (or vice versa) cells with differential projection patterns (according to Figure 2). The authors need to provide a high-resolution image showing the co-labelling for Vgat and Gad1 neurons demonstrating this apparent incomplete overlap (Figure 1)? Also, were the authors able to find labeled neurons that are Vgat-positive and not Gad1-positive (or vice versa)? Could some of the observed difference be explained by a lower number of infected Gad1 positive neurons than Vgat neurons per injection? Please discuss in the text.

If not, the author may want to change their statements regarding their finding that Vgat and Gad1 populations are not completely overlapping neural subtypes.

3. How did authors differentiate from projection fibers (axons) and projection targets (synapses)? Similarly, how did authors differentiate between fibers and cell bodies?

4. When quantifying "distribution of labeled cells", did the authors observe more unique projections in mice with a lower proportion of labelled cells in the IntA? "Distribution of labeled cells" also may be an ambiguous phrase, as it suggests that the observed proportion of IntA (for example) neurons is labeled according to some map. Perhaps a better title would be "Location of labeled cells." Apologies if I am missing something, in the end it just seems like a leap in the way these data are presented and discussed.

5. It is unclear how input regions were identified, this is especially important given that twice as many Gad1-Cre mice were injected than Ntsr1-Cre mice and that the number of input cells appears a magnitude lower in the Ntsr1-Cre mice. How many rabies-infected cells were labelled for each injection (per mouse and per group)? Does the input region need to be found in all mice from one group, or just one? What is the variability in input region?

And how did the authors control for non-specific labelling? Did they perform any (specifically the rabies tracing) in Cre-negative mice? (methods suggest yes, but results are not show). Please clarify and add the details to the manuscript.

6. Authors should consider including some of the low magnification whole mount images of the supplemental data into the main text figures. They provide a better picture of the data than the cropped images.

Statistics comments:

1. N-number is of neurons is inflated in Figure 3. Statistics should be compared for averages on each mouse, not on total number of cells. The authors seem to perform multiple pairwise comparisons without correcting for multiple comparisons.

Textual comments:

1. Line 113: put abbreviation brackets direction behind "nucleus."

2. Line 114: define "RN."

3. Line 118: define "ZI."

4. Line 119: define "VM, VPM, VAL"

Define all abbreviations in the text first time they are used.

5. Line 116: "a morphological… excitatory neurons." This observation is best left to when figure 5A is discussed, as experimental approach or data describing excitatory neurons has not yet been discussed at this point.

6. Line 124-126: "Vgat neurons generally targeted these regions more strongly than Gad1 neurons." How does this relate to the number of infected neurons in the IntA? This is also a qualitative statement that is not backed by statistical tests.

7. Line 149-155: should authors refer to supplemental figures 2 and 3 here? I would suggest for the authors to order the supplemental figures in the order that they are discussed in the text.

8. Line 179-182: this method may warrant a little more explanation for readers that are not familiar with intersectional viral mapping.

9. Line 182-184: "Injections in wildtype…the nuclei." The authors need to include images of these control experiments in the manuscript.

10. Line 224-225: what tests do these p-values represent?

11. Line 234-235: "we validated…" This is not a validation of your Cre-lines.

12. Line 238-240: "was within the noise of presumptive non-overlapping neurons." Presumed by whom? Almost 20% overlap in signal seems pretty high when you are trying to define cell-type specific projection maps. Please clarify.

13. Line 255-257: "Together, these results…in the brainstem." I think that this conclusion is not warranted based on the data that is shown. See comments 11 and 12 and General comment 1.

14. Line 279: define "nIntA". Why was it chosen to name the putative excitatory neurons based on their Cre-line but the putative inhibitory neurons based on the assumption they are inhibitory (iIntA)? In the end, too many assumptions about the identity of the different neurons were made.

15. Line 289-291: "We currently are unable…neurons project to IO." This is another reason to validate the Cre-lines.

16. Line 291-292: "Exclusive retrograded labeling…ventral brainstem." If this is the case, why can you perform retrograde labeling from IO to iIntA? Are there no iIntA terminals just dorsal to the IO? The supplemental figures do not clarify this.

17. Cite Supplemental Figure 4 in text.

18. Line 333-334: "We conclude it….information broadly." An alternative conclusion is that the majority of Ntsr1-Cre positive cells projects to the RN. I do not think you can conclude that all Ntsr1 cells project everywhere (this is not tested).

19. Line 366-369: Figure 5B only shows proportion of projections. It does not show number of regions targeted or relative strength of these proportions. I think that a qualitative statement can be made that only Ntsr1-Cre neurons project to modulatory regions but the author sshould refrain from making quantitative statements based on proportions of injections that are inherently variable between cell types and injections.

20. Line 398-409: Why are these data not shown?

21. Line 438: how many starter cells did you observe in Gad1 vs Ntsr1 mice?

22. Line 450-451: did the authors test this statistically?

23. Line 441-462: why did the author change the way they referred to Gad1 neurons?

24. Line 460-461: "this patterned… cell types." In previous figures it was shown that iIntA do not heavily project to modulatory regions, whereas nIntA neurons do. Therefore, this pattern does not mirror targeted patterns.

25. Line 535-537: partial difference in projections do not preclude partial overlap in Gad1-Cre and Ntsr1-Cre expression.

Methods comments:

1. What are in the atlas coordinates for the injection sites. Please provide them all.

Figure comments:

1. Please put the abbreviations used in each figure in its figure legend.

2. Please be consistent in the use of "Cre" (capitalized and with an "e") in all figure legends.

3. Label IntA (and other cerebellar nuclei) in larger cross-sections for consistency.

4. Figure 1, use similar schematic of viral injection.

5. Figure 1, please be consistent in labeling of anatomical areas in the figure panels: "Vgat" and "Gad1" above figure panels, and abbreviations for anatomical locations within the figure panel.

6. Figure 1B and 2B, are the Vgat infected cells always more medial than Gad1 infected cells? Is this a problem of injection variability? If so, how do you control for this variability in the different projection maps?

7. Figure 1C-E, boxes in schematics are not same size but figure panels seem similar magnification. Boxes on schematics are a little confusing. It may help to label the anatomical location of interest using color and naming it.

8. Figure 1D, what is the difference between "PSV" and "V" in left images?

9. Figure 2, what does Con/Fon mean?

10. Figure 2, please keep order of Gad1 and Vgat injections consistent with figure 1 for comparison.

11. Figure 3, the statistics for this figure should be rerun, see statistical comments.

12. Figure 4E, see comment 6.

13. Figure 4E, 4th row, there are 3 boxes here.

14. Figure 5 B, please keep color-coding of groups consistently throughout the paper.

15. Figure 6C, provide legend.

16. Figure 6D, consider plotting this data on two images with separate left oriented Y-axis. This figure panel is very unclear.

17. Figure 6F, the leftward and rightwards histograms have been used in other figures to denote ipsi- and contra-lateral projections. Changing this is confusing. It may be beneficial to plot these in the same orientation.

18. Figure 6G, this figure is too small to see and the difference between top panels and bottom panels is unclear.

19. Figure 7, please keep the order in which the Gad1 and Ntsr1 labelled neurons are shown consistent with figure 6 for comparison (keep this order similar with supplemental figure 5 and all figure legends too).

20. Figure 7, retrograde rabies labeled cells are hard too to see, please increase the magnification for input neurons.

21. Figure 7, if I understand correctly, the results for each column are from 4 different injection paradigms/experiments that are also summarized in other figures. It would help the reader if the authors would include schematics for each experiment (include: mouse line, injection side, and type of virus used).

22. In supplemental figure 2, make lines of boxes in inset thicker. Box for Gvi is missing. Box for Hiv is missing. B has no scale bar.

23. In supplemental figure 3, make lines of boxes in inset thicker. Explain scale bars in Figure legend.

24. In supplemental figure 4, make lines of boxes in inset thicker. Label boxes in E-K. Also, B has no scale bar.

25. Table 1, please write out full name of each nucleus in column 1.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

1. For Figure 1, please clarify how much the distinctions in projection distribution could be due to variability in specificity of initial targeting or recombination ability of Vgat-Cre and Gad1-Cre? The conclusions can be strengthened by analyzing the starter distribution of IntA neuron subtypes compared to vestibular or cerebellar cortex like Figure 2C.

