Target-specific control of olfactory bulb periglomerular cells by GABAergic and cholinergic basal forebrain inputs

  1. Didier De Saint Jan  Is a corresponding author
  1. Institut des Neurosciences Cellulaires et Intégratives, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France

Abstract

The olfactory bulb (OB), the first relay for odor processing in the brain, receives dense GABAergic and cholinergic long-range projections from basal forebrain (BF) nuclei that provide information about the internal state and behavioral context of the animal. However, the targets, impact, and dynamic of these afferents are still unclear. How BF synaptic inputs modulate activity in diverse subtypes of periglomerular (PG) interneurons using optogenetic stimulation and loose cell-attached or whole-cell patch-clamp recording in OB slices from adult mice were studied in this article. GABAergic BF inputs potently blocked PG cells firing except in a minority of calretinin-expressing cells in which GABA release elicited spiking. Parallel cholinergic projections excited a previously overlooked PG cell subtype via synaptic activation of M1 muscarinic receptors. Low-frequency stimulation of the cholinergic axons drove persistent firing in these PG cells, thereby increasing tonic inhibition in principal neurons. Taken together, these findings suggest that modality-specific BF inputs can orchestrate synaptic inhibition in OB glomeruli using multiple, potentially independent, inhibitory or excitatory target-specific pathways.

Editor's evaluation

This study reports on the synaptic impact of basal forebrain stimulation on a population of olfactory bulb interneurons in acute mouse brain slices. The author reveals that optogenetic stimulation of GABAergic basal forebrain afferents by and large inhibits the discharge of periglomerular cells, whereas cholinergic afferents evoke a prolonged, M1 receptor-mediated depolarization and increase in firing in a subpopulation of periglomerular cells. The current study would further our understanding of the olfactory neural circuit and how different neurotransmitters shape postsynaptic neuronal responses.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71965.sa0

Introduction

Basal forebrain (BF) nuclei innervate many regions of the brain, including the entire neocortex, hippocampus, amygdala, thalamus, and hypothalamus, with diffuse long-range projections releasing GABA, ACh, and, more rarely, glutamate. These projections provide cues about the behavioral context and internal state of the animal. They modulate multiple synaptic, cellular, and network processes at a variety of temporal and spatial scales, thereby regulating sensory perception, metabolic functions such as food intake, brain states, and important cognitive functions, including attention, arousal, memory or learning (Ballinger et al., 2016; Picciotto et al., 2012).

The olfactory bulb (OB), the first region that processes olfactory information in the brain, receives massive cholinergic and GABAergic BF projections that principally originate in the nucleus of the horizontal limb of the diagonal band of Broca (HDB) and in the magnocellular preoptic nucleus (MCPO) (Záborszky et al., 1986). Cholinergic signaling within the OB modulates olfactory learning and memory (Devore et al., 2014; Devore et al., 2012; Ravel et al., 1994; Ross et al., 2019), odor discrimination (Chan et al., 2017; Chaudhury et al., 2009; Doty et al., 1999; Li and Cleland, 2013; Mandairon et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2015), odor habituation (Ogg et al., 2018), and social interactions (Suyama et al., 2021). How ACh modulates these behavioral demands is less clear. Cholinergic axons innervate all layers of the OB and preferentially form synapses on inhibitory interneurons (Hamamoto et al., 2017; Kasa et al., 1995). Yet, a sparse subclass of deep short-axon cells in the internal plexiform layer is the only synaptic target of BF cholinergic axons known to date (Case et al., 2017). Deep short-axon cells are few compared to granule cells and periglomerular (PG) cells, the two prevalent classes of GABAergic interneurons in the OB. Moreover, cholinergic synapses are particularly abundant in the glomerular layer (Hamamoto et al., 2017), where muscarinic receptors exert a strong control on intraglomerular inhibition (Liu et al., 2015), suggesting that PG cells are another likely target of cholinergic axons.