The main concern here is that selective targeting of IntA using Cre-lines that recombine in all 3 subnuclei is a potential weakness in methodology since this relies entirely on precision of stereotaxic injection.

2. Questions about similarities or differences between Vgat-Cre and Gad1-Cre recombination or targeting by CN neurons cannot be resolved by in situ hybridization analysis of Vgat and Gad1 in the CN alone (Figure 1A). Perhaps more informative if authors could provide Vgat-Cre; reporter expression with Gad1 in situ and vice versa. Also, it is difficult to see signals in the small panels, and the overlay seems to indicate a lot of heterogeneity. Quantification of Gad1 and Vgat in situ would be informative.

3. Line 177, please describe how labeling of Purkinje cells might affect interpretation. Perhaps clarify that PC labeling might lead to VEST and PBN labeling from Purkinje cell axons directly projecting out of the cerebellum.

4. In Figure 3A, the prediction is that the Gad1-Cre more generally labels Gad1 projections and Gad1IO labels a more restricted subset since using IO retrolabeling. But in 3A, it seems that Gad1IO picked up neurons that were not picked up by Gad1 anterograde labeling, specifically the larger neurons. Text argues perhaps Gad1 labels more interneurons than Gad1IO, but should not exclude Gad1 picking up some of these large neurons (maybe just less). Please explain.

5. Within IntA, what % of vGluT2 neurons does Ntsr1 make up? If Ntsr1 is in almost all, then the result in Figure 4 says almost all nIntA neurons projections are collaterals of RN-projecting nIntA neurons. But if Ntsr1 is in a much smaller subset of IntA vG2 neurons, then this says something different. Analyzing the % of Ntsr1 neurons that are vg2 in the IntA is needed to resolve this.

6. Figure 5A, please provide quantification of the morphology to strengthen the reported differences (PCA analysis?). For IO, wondering if the morphology of CN terminals could fit into the morphological schemes proposed by Vrieler et al., 2019 Brain Structure and Function 224. In other words, do distinct IntA neurons project to specific subtypes of IO neurons.

7. Please show images of the cerebellar cortex in Ntsr1 and Gad1 to show starter cells to address the following questions. For Ntsr1, how much extra-CN recombination does Ntsr1-Cre mediate? For Gad1, I would like to get a sense of how many inhibitory neurons (interneurons and Purkinje cells) are labeled initially. Both are important to determine how to interpret input specifically into CN or whether the authors are looking at input into cell types elsewhere in the cerebellum.

Another way to ask this same question, in Figure 6D, what are the cerebellar cortex Ntsr1 starter cells? Granule cells or maybe even inhibitory neurons? Ntsr1-Cre recombines in excitatory neurons in the CN (Houck and Person 2015), but could more generally label excitatory and inhibitory in the cerebellar cortex. And for Gad1 starter cells in the cerebellar cortex, are they mostly Purkinje cells or do these include Golgi/stellate/basket cells? The concern here is that if the rabies virus receive G and TVA from granule/Purkinje/Golgi/stellate/basket cells, then in addition to CN input, authors are looking at climbing and mossy fibers that project to non-CN cells confounding interpretation.

8. This is important for analysis and interpretation: how does one dissociate the GFP from rabies or GFP from oG? The double GFP strategy is a major concern here.

9. Figure 6B, starter cells are defined as intersection between GFP and mCherry, but in B, there is very little overlap here mostly because red channel is so faint. For instance in Gad1, I can see 2 red cells and 4 green cells but with only 1 yellow cell. I am concerned about the small number of starter cells.

Same issue as Figure 6, in Figure 7B, worried that the input sources represent more than just input sources for CN, but for cell types in the cerebellar cortex especially given high percentage indicated in 6D.

10. For Figure 7A, please provide ways to distinguish axons from dendrites.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1a) Interrelationships between the cell types used are not clear. The authors show overlap between Ntsr1+, Gad1+/Vgat+, and VGluT2⁺ neurons (FigS1B). Does this mean that Cre-dependent AAV tracing for Gad1Cre+/VgatCre+ neurons could also label VGluT2⁺ neurons? Does the Ntsr1Cre+ cell type contain inhibitory neurons? If so, how did the authors verify that the axonal projections are actually inhibitory or excitatory? Please discuss the technical limitations.

(1b) Relatedly, it would be helpful to make clear which inhibitory cell types are taken into account and discussed: Gad1-IO, Gad1-collateral, Gad1-GABA-local, Gad1-glycine-local, Gad1-glycine-projection? How did the authors allocate VgatCre+ neurons? What is the overlap between Gad1Cre+ and Vgat1Cre+ neurons (they look different because labeled VgatCre+ neurons are in the medial part of the IntA and labeled Gad1Cre+ neurons are in the central part of the IntA consistently throughout Figures)? Something like Venn diagrams for Gad1Cre+, VgatCre+, and Ntsr1Cre+ neurons, could help.

(2a) I see substantial and consistent injection leak to non-IntA and non-CN regions. How did the authors identify that the connections were really of IntA but not from other regions, for example, Vest? For example, inconsistent with our knowledge are that (1) IntA projections to DCK and PO of IO, (2) IntA projections to several targets (please compare Table 1 with Teune et al., 2000, Prog Brain Res), (3) CrI/PFL Purkinje projections to IntA neurons, which are known to IntP and LN, (4) sparse RN projection to Ntsr1Cre+ IntA neurons, and (5) very dense vestibular projections to Ntsr1Cre+ IntA neurons. Inconsistent within the manuscript is that projection specific tracing revealed more projection targets than non-specific tracing (Table 1). Please discuss these and other relevant technical issues.

(2b) Again, given the technical challenges, the Gad1+/Vgat+ axons labeled in non-IO regions could be explained by injection leak to non-CN regions or to excitatory neurons. On what evidence can the readers be convinced of "inhibitory projections" that are "from IntA"?

3) I see potential issues in viruses used: 1) efficiency for the rabies tracing was significantly different between NtsrCre (yielded ~150 cells) and Gad1Cre neurons (yielded ~4000 cells), 2) rabies tracing didn't identify known input from IO, 3) Cre-independent TVA expression from Cre-dependent AAV has been reported to be a significant problem in the rabies tracing scheme used in this study (Fagat et al., 2016, Cell Rep), and 4) how did the authors control retrograde infection of AAVs? Please discuss the technical limitations.

4) I don't see any evidence for input to VTA.

5) Table 2 is missing.

6) 'long-standing dogma' -- I don't think so. Although it has been 'widely assumed', the existence of collaterals of preolivary neurons has been looked for many times and remains an open question.

7) Difficult to see axonal terminals in photos in general.

8) Cerebellar nuclear outputs are powerfully modulated by their upstream Purkinje cells. In this sense, I think it's worth discussing the organization of PC inputs to inhibitory neurons. Can you discuss more about implication of broader Purkinje innervation of inhibitory IntA neurons? Are these different than the parasagittal modules? Or, does the difference in number/location of labeled PCs for inhibitory vs excitatory DCN neurons simply reflect the technical limitation in rabies tracing?

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

Thank you for resubmitting your work entitled "Widespread inhibitory projections from the cerebellar interposed nucleus" for further consideration by eLife. Your revised article has been evaluated by Ronald Calabrese (Senior Editor) and a Reviewing Editor.

The manuscript has been improved but there are some remaining issues that need to be addressed, as outlined below:

Please refer to the specific comments by each Reviewer. In general, the Reviewers have identified areas where the clarity of the figures could be improved. We feel that they will go a long way in helping our readers fully appreciate the data. Also, please address the issues regarding the nomenclature of mouse alleles and how they are presented (e.g. the use of italics). Importantly, all 3 Reviewers have identified a number of important pieces of information that are either missing and/or contain errors.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

In this revised manuscript, Judd et al., have performed essential experiments to validate their Cre-mouse lines. They have incorporated additional mouse lines based on their findings (and previous reviewer comments) and repeated specific experiments in these mouse lines. The observation that inhibitory neurons in the interposed nuclei send widespread projections throughout the brainstem holds and indeed the data present an interesting and important set of findings. However, below are suggestions about the text and figures that will aid the reader in understanding the detailed anatomical data presented in this manuscript.

– The overlap in dots and lines in Figures 1D, 2E, 3D, and 4E make these figures hard to interpret. Some of the projections included in the results may be specific to the injection site outside of the interposed nucleus (off-target viral expression) and this possibility is discussed briefly in the text. In addition, all the regions in which projections are found, even if in just a few viral replicates with the least specificity, are included in the summary of Figure 7B. This should be clearly stated in the text. In addition, we suggest clarifying the panels in 1D, 2E, 3D, and 4E. One option would be to replace these plots with UpSet plots (for example) that show the overlap between the different data sets. Alternatively, the current graphs could be kept and the authors could instead include a ratio of the number of replicates in which the projection was observed. In the end, any way to help the reader more easily appreciate the data would be highly beneficial.

– The authors state "… dorsal to IntA, but nucleocortical terminals that were included in the projection analysis were not located in the same topographical area." Apologies, but I do not understand what you mean by this. What topographical area are you referring to? Please consider rephrasing.

– The authors state "Because injection sites did not differ systematically across…". What do mean? What is your measure that gives you confidence in regard to being systematic?

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

In the revised manuscript, the authors have more than sufficiently addressed all my questions and concerns (and those of the other reviewers) about the interpretations of the distinctions of input and output patterns by different Int neuronal subtypes and how the data was generated. The replacement of Ntsr-Cre/Gad1-Cre with vGluT2-Cre/vGAT-Cre mice for monosynaptic rabies tracing clarifies and strengthens the conclusions for the input-output connectivity by excitatory and inhibitory Int neuronal subtypes.

This is a carefully conducted study that describes exciting findings about the anatomical organization of cerebellar interposed anterior nucleus, especially the inhibitory subpopulation. These findings will undoubtedly provide important ground work for future investigation of the functional relevance of distinct Int neuronal subtypes and pathways in dexterous and locomotor movements, and beyond.

I very much enjoyed reading and reviewing this manuscript and congratulate the authors on a well conducted study.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

The manuscript is significantly improved for clarity by the authors' thorough hard work. The existence of ramifying inhibitory projection neurons from Int CN became more convincing. Particularly, analyses on Gad/Vglut immunoreactivity of axonal terminals are helpful.

Now it became clearer that the manuscript adds the widespread ramifying cells to the existing repertoire of inhibitory cerebellar nucleus neurons. The authors establish this cell type by demonstrating the inhibitory signature of projected axons and then place them into context in comparison with well-known types of cells regarding outputs, inputs, and cell morphology. During these efforts, the authors also made clear outputs of a subset of excitatory cells (Ntsr1+ cells) and discovered monosynaptic inputs to the excitatory and 'inhibitory' cells, which themselves are novel and intriguing.

I only have one major comment for improving the clarity of conclusions.

The above efforts made me realize that the current experimental designs do not distinguish or identify the ramifying cells from the widely known IO-only cells (I tentatively call them like this though they could have their own collaterals), which may be important for one to incorporate this cell type into cerebellar theories, although distinction from a subset of excitatory cells is clear. As far as I can see, only sparse and highly restricted labeling in IO in Figure 4-S1D would suggest that IO projections from the ramifying cells are made with a different topographical rule than IO-only cells, which is assuring because these results show a potential distinction between inhibitory cells.

Specifically, in the current manuscript, results for cell morphology, axonal trajectory, and input circuits demonstrated in Figure 5, 6. and 7, which are currently treated as data for the ramifying cells, could simply reflect those of IO-only cells and could barely reflect the ramifying cells. This is because the injection strategies utilized do infect both IO-only and the ramifying cells (To selectively target ramifying cells by avoiding IO-only cells, something like Cre-dependent retrograde infection from RN/PG/TRN in Vgat-Cre mouse would be required). It must be made clear in the Result that these analyses do not distinguish them. This limitation should influence conclusions regarding Figure 5-7 and I recommend modifying them accordingly. Similarly, Line 83-84, Line 376 may also be misleading. It would be clearer to state that what this study identified is "inhibitory projection cell type(s) that (or, at least some of which) collateralizes to IO" rather than "IO projection cell type that also collateralizes to other areas".

Essential revisions:

1) The reviewers felt that further validation of the mouse Cre lines is necessary for the authors to make the major conclusion of the paper.

We have used two independent methods to validate the transgenic Cre driver mouse lines used in the study – in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry. Of critical importance, we learned that the Gad1-Cre line promiscuously expressed Cre in multiple cell types that project from the interposed nucleus. This promiscuity was observed both in immunohistochemistry, where we found terminal varicosities that expressed Vglut2 or Gad65/67, as well as in somata that expressed Vglut2 and not Vgat, or vice versa, inconsistent with specific label of inhibitory neurons. We could find no report of this promiscuity in the literature, despite the use of this line by other groups. Therefore, as a service to the field we include the description of this validation step in this report, while also entirely removing tracing datasets derived from the Gad1-Cre line from the manuscript. By contrast, we found the Vgat-Cre line to be well controlled with corroborating IHC and ISH data specific to inhibitory cell types. Importantly for the main focus of the manuscript, and as reported in the original submission, we observed that these cells innervated multiple targets outside of IO. The discovery that the Gad1-Cre line was not specific, necessitated replacing Gad1-Cre with Vgat-Cre mice for monosynaptic rabies tracing. We describe details of this discovery, decision, and consequences of this change more thoroughly in the main text of the revised manuscript. All terminal varicosities of Ntsr1-Cre derived projections were Vglut2 immunoreactive, mitigating concerns that these outputs were mixed. However, despite the specificity of immunolabel in terminals, in situ hybridization data in the cerebellar nuclei of Ntsr1-Cre mice revealed a small population of Vgat neurons, putative interneurons, that colocalized with Cre-driven YFP. Therefore, we replaced the Ntsr1-Cre dataset in the monosynaptic rabies experiments with Vglut2-Cre mice. The complete reworking of the monosynaptic rabies datasets in part accounts for the long delay between receiving reviews and this revision. We thank the reviewers for these critical suggestions, which we believe strengthened the main conclusions of the manuscript.

2) The reviewers pointed to a significant number of errors and omissions throughout the paper, including missing data and organizational problems between the text and figure panels.

We have thoroughly revised the manuscript, paying close attention to align text, figures, and figure legends. As described in the point-by-point responses, we have addressed noted errors as well as those not yet noted and are sincerely grateful to the referees for their careful reviews.

3) The reviewers have identified instances in which additional and/or revised statistical analyses are necessary.

We thank the reviewers for these corrections. In the cell size section, where statistical reporting was critiqued, we have (1) expanded the number of mice used, and compared means across animals rather than cells as independent measurements as suggested by the reviewer; and (2) performed statistical tests incorporating adjustments for multiple comparisons (Tukey’s multiple comparisons test), as suggested. The main result – that Vgat-Cre neurons are significantly smaller than Ntsr1-Cre neurons, regardless of direct or projection-specific labeling methods, holds, and is consistent with previously published reports.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

General Comments:

1. The major conclusions of this paper rely on the assumption that Gad1 and Vgat-Cre lines are restrictive to inhibitory neurons and the Ntsr1-Cre line to excitatory neurons. Did the authors confirm the expression of the Gad1-Cre and Vgat-Cre line are indeed restricted to those inhibitory neurons and the Ntsr1-Cre line only to the presumed excitatory neurons? The analyses presented in this paper do not demonstrate overlap or restricted expression between any of the three lines, as they rely on previous expression patterns of genes, not the Cre recombination capability and specificity in the Cre-line(s) itself. The nearly 20% pixel overlap between Ntsr1 and Vgat or Gad1 cells (supplemental figure 1) is also large enough to be a potential confound in the core findings of this paper.

We suggest to test the assumption that each of the Cre-lines is expressed in the intended cell types by co-labelling Cre and Ntsr1/Gad1/Vgat/Vglut2 in your mouse lines using in situ hybridization or co-staining of projections using antibodies for Vglut2 or Vgat. These experiments need to be performed on all three Cre-lines to validate the Cre expression.