BF GABAergic afferents innervate all layers of the OB at least as densely as cholinergic axons, but only a few studies have examined their function in odor processing (Böhm et al., 2020; Nunez-Parra et al., 2013). This is a difficult question because BF GABAergic afferents innervate many types of interneurons, including granule and PG cells, which inhibit principal neurons (Hanson et al., 2020; Nunez-Parra et al., 2013; Sanz Diez et al., 2019; Villar et al., 2021), as well as deep short-axon cells, which inhibit granule and PG cells (Case et al., 2017; Sanz Diez et al., 2019). Thus, depending on their target, BF GABAergic inputs may inhibit or disinhibit principal neurons. Moreover, BF GABAergic inputs have target-specific release properties, suggesting that they arise from distinct populations of BF GABAergic neurons (Sanz Diez et al., 2019). Finally, the effect on principal neurons may be hard to predict as GABA is excitatory in some PG cells (Parsa et al., 2015) and can be co-released along with ACh from cholinergic terminals. Co-transmission of the two transmitters occurs onto deep short-axon cells (Case et al., 2017), but it remains unclear whether co-release is systematic in the OB as it is in the hippocampus (Takács et al., 2018) or target-specific as in the cortex (Desikan et al., 2018; Saunders et al., 2015).

In such complex context, an important step towards understanding the influence and function of the BF inputs in the OB is to investigate the connections, temporal dynamics, and functional impact of each BF pathway. Recent papers have examined BF GABAergic inputs onto granule cells and their influence on adult-born granule cells survival (Hanson et al., 2020), the firing of principal neurons, and low-field potential rhythmic activity (Villar et al., 2021). Here, I examined how synaptic release of GABA and ACh from BF fibers modulates the activity of the various PG cells. PG cells are small axonless GABAergic interneurons with dendritic projections in a single glomerulus. Collectively, they regulate glutamate release from olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs) terminals (Murphy et al., 2005; Shao et al., 2009), as well as spike timing (Geramita and Urban, 2017; Najac et al., 2015) and respiration-coupled theta rhythms in output neurons (Fukunaga et al., 2014; Villar et al., 2021). PG cells are classified into two broad classes with largely similar morphologies but distinct excitatory inputs: type 1 PG cells receive direct excitatory inputs from OSNs, whereas type 2 PG cells are not connected to OSNs and receive glutamatergic inputs from the dendrites of mitral and tufted cells (Shao et al., 2009). In our previous study, we have shown that BF GABAergic inputs are an additional criterion that differentiate PG cell subclasses (Sanz Diez et al., 2019). This is summarized in Figure 1. First, BF GABAergic neurons contact type 2 PG cells but not type 1 PG cells (Figure 1A). Second, BF GABAergic inhibitory postsynaptic currents (IPSCs) have target-specific time courses in three classes of type 2 PG cells (Figure 1B) that also differ on the basis of their olfactory nerve (ON)-evoked excitatory response, firing properties, and molecular markers (Figure 1C). For clarity, I hereafter introduce a new nomenclature and call these three classes type 2.1, type 2.2, and type 2.3 PG cells. Type 2.1 cells correspond to the most abundant calretinin (CR)-expressing PG cells. They conserve intrinsic properties of immature neurons, that is, they have a remarkably high membrane resistance (>1 GΩ, usually higher than in other PG cells), they do not fire or fire at most a single and often small action potential, they receive little excitatory inputs, and their output is uncertain (Benito et al., 2018; Fogli Iseppe et al., 2016). Type 2.2 cells are labeled in the Kv3.1-eYFP mouse and include calbindin (CB)-positive as well as CB-negative cells. They receive short bursts of excitatory inputs from mitral and tufted cells and, in turn, indiscriminately release GABA onto these principal neurons (Najac et al., 2015). Finally, type 2.3 PG cells are a previously ignored subclass of regularly firing PG cells with no known chemical marker, remarkably slow BF IPSCs, and distinctive prolonged ON-evoked plurisynaptic excitatory responses (Sanz Diez et al., 2019). Their output connections have not been determined.

Basal forebrain (BF) GABAergic inputs define three subtypes of periglomerular (PG) cells.