We thank the reviewer for this critical feedback; indeed, the concerns were shared amongst all three the reviewers. As summarized above under Essential Revisions, we have addressed Cre driver line specificity using immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization in our own tissue, no longer relying on validation through public databases from the Allen Brain Atlas. To summarize changes to the revision that have stemmed from these new experiments: (1) We have added Cre line validation data within each section describing results from the respective Cre lines; (2) In situ hybridization data, along with a variety of hold-out controls, further test for viral specificity; (3) We have removed the Gad1-Cre driver line from the body of the experiments, but retain the characterization of this line as non-specific for the benefit of field; (4) We replace Gad1-Cre driver line with the Vgat-Cre driver line in all sections – direct Cre-dependent tracing, projection-specific tracing, and monosynaptic rabies input tracing; (5) We retain Ntsr1-Cre for output tracing since terminals labeled consistently expressed Vglut2, however we replace this line with Vglut2-Cre for input tracing.

2. It is surprising that there are Vgat-positive, Gad1-negative (or vice versa) cells with differential projection patterns (according to Figure 2). The authors need to provide a high-resolution image showing the co-labelling for Vgat and Gad1 neurons demonstrating this apparent incomplete overlap (Figure 1)? Also, were the authors able to find labeled neurons that are Vgat-positive and not Gad1-positive (or vice versa)? Could some of the observed difference be explained by a lower number of infected Gad1 positive neurons than Vgat neurons per injection? Please discuss in the text.

If not, the author may want to change their statements regarding their finding that Vgat and Gad1 populations are not completely overlapping neural subtypes.

The reviewer makes an important point that we think is fully addressed by the observation that the Gad1-Cre line was non-specific in its label of neurons. With this observation in hand, it is perhaps no longer surprising that these projection patterns of Gad1-Cre and Vgat-Cre labeled neurons did not overlap. As noted above, we have removed the Gad1-Cre tracing from the study which we hope fully mitigates the reviewer’s concern.

3. How did authors differentiate from projection fibers (axons) and projection targets (synapses)? Similarly, how did authors differentiate between fibers and cell bodies?

We now describe these criteria more clearly in the text and have added immunohistochemistry to bolster the interpretation of axonal varicosities as synaptic endings (Figures 1, Figure suppl 1-1,1-5 Figure 3, Figure 3 suppl 1). Morphological features, namely swellings along branches of coursing axons helped differentiate axons from synapses. These areas also colocalized markers for neurotransmitter transporters Vglut2 or Vgat. Fibers could be more easily differentiated from cell bodies based on morphological features. While automatic sorters based on fluorescence intensity may sometimes misattribute axons and somata, trained human observers, in my experience, rarely make such attribution errors, which was our approach.

4. When quantifying "distribution of labeled cells", did the authors observe more unique projections in mice with a lower proportion of labelled cells in the IntA? "Distribution of labeled cells" also may be an ambiguous phrase, as it suggests that the observed proportion of IntA (for example) neurons is labeled according to some map. Perhaps a better title would be "Location of labeled cells." Apologies if I am missing something, in the end it just seems like a leap in the way these data are presented and discussed.

This is a great point. We now plot where we saw terminal label as a function of injection site, with color coded plots in Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4. Not surprisingly, the location of terminal label was sensitive to injection site, which we discuss more in depth in the text. We note that even in most restricted injection to anterior interposed in Vgat-Cre mice, we observed axonal varicosities outside of IO. We also thank the reviewer for pointing out that our terminology was confusing. We calculate the fraction of injection site neurons that appear within the cerebellar nuclei and neighboring regions, retitled “Location of injection site” (Figures 1,2,3,4). We now describe more clearly how smaller and smaller injections localized most cleanly in IntA ramify relative to injections that include neurons nearby.

5. It is unclear how input regions were identified, this is especially important given that twice as many Gad1-Cre mice were injected than Ntsr1-Cre mice and that the number of input cells appears a magnitude lower in the Ntsr1-Cre mice.

Vgat-Cre (N=3) and Vglut2-Cre (N=3) replace Gad1-Cre and Ntsr1-Cre, and are N matched. Input regions are simply areas where retrogradely labeled neurons were observed. We clarify this now in the Methods. We think the large difference in input numbers derived from the low numbers of starter neurons in Ntsr1-Cre mice. Vglut2-Cre mice do not show such a stark difference and we now make only one observation about differential innervation of these cells relative to Vgat-Cre, namely that Vgat-Cre cells may be preferentially innervated by neurons of the lateral reticular nucleus.

How many rabies-infected cells were labelled for each injection (per mouse and per group)?

We now quantify the number of starter cells which averaged 156 in Vglut2-Cre and 307 in Vgat-Cre mice. Note that we have modified this experiment by replacing Gad1-Cre mice with Vgat-Cre and included Vglut2-Cre with Ntsr1-Cre to provide a firmer sense of convergence ratios.

Does the input region need to be found in all mice from one group, or just one? What is the variability in input region?

We report all data – so input regions seen in only one mouse are included; such variability would be reflected in the quantification of percent of inputs with error bars in Figure 4 -figure sup1. The raw data are provided in Supplementary file 4.

And how did the authors control for non-specific labelling? Did they perform any (specifically the rabies tracing) in Cre-negative mice? (methods suggest yes, but results are not show). Please clarify and add the details to the manuscript.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out that this was unclear. As alluded to in the methods and now better described and shown, we used rabies in Cre-negative mice as reported for controls. In brief, in Cre-negative mice, rabies (and other recombinase-dependent methods) show little to no label anywhere in the brain (0-8 cells at injection site, and analysis of sections across the brain showed no label anywhere else), bolstering our interpretation of cellular label as “real” signal. Injection of the full complement of viruses – starter viruses plus modified rabies – into wildtype mice resulted in vanishingly little label. This was not comparable to the Cre-dependent tracing which labeled ~60-100s of neurons.

6. Authors should consider including some of the low magnification whole mount images of the supplemental data into the main text figures. They provide a better picture of the data than the cropped images.

This is a great suggestion and indeed very nicely highlights the clear differences in projection patterns observed in the midbrain between Vgat-cre and Ntsr1-cre mice. Low magnification images are shown in Figure 1, 3, and 5. In 5G, side-by-side comparisons are provided for these two genotypes at low magnification, for the reader to appreciate the stark difference in axon tract patterns in the midbrain.

Statistics comments:

1. N-number is of neurons is inflated in Figure 3. Statistics should be compared for averages on each mouse, not on total number of cells. The authors seem to perform multiple pairwise comparisons without correcting for multiple comparisons.

We now add per-animal means for Figure 3 cell size data and perform comparisons on means of animals with posthoc tests that account for multiple comparisons.

Textual comments:

1. Line 113: put abbreviation brackets direction behind "nucleus."

done

2. Line 114: define "RN."

done

3. Line 118: define "ZI."

done

4. Line 119: define "VM, VPM, VAL"

done

Define all abbreviations in the text first time they are used.

done

5. Line 116: "a morphological… excitatory neurons." This observation is best left to when figure 5A is discussed, as experimental approach or data describing excitatory neurons has not yet been discussed at this point.

Reorganization has fixed this.

6. Line 124-126: "Vgat neurons generally targeted these regions more strongly than Gad1 neurons." How does this relate to the number of infected neurons in the IntA? This is also a qualitative statement that is not backed by statistical tests.

Gad1-Cre data has been removed, and point is taken.

7. Line 149-155: should authors refer to supplemental figures 2 and 3 here? I would suggest for the authors to order the supplemental figures in the order that they are discussed in the text.

Fixed.

8. Line 179-182: this method may warrant a little more explanation for readers that are not familiar with intersectional viral mapping.

Good point. We have added more explanation.

9. Line 182-184: "Injections in wildtype…the nuclei." The authors need to include images of these control experiments in the manuscript.

We now show injections into wildtype mice in Figure S10.

10. Line 224-225: what tests do these p-values represent?

Thank you for catching that this was only in the figure legend; We have re-run the statistics as suggested elsewhere and now report the test used in the main text as well as figure legend (One-way ANOVA; Tukey’s test for multiple comparisons.)

11. Line 234-235: "we validated…" This is not a validation of your Cre-lines.

Please see response to Major point 1 above.

12. Line 238-240: "was within the noise of presumptive non-overlapping neurons." Presumed by whom? Almost 20% overlap in signal seems pretty high when you are trying to define cell-type specific projection maps. Please clarify.

We have replaced analysis of publicly available data from the Allen Brain Atlas (which showed 10 micron brightest point projections which we think accounted for the “overlap” seen), with in situ hybridizations performed with our own mouse lines which show overlap between 1.4-14% of cross-phenotype label in each genotype. As noted above, we removed Gad1-Cre entirely from the study and replaced Ntsr1-Cre with Vglut2-Cre for monosynaptic rabies retrograde tracing.

13. Line 255-257: "Together, these results…in the brainstem." I think that this conclusion is not warranted based on the data that is shown. See comments 11 and 12 and General comment 1.

For points 11-13, we have addressed these limitations with RNAscope in situ hybridization and immunostaining as described more thoroughly in the main critique section. Axonal varicosities from Vgat-Cre mice colocalized with Gad65/67 in multiple targets besides IO. We found this line to be highly specific to Vgat neurons. As a result, we maintain our conclusion that Vgat neurons of interposed and nearby interstitial groups project to multiple targets in the brainstem.

14. Line 279: define "nIntA". Why was it chosen to name the putative excitatory neurons based on their Cre-line but the putative inhibitory neurons based on the assumption they are inhibitory (iIntA)? In the end, too many assumptions about the identity of the different neurons were made.

We have changed the nomenclature to reflect this excellent point. We now use the terms: Int-Vgat, Int-Ntsr1, Int^IO-Vgat and Int^RN-Ntsr1 to refer to the various datasets.

15. Line 289-291: "We currently are unable…neurons project to IO." This is another reason to validate the Cre-lines.

Done.

16. Line 291-292: "Exclusive retrograded labeling…ventral brainstem." If this is the case, why can you perform retrograde labeling from IO to iIntA? Are there no iIntA terminals just dorsal to the IO? The supplemental figures do not clarify this.

The targets of these Int^IO-Vgat neurons are largely restricted to IO, BPN, RN and SPVi. We now draw this distinction out more clearly in the text.

17. Cite Supplemental Figure 4 in text.

Done

18. Line 333-334: "We conclude it….information broadly." An alternative conclusion is that the majority of Ntsr1-Cre positive cells projects to the RN. I do not think you can conclude that all Ntsr1 cells project everywhere (this is not tested).

We clarify that our data suggest that the Ntsr1-Cre neurons that project to RN also project to other locations, but not necessarily everywhere. We take the point that every neuron might not ramify widely and clarify this point in the text.

19. Line 366-369: Figure 5B only shows proportion of projections. It does not show number of regions targeted or relative strength of these proportions. I think that a qualitative statement can be made that only Ntsr1-Cre neurons project to modulatory regions but the author sshould refrain from making quantitative statements based on proportions of injections that are inherently variable between cell types and injections.

We now clarify that projection strength is a semiquantiative metric describing the density of projections, on which we perform statistical tests to support our claims that Int-Ntsr1 targets modulatory regions more than Int-Vgat neurons (See Methods, Projection Quantification section).

20. Line 398-409: Why are these data not shown?

These data, for the retro-Cre injection to RN are now included in a extended figure: Figure 3—figure supplement1.

21. Line 438: how many starter cells did you observe in Gad1 vs Ntsr1 mice?

See response to Point 5

22. Line 450-451: did the authors test this statistically?

We have removed this claim and analysis (referring originally to denser PC projections to Ntsr1-Cre cells).

23. Line 441-462: why did the author change the way they referred to Gad1 neurons?

Nomenclature has been fixed.

24. Line 460-461: "this patterned… cell types." In previous figures it was shown that iIntA do not heavily project to modulatory regions, whereas nIntA neurons do. Therefore, this pattern does not mirror targeted patterns.

With the replacement of the monosynaptic rabies datasets with new Cre driver lines, we find only one statistically significant difference in input patterns between Vgat and Vglut2-Cre cells – those from the lateral reticular nucleus. Thus, we have removed the specific details noted by the reviewer, but addressed the underlying concern with statistical analysis.

25. Line 535-537: partial difference in projections do not preclude partial overlap in Gad1-Cre and Ntsr1-Cre expression.

Indeed. Gad1-Cre has been eliminated and antibody validation has been used to validate Ntsr1-Cre projections.

Methods comments:

1. What are in the atlas coordinates for the injection sites. Please provide them all.

All injection coordinates were reported in the Animals section and may therefore have been difficult to find. We have moved them to the Viral injections section.

Figure comments:

1. Please put the abbreviations used in each figure in its figure legend.

Done

2. Please be consistent in the use of "Cre" (capitalized and with an "e") in all figure legends.

Done

3. Label IntA (and other cerebellar nuclei) in larger cross-sections for consistency.

We have added a panel to figure 1 indicating boundaries of nuclear subdivisions. Otherwise, as indicated in the text, we use Franklin and Paxinos and Sugihara and Shinoda 2007, to define boundaries.

4. Figure 1, use similar schematic of viral injection.

Done.

5. Figure 1, please be consistent in labeling of anatomical areas in the figure panels: "Vgat" and "Gad1" above figure panels, and abbreviations for anatomical locations within the figure panel.

We have done our best to unify styles of reporting.

6. Figure 1B and 2B, are the Vgat infected cells always more medial than Gad1 infected cells? Is this a problem of injection variability? If so, how do you control for this variability in the different projection maps?

We now plot the locations of the injection sites and have removed Gad1-Cre from the study. We did not observe systematic differences in the location of injection sites across types of tracing.

7. Figure 1C-E, boxes in schematics are not same size but figure panels seem similar magnification. Boxes on schematics are a little confusing. It may help to label the anatomical location of interest using color and naming it.

We have replaced the schematics with low magnification images and boxes now indicate regions with 20X views to the right. We have elected to refer to boxes with lowercase roman numerals. Region abbreviations are provided in all fields of view.

8. Figure 1D, what is the difference between "PSV" and "V" in left images?

We have added lines to denote boundaries between adjacent regions when there might be ambiguities, eg Figure 1Giv

9. Figure 2, what does Con/Fon mean?

This is now defined and described thoroughly in the text:

“Next, to restrict label to genetic- and projection-specific Int neurons (Fenno et al., 2018), we used a two-recombinase-dependent reporter virus (AAV8-hsyn-ConFon-eYFP) injected into Int in conjunction with Flp recombinase retrogradely introduced via IO with AAVretro-EF1a-Flp. The fluorescent reporter will only express in the presence of both Cre and Flp recombinases. This Cre-on Flp-on approach, termed “Con/Fon”, was used to isolate IO-projecting Int-Vgat neurons.”

10. Figure 2, please keep order of Gad1 and Vgat injections consistent with figure 1 for comparison.

Dealt with in revision.

11. Figure 3, the statistics for this figure should be rerun, see statistical comments.

Done.

12. Figure 4E, see comment 6.

Done.

13. Figure 4E, 4th row, there are 3 boxes here.

Fixed

14. Figure 5 B, please keep color-coding of groups consistently throughout the paper.

We have tried to address this.

15. Figure 6C, provide legend.

We have added a key to the panel (now 6D). Good point.

16. Figure 6D, consider plotting this data on two images with separate left oriented Y-axis. This figure panel is very unclear.

We have not included this panel in the revised manuscript.

17. Figure 6F, the leftward and rightwards histograms have been used in other figures to denote ipsi- and contra-lateral projections. Changing this is confusing. It may be beneficial to plot these in the same orientation.

With respect, we have retained the leftward-rightward plotting here but have made the distinction between left and right more transparent and easier to understand with clearer axis labels.

18. Figure 6G, this figure is too small to see and the difference between top panels and bottom panels is unclear.

We have removed this set of panels.

19. Figure 7, please keep the order in which the Gad1 and Ntsr1 labelled neurons are shown consistent with figure 6 for comparison (keep this order similar with supplemental figure 5 and all figure legends too).

We have done our best to improve parallelism.

20. Figure 7, retrograde rabies labeled cells are hard too to see, please increase the magnification for input neurons.

We have done our best to maintain comparable magnification across many panels and balance showing cell groups vs single cells.