(A) Diagram of the glomerular microcircuit. PG cells are small GABAergic interneurons (red) surrounding each glomerulus. Olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs)-innervated type 1 PG cells do not receive BF GABAergic inputs, whereas type 2 PG cells do. Three subtypes of type 2 PG cells have been identified in Sanz Diez et al., 2019 based on their synaptic, molecular, and intrinsic properties. See ‘Introduction’ for details. (B) Representative optogenetically evoked BF GABAergic inputs in the different subtypes of type 2 PG cells. Amplitudes are normalized for comparison. Data from Sanz Diez et al., 2019. (C) Summary table of the properties that distinguish different PG cell subtypes. Cases are left empty when the properties have not been determined, are diverse, or uncertain.

I used optogenetic stimulations in OB slices to induce synaptic release of ACh and/or GABA from BF fibers and patch-clamp recording to examine PG cells responses. The results demonstrate that PG cell subtypes are differentially controlled by BF afferents and reveal that the previously overlooked type 2.3 subtype is a central player in mediating BF muscarinic modulation of glomerular inhibition.

Results

Synaptic release of ACh activates a subset of PG cells

ChR2 fused with eYFP was first targeted to BF cholinergic neurons by injecting a viral construct into the HDB/MCPO of ChatCre mice (Figure 2A). Choline acetyltransferase (ChAT) immunodetection on brain sections from these mice (hereafter called ChAT mice) confirmed the expression of ChR2 in neurons expressing endogenous ChAT (Figure 2B). ChR2 expression, as indicated by eYFP labeling in the HDB/MCPO, was almost exclusively found in cholinergic neurons (89% of the cells positive for eYFP were also ChAT+, 440 double+ cells from a total of 495 eYFP+ cells in coronal slices from four mice) with an infection rate of 34% (440 double+ cells from a total of 1305 ChAT+ cells). Consistent with previous studies (Hamamoto et al., 2017; Kasa et al., 1995; Rothermel et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2015), eYFP-labeled cholinergic axons arising from BF cholinergic neurons densely innervated the OB and were abundant in the glomerular layer (Figure 2C, Figure 2—figure supplement 1).

Figure 2 with 1 supplement see all
Basal forebrain (BF) cholinergic neurons activate a subset of periglomerular (PG) cells.

(A) Schematic of the virus injection in ChatCre mice (top) and coronal section (bottom), at about bregma –0.1 mm, 20 days after injection. (B) ChR2-eYFP expression (green) in choline acetyltransferase (ChAT)-expressing cholinergic neurons (magenta) in the BF. Scale bar 50 µm. Right panels: zoom on the boxed region. (C) ChR2-eYFP-expressing axons in the olfactory bulb (OB). Scale bar 100 µm. DAPI staining (blue) delimits layers (ONL: olfactory nerve layer; GL: glomerular layer; EPL: external plexiform layer; GCL: granule cell layer). Higher-resolution image in Figure 2—figure supplement 1. (D) Experimental design for recording BF-evoked responses in OB slices. (E) Top: two representative 2-s-long loose cell-attached (LCA) recording episodes (scale bar 200 pA) and raster plot of spiking activity in control condition and when BF axons were photostimulated every 2 s (blue arrow, 1 ms flash, 490 nm). Photostimulation started at episode 31 (one flash/episode, blue line). Bottom: raster plot for the same cell, same experiment in the presence of blockers. (F) Average firing rate per episode (2 s each) in artificial cerebrospinal fluid (ACSF) (green) or in the presence of blockers (violet). Low-frequency photostimulation (0.5 Hz) started at episode 31. (G) Representative recording (scale bar 50 pA), raster plot, and peri stimulus time histograms (PSTH) (20 consecutive trials, bin 200 ms) of an excitatory response evoked in ACSF by a single photostimulation of the BF cholinergic axons at blue arrow and dotted line. Pale areas within the PSTH indicate the two periods that were compared in (I). The nonselective muscarinic ACh receptor (mAChR) antagonist scopolamine (10 µM) blocked the evoked excitation (bottom, scale bar 50 pA). (H) Average firing rate per bin and per 15-s-long episode for 21 cells recorded in ACSF. Each gray line corresponds to a cell; the black line indicates the ensemble average. Photostimulation at blue arrow. (I) Firing rate before (pre) and after (post) photostimulation of BF axons in ACSF (green) in the presence of 6-nitro-7-sulfamoylbenzo[f]quinoxaline-2,3-dione (NBQX), D-2-amino-5-phosphonopentanoic acid (D-AP5), and mecamylamine (violet) or in the presence of the mAChR antagonist atropine (n = 4) or scopolamine (n = 4) (red). Each line indicates a cell; blue circles are the means. Paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank-sum test (for atro/scopo).