21. Figure 7, if I understand correctly, the results for each column are from 4 different injection paradigms/experiments that are also summarized in other figures. It would help the reader if the authors would include schematics for each experiment (include: mouse line, injection side, and type of virus used).

With respect, we think adding the schematics makes this already very large figure more compressed and harder to see the data. We have worked to clarify what is shown better in the legend, and the remaining should orient the reader.

22. In supplemental figure 2, make lines of boxes in inset thicker. Box for Gvi is missing. Box for Hiv is missing. B has no scale bar.

We unfortunately don’t have a great deal of latitude with the boxes because they are added through the microscopy system at the time of capture. We hope the reproduction process maintains the legibility of the boxes. We have fixed remaining issues.

23. In supplemental figure 3, make lines of boxes in inset thicker. Explain scale bars in Figure legend.

Please see response to point 22.

24. In supplemental figure 4, make lines of boxes in inset thicker. Label boxes in E-K. Also, B has no scale bar.

Done, except see note 22.

25. Table 1, please write out full name of each nucleus in column 1.

Done.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

1. For Figure 1, please clarify how much the distinctions in projection distribution could be due to variability in specificity of initial targeting or recombination ability of Vgat-Cre and Gad1-Cre? The conclusions can be strengthened by analyzing the starter distribution of IntA neuron subtypes compared to vestibular or cerebellar cortex like Figure 2C.

The main concern here is that selective targeting of IntA using Cre-lines that recombine in all 3 subnuclei is a potential weakness in methodology since this relies entirely on precision of stereotaxic injection.

We thank the reviewer for this keen insight and concern. For all injections, we quantify and plot “location of injection label”. We note in the text where the size of the injection site or specific details of the injection location may account for observed patterns. Of note, injections entirely contained within IntA, and devoid of Purkinje label, were found to project to the pontine nuclei (reticulotegmental and pontine gray), the vestibular nuclei and very sparsely to the parabrachial nucleus. Notably, these injections did not label nucleocortical Vgat terminals. Nucleocortical projections, along with many of the other sensory brainstem label, appeared when injections included neurons of the interstitial nuclei – a loosely organized set of cell groups ventral to the interposed nucleus. We now discuss this observation and draw connections with other previous literature on this topic in both the Results and Discussion.

2. Questions about similarities or differences between Vgat-Cre and Gad1-Cre recombination or targeting by CN neurons cannot be resolved by in situ hybridization analysis of Vgat and Gad1 in the CN alone (Figure 1A). Perhaps more informative if authors could provide Vgat-Cre; reporter expression with Gad1 in situ and vice versa. Also, it is difficult to see signals in the small panels, and the overlay seems to indicate a lot of heterogeneity. Quantification of Gad1 and Vgat in situ would be informative.

We agree with the reviewer have now performed a variety of validation steps that have led to the elimination of Gad1-Cre datasets from the study. We refer the reviewer to our response to Reviewer 1, Point 1 for a thorough description of our validation approaches and findings, prompted by these reviews, including quantitated in situ labeling.

3. Line 177, please describe how labeling of Purkinje cells might affect interpretation. Perhaps clarify that PC labeling might lead to VEST and PBN labeling from Purkinje cell axons directly projecting out of the cerebellum.

We thank the reviewer for raising this point and now include mention of these caveats in the text. Please see our response to Point 1. In addition, we note that in even the most restricted Vgat-Cre IN injection, with no Purkinje neurons labelled, we observed axons entering and ramifying in the medial vestibular nucleus and PB.

4. In Figure 3A, the prediction is that the Gad1-Cre more generally labels Gad1 projections and Gad1IO labels a more restricted subset since using IO retrolabeling. But in 3A, it seems that Gad1IO picked up neurons that were not picked up by Gad1 anterograde labeling, specifically the larger neurons. Text argues perhaps Gad1 labels more interneurons than Gad1IO, but should not exclude Gad1 picking up some of these large neurons (maybe just less). Please explain.

The reviewer is right that this was a puzzling observation. We have eliminated the Gad1-Cre datasets entirely and can only speculate that the peculiar behavior was a consequence of the promiscuous expression of Cre that we observed in this mouse line. We refer the reviewer to more intuitive outcomes of these approaches in Vgat-Cre and Ntsr1-Cre intersectional label.

5. Within IntA, what % of vGluT2 neurons does Ntsr1 make up? If Ntsr1 is in almost all, then the result in Figure 4 says almost all nIntA neurons projections are collaterals of RN-projecting nIntA neurons. But if Ntsr1 is in a much smaller subset of IntA vG2 neurons, then this says something different. Analyzing the % of Ntsr1 neurons that are vg2 in the IntA is needed to resolve this.

We thank the reviewer for this point. We can’t make any claims about the percent of Vlgut2 neurons that Ntsr1 neurons make up because we don’t expect that our virus labels all Ntsr1-Cre cells. We chose to focus on whether the viral labeling approach was specific to Vglut2 or Vgat neurons, and rather than on the fraction of Ntsr1 probe localized with Vglut2 mRNA probes. We therefore back off of claims that collateralization is widespread from individual cells but includes many regions when looked at in aggregate from RN-projecting Ntsr1-Cre cells.

6. Figure 5A, please provide quantification of the morphology to strengthen the reported differences (PCA analysis?).

We appreciate the reviewer’s points here and have addressed the roots of these issues in the following ways. First we better highlight morphological distinctions between projection types in RN and the cerebellar cortex between Vgat-Cre and Ntsr1-Cre projections with new images, but we do not use these as criteria for differentiation, just to point them out qualitatively. We are unaware of PCA methods that could be used to differentiate the morphological features. We note that mossy fiber boutons and the beaded varicosities of the inhibitory nucleocortical projection described by Ankri and observed here are fairly clear distinctions. We have also tried to provide clearer images differentiating the fine structure of the Vgat projection to RN and the differences between the fine caliber axons

For IO, wondering if the morphology of CN terminals could fit into the morphological schemes proposed by Vrieler et al., 2019 Brain Structure and Function 224. In other words, do distinct IntA neurons project to specific subtypes of IO neurons.

This is such an interesting point. However, because we do not fill IO neurons, addressing whether distinct IntA neurons project to specific subtypes of IO neurons is beyond the scope of this study. Importantly, we do not make any claims about this point.

7. Please show images of the cerebellar cortex in Ntsr1 and Gad1 to show starter cells to address the following questions. For Ntsr1, how much extra-CN recombination does Ntsr1-Cre mediate? For Gad1, I would like to get a sense of how many inhibitory neurons (interneurons and Purkinje cells) are labeled initially. Both are important to determine how to interpret input specifically into CN or whether the authors are looking at input into cell types elsewhere in the cerebellum.

We now show and quantify ‘starter’ label for Vglut2-Cre as well as Vgat-Cre mice. As you can appreciate the starter label is located in the cerebellar nuclei and not in the cerebellar cortex. There are no reported direct inputs to Purkinje cells from extracerebellar sources, partially mitigating this concern. However, we only rarely observe Golgi cells labeled with rabies, thus we think that the preponderance of extracerebellar label is from projections to the CN.

Another way to ask this same question, in Figure 6D, what are the cerebellar cortex Ntsr1 starter cells? Granule cells or maybe even inhibitory neurons? Ntsr1-Cre recombines in excitatory neurons in the CN (Houck and Person 2015), but could more generally label excitatory and inhibitory in the cerebellar cortex.

We have replaced Ntsr1-Cre with Vglut2-Cre in monosynaptic rabies tracing. There are not Vlgut2-positive cells in the cerebellar cortex.

And for Gad1 starter cells in the cerebellar cortex, are they mostly Purkinje cells or do these include Golgi/stellate/basket cells? The concern here is that if the rabies virus receive G and TVA from granule/Purkinje/Golgi/stellate/basket cells, then in addition to CN input, authors are looking at climbing and mossy fibers that project to non-CN cells confounding interpretation.

We address this question below Point 7. Beyond modulatory inputs, I am unaware of extracerebellar afferents that target Purkinje cells or MLIs. We noted vanishingly few Golgi cells that were rabies labeled. Please note too, that the differences in inputs between lines was not seen in the new Cre driver lines used for monosynaptic rabies tracing in this revision.

8. This is important for analysis and interpretation: how does one dissociate the GFP from rabies or GFP from oG? The double GFP strategy is a major concern here.

Originally, we count any neuron with both TVA and cell-filling rabies as a starter neuron, noting that it may or may not also express oG. We now include new data with rabies and oG components of monosynaptic labeling expressing different fluorophores, mitigating concern that we did not know if rabies labeled neurons were expressing oG or whether they were labeled via a monosynaptic jump. In the few experiments retaining the original method, oG is easily differentiated from GFP by being histone restricted, thus it labels only a small segment of the nucleus whereas GFP is a cell fill.

9. Figure 6B, starter cells are defined as intersection between GFP and mCherry, but in B, there is very little overlap here mostly because red channel is so faint. For instance in Gad1, I can see 2 red cells and 4 green cells but with only 1 yellow cell. I am concerned about the small number of starter cells.

Same issue as Figure 6, in Figure 7B, worried that the input sources represent more than just input sources for CN, but for cell types in the cerebellar cortex especially given high percentage indicated in 6D.

There was very little overlap of red and green channels in the cerebellar cortex, mitigating this concern. We now show better images to appreciate this observation, although the TVA and oG channels is not very photogenic. The large numbers of cells in the cerebellar cortex labeled in from injections (pointed out for 6D) is because Purkinje neurons constitute a major input to the CN.

10. For Figure 7A, please provide ways to distinguish axons from dendrites.

This is a good point and we recognize the reviewers’ concern. We now note in the figure text now that we show terminal fields that contain axonal varicosities. We show colocalization of terminals with markers for neurotransmitter transporters in (Figures 1, Figure suppl 1-1,1-5 Figure 3, Figure 3 suppl 1).

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1a) Interrelationships between the cell types used are not clear. The authors show overlap between Ntsr1+, Gad1+/Vgat+, and VGluT2⁺ neurons (FigS1B). Does this mean that Cre-dependent AAV tracing for Gad1Cre+/VgatCre+ neurons could also label VGluT2⁺ neurons? Does the Ntsr1Cre+ cell type contain inhibitory neurons? If so, how did the authors verify that the axonal projections are actually inhibitory or excitatory? Please discuss the technical limitations.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out these important caveats. We have added a variety of datasets to address the points raised here. Between in situ hybridization with Cre-dependent reporter viruses and immunolabelling of terminals against either Vglut2 or Gad65/67, we have strengthened the argument that our methods isolate specific subtypes of the cerebellar nuclei. Please see responses within Essential Revisions and Reviewer 1 Point 1 for more details.

(1b) Relatedly, it would be helpful to make clear which inhibitory cell types are taken into account and discussed: Gad1-IO, Gad1-collateral, Gad1-GABA-local, Gad1-glycine-local, Gad1-glycine-projection? How did the authors allocate VgatCre+ neurons? What is the overlap between Gad1Cre+ and Vgat1Cre+ neurons (they look different because labeled VgatCre+ neurons are in the medial part of the IntA and labeled Gad1Cre+ neurons are in the central part of the IntA consistently throughout Figures)? Something like Venn diagrams for Gad1Cre+, VgatCre+, and Ntsr1Cre+ neurons, could help.

As discussed above, we have eliminated the use of the Gad1-Cre line in this study, which may mitigate some concern. We use better terminology to differentiate Vgat neurons labeled from direct injections vs projection-specific label. We also plot and report location of injection sites across all injection types to ensure there are not systematic differences in location of injections across experiments. We do not focus on local inhibitory cell types nor specifically glycinergic cells, though our Vgat terminals colocalized with Gad65/67.

(2a) I see substantial and consistent injection leak to non-IntA and non-CN regions. How did the authors identify that the connections were really of IntA but not from other regions, for example, Vest? For example, inconsistent with our knowledge are that (1) IntA projections to DCK and PO of IO,

We now more directly relate injection site to targets observed, acknowledging the possibility, when appropriate, of projections that could derive from tracer injection location, plotted now in Figures 1,2,3,4. We note when results hold when injection sites are more restricted.

2) IntA projections to several targets (please compare Table 1 with Teune et al., 2000, Prog Brain Res),

We cannot account for all differences, other than to simply report what we observe. We see projections that differ from Teune et al., 2000 even in spectacularly clean injections into IntA (to ipsilateral IO, for example). For other differences, we speculate that label in the interstitial cell groups may account for differences, as this is seen to account for some differentiatinon in PIN targets (T82 in Teune). We now discuss the interstitial cell groups much more thoroughly as the possible source of some of the Vgat projections we observe, as well as the nucleocortical Vgat pathway, which we observed when interstitial cell groups were labeled but not when label was restricted to IntA.

3) CrI/PFL Purkinje projections to IntA neurons, which are known to IntP and LN,

We have de-emphasized IntA specifically and note most starter cells in interposed, with only a minority in LN and interstitial groups. We plot the location of starter cells.

4) sparse RN projection to Ntsr1Cre+ IntA neurons,

We see a sparse RN projection to Vglut2-Cre neurons. This was reported in Beitzel et al., 2017 as well, to Ntsr1-Cre cells.

and (5) very dense vestibular projections to Ntsr1Cre+ IntA neurons.

We now note and cite literature in the text that review vestibular projections that may contradict these findings. (Barmack 2003).

Inconsistent within the manuscript is that projection specific tracing revealed more projection targets than non-specific tracing (Table 1). Please discuss these and other relevant technical issues.

We saw this in the Gad1-Cre tracing (between Int-Gad1 and Int^IO-Gad1) but not in any other projection specific tracing. In removing the Gad1-Cre driver line from the study we hope the reviewer’s excellent concern is mitigated.

(2b) Again, given the technical challenges, the Gad1+/Vgat+ axons labeled in non-IO regions could be explained by injection leak to non-CN regions or to excitatory neurons. On what evidence can the readers be convinced of "inhibitory projections" that are "from IntA"?

These are very important points. In addition to quantification of injection site label in each dataset, we have amended our claims to reflect the point that our injection sites at times include other cerebellar nuclei. On whole, we now do not emphasize anterior interposed, though we do discuss in sections when we observe terminals correlating with spillage into other nuclei. Of note, we see terminal varicosities in the tegmental reticular nucleus and pontine gray from Vgat-Cre injections even when the tracer is totally limited to IntA, thus we are confident that these projections are not simply a consequence of tracer leakage.

3) I see potential issues in viruses used:

1) efficiency for the rabies tracing was significantly different between NtsrCre (yielded ~150 cells) and Gad1Cre neurons (yielded ~4000 cells),

We have replaced both Cre driver lines in the revision. Nevertheless, there is about a 10x difference between number of starter cells in the Vgat-Cre than Vglut2-Cre line. We note this in the text. Given that with the new Cre lines there is very little difference in the pattern of inputs to the two cell classes, we are not concerned that the differences in starter number account for the data.

2) rabies tracing didn't identify known input from IO,

The lack of IO in some specimen is indeed a puzzling feature, and anecdotally is seen by other groups doing similar experiments, as discussed at meetings, possibly due to unknown tropism. With the newer driver lines, we do see IO label in 4/6 specimen. Because we do not see many cells, the input percent is low, thus these known reciprocal projections do not appear in the reciprocal projection map in Figure 7. As has been noted with monosynaptic rabies methods, negative results cannot be interpreted to suggest that specific areas do not project to a given target, but positive results have been validated (Wickersham et al., 2007).

3) Cre-independent TVA expression from Cre-dependent AAV has been reported to be a significant problem in the rabies tracing scheme used in this study (Fagat et al., 2016, Cell Rep),

We thank the reviewer for this concern. We now show control injections in wildtype mice with vanishingly little label suggesting that this caveat is not likely contributing to the main conclusions (Figure S10). We also now include linked TVA-oG construct. Unfortunately we could not find the referenced study to determine if there were other concerns associated with the specific virus used.

and (4) how did the authors control retrograde infection of AAVs? Please discuss the technical limitations.

Retrograde infection of AAVs is easily distinguished by somatic label outside the injection location. We very rarely observed retrogradely labeled neurons in the brainstem and midbrain following our virus injections, suggesting little capacity for terminal label to be misinterpreted. We now note this in the text.

4) I don't see any evidence for input to VTA.