Next, I used loose cell-attached (LCA) recording in acute OB slices from these mice to monitor spiking activity in randomly chosen PG cells while BF cholinergic axons were periodically stimulated every 2 s (0.5 Hz) using a single brief (1 ms) flash of blue light (Figure 2D). This photostimulation induced a significant increase in baseline spike frequency in 7% of the PG cells tested (n = 23/350). No other kind of response was observed. It is noteworthy, however, that more than half of the cells tested were silent or fired only rarely. A cholinergic input may simply be unnoticeable in these cells using LCA spike recording. Responsive PG cells had a low baseline spiking activity in control condition (range 0–6 Hz, mean 1.2 ± 1.6 Hz, n = 14) and switched to a higher-frequency firing mode (mean frequency 5.3 ± 2.7 Hz, n = 14) as soon as low-frequency photostimulations started. This sustained spiking regime was maintained throughout the trials with a stimulation (>1 min) (Figure 2E and F). Photo-evoked responses persisted in the presence of 6-nitro-7-sulfamoylbenzo[f]quinoxaline-2,3-dione (NBQX) (10 µM), D-2-amino-5-phosphonopentanoic acid (D-AP5) (50 µM), and mecamylamine (50 µM) (n = 5, Figure 2E and F), which inhibit AMPA, NMDA, and nicotinic ACh receptors, respectively. This cocktail of antagonist blocks a possible direct nicotinic excitation of PG cells (Castillo et al., 1999), as well as a putative indirect glutamatergic excitation following the nicotinic activation of mitral and tufted cells (Liu et al., 2015).

I then used a longer (15–20 s) interval between each flash to examine the time course of the excitatory response. A single flash evoked a reliable and long-lasting increase in firing rate (Figure 2G). Spike rate increased on average threefold compared to baseline activity (from 2.2 ± 2.1 Hz before the flash to 6.6 ± 3.3 Hz after the flash, n = 21, Figure 2I), peaked about 1 s after the flash, and returned to baseline frequency after about 5–10 s (Figure 2H). Evoked excitation persisted in the presence of NBQX, D-AP5 and mecamylamine (spike frequency increased from 2.1 ± 2.8 Hz before the flash to 8.0 ± 3.5 Hz after the flash, n = 11, Figure 2I) and was totally blocked by atropine (10 µM, n = 4) or scopolamine (10 µM, n = 4), two nonselective antagonists of metabotropic muscarinic ACh receptors (mAChRs) (Figure 2G and I). Thus, transient temporally and spatially precise synaptic release of ACh from BF cholinergic axons strongly excites a subset of PG cells via the activation of mAChRs. The principal focus of this study is on this previously unknown cholinergic pathway.

PG cells excited by a muscarinic input also receive an inhibitory GABAergic input from separate BF neurons

Nearly all cholinergic neurons in the BF express the molecular machinery to both synthetize and package GABA into synaptic vesicles (Saunders et al., 2015). Synaptic co-transmission of GABA from cholinergic axons would be expected to block or reduce spiking if GABA is inhibitory. If GABA is excitatory, co-release of GABA would be expected to trigger spikes even in the presence of AChR antagonists. None of these possible GABAergic responses was seen in ChAT