We show this more clearly in Figure2—figure supplement 1, with varicosities amongst TH positive cells in the region of the VTA.

5) Table 2 is missing.

This may have been a typo referencing Supplementary File 3. We thank the reviewer for catching this. We have ensured the tables are all provided.

6) 'long-standing dogma' -- I don't think so. Although it has been 'widely assumed', the existence of collaterals of preolivary neurons has been looked for many times and remains an open question.

We thank the reviewer for this important point. We have removed reference to ‘long-standing dogma’ and replaced it with ‘widely assumed’. In addition, we introduce the question as one that has received empirical support but has nevertheless not been followed up on with cell type specific viral tracing methods (See beginning of Results).

7) Difficult to see axonal terminals in photos in general.

We appreciate the concern. We now include data showing colocalization with Vglut2 or Gad65/67 immunostaining, as described above for R1 and R2 in (Figures 1, Figure 1 figure suppl 1-5 Figure 3, Figure 3 suppl 1).

8) Cerebellar nuclear outputs are powerfully modulated by their upstream Purkinje cells. In this sense, I think it's worth discussing the organization of PC inputs to inhibitory neurons. Can you discuss more about implication of broader Purkinje innervation of inhibitory IntA neurons? Are these different than the parasagittal modules? Or, does the difference in number/location of labeled PCs for inhibitory vs excitatory DCN neurons simply reflect the technical limitation in rabies tracing?

We too were interested in this point, but after replacing the Gad1-Cre datasets with Vgat-Cre, we no longer observed clear evidence of broader innervation of Vgat-Cre cells relative to Vglut2-Cre cells. Thus, we do not have reason to suggest the integrative patterns would differ across cell types.

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

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

In this revised manuscript, Judd et al., have performed essential experiments to validate their Cre-mouse lines. They have incorporated additional mouse lines based on their findings (and previous reviewer comments) and repeated specific experiments in these mouse lines. The observation that inhibitory neurons in the interposed nuclei send widespread projections throughout the brainstem holds and indeed the data present an interesting and important set of findings. However, below are suggestions about the text and figures that will aid the reader in understanding the detailed anatomical data presented in this manuscript.

– The overlap in dots and lines in Figures 1D, 2E, 3D, and 4E make these figures hard to interpret. Some of the projections included in the results may be specific to the injection site outside of the interposed nucleus (off-target viral expression) and this possibility is discussed briefly in the text. In addition, all the regions in which projections are found, even if in just a few viral replicates with the least specificity, are included in the summary of Figure 7B. This should be clearly stated in the text.

We now point out the inclusion and exclusion criteria for regions listed in Figure 7B – reminding the reader that these include only the strongest and most consistently labeled regions, but nevertheless may reflect projections of interstitial cell groups or other Cb nuclei labeled as described in the earlier figures.

In addition, we suggest clarifying the panels in 1D, 2E, 3D, and 4E. One option would be to replace these plots with UpSet plots (for example) that show the overlap between the different data sets. Alternatively, the current graphs could be kept and the authors could instead include a ratio of the number of replicates in which the projection was observed. In the end, any way to help the reader more easily appreciate the data would be highly beneficial.

We completely agree with the reviewer’s critique of the figure panels that were intended to map the location of projections for each animal. The overlapping scores across replicates made it difficult to see/track the specific pattern of projection targets for individuals, however. Rather than doing an UpSet plot, which would discard information on projection strengths, we elected to offset each specimen slightly from one another and give each specimen a unique symbol. This allows the reader to track each individual while also keeping available the information on injection site precision and projection strengths. We think this edit should fully address the reviewer’s astute observation about the limitations of the previous iteration of these plots.

– The authors state "… dorsal to IntA, but nucleocortical terminals that were included in the projection analysis were not located in the same topographical area." Apologies, but I do not understand what you mean by this. What topographical area are you referring to? Please consider rephrasing.

Reviewer 3 also noted this confusing text and suggested it be removed, so this verbiage is now gone.

– The authors state "Because injection sites did not differ systematically across…". What do mean? What is your measure that gives you confidence in regards to being systematic?

We have replaced the term ‘systematically’ with ‘qualitatively’. The main idea is that if we look at the injection site plots across all the injection types, we do not see that they are categorically different – that is, we could not decipher what the injection scheme was just from looking at the location of the injection site. Nevertheless, we see the Reviewer’s point that the term ‘systematically’ could imply more than we intend and therefore hope the wording change clarifies our point.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

In the revised manuscript, the authors have more than sufficiently addressed all my questions and concerns (and those of the other reviewers) about the interpretations of the distinctions of input and output patterns by different Int neuronal subtypes and how the data was generated. The replacement of Ntsr-Cre/Gad1-Cre with vGluT2-Cre/vGAT-Cre mice for monosynaptic rabies tracing clarifies and strengthens the conclusions for the input-output connectivity by excitatory and inhibitory Int neuronal subtypes.

This is a carefully conducted study that describes exciting findings about the anatomical organization of cerebellar interposed anterior nucleus, especially the inhibitory subpopulation. These findings will undoubtedly provide important ground work for future investigation of the functional relevance of distinct Int neuronal subtypes and pathways in dexterous and locomotor movements, and beyond.

I very much enjoyed reading and reviewing this manuscript and congratulate the authors on a well conducted study.

We sincerely appreciate these kind words and again express gratitude for the excellent suggestions.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

The manuscript is significantly improved for clarity by the authors' thorough hard work. The existence of ramifying inhibitory projection neurons from Int CN became more convincing. Particularly, analyses on Gad/Vglut immunoreactivity of axonal terminals are helpful.

Now it became clearer that the manuscript adds the widespread ramifying cells to the existing repertoire of inhibitory cerebellar nucleus neurons. The authors establish this cell type by demonstrating the inhibitory signature of projected axons and then place them into context in comparison with well-known types of cells regarding outputs, inputs, and cell morphology. During these efforts, the authors also made clear outputs of a subset of excitatory cells (Ntsr1+ cells) and discovered monosynaptic inputs to the excitatory and 'inhibitory' cells, which themselves are novel and intriguing.

I only have one major comment for improving the clarity of conclusions.

The above efforts made me realize that the current experimental designs do not distinguish or identify the ramifying cells from the widely known IO-only cells (I tentatively call them like this though they could have their own collaterals), which may be important for one to incorporate this cell type into cerebellar theories, although distinction from a subset of excitatory cells is clear. As far as I can see, only sparse and highly restricted labeling in IO in Figure 4-S1D would suggest that IO projections from the ramifying cells are made with a different topographical rule than IO-only cells, which is assuring because these results show a potential distinction between inhibitory cells.

Specifically, in the current manuscript, results for cell morphology, axonal trajectory, and input circuits demonstrated in Figure 5, 6. and 7, which are currently treated as data for the ramifying cells, could simply reflect those of IO-only cells and could barely reflect the ramifying cells. This is because the injection strategies utilized do infect both IO-only and the ramifying cells (To selectively target ramifying cells by avoiding IO-only cells, something like Cre-dependent retrograde infection from RN/PG/TRN in Vgat-Cre mouse would be required). It must be made clear in the Result that these analyses do not distinguish them. This limitation should influence conclusions regarding Figure 5-7 and I recommend modifying them accordingly. Similarly, Line 83-84, Line 376 may also be misleading. It would be clearer to state that what this study identified is "inhibitory projection cell type(s) that (or, at least some of which) collateralizes to IO" rather than "IO projection cell type that also collateralizes to other areas".

We have now added modifiers and text in a variety of places that states more clearly that our data indicate that at least some IO-projecting neurons collateralize and that we cannot distinguish neurons that solely project to IO, and that our data do not preclude their existence. Eg: Lines 84; 177-178; 379; 444-445.

Also, upon reflecting on this point, we have elected to tone down the title a touch so as not to unintentionally mislead the reader that all inhibitory projections are widespread. To this point, we have replaced ‘widespread’ with ‘diverse’. We hope this minor edit also addresses the spirit of the concern raised here.

Author details

1. Elena N Judd

   Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing - original draft

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8211-5140

2. Samantha M Lewis

   Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Abigail L Person

   Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   abigail.person@cuanschutz.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9805-7600

• 1,771

  Page views

• 260

  Downloads

• 18

  Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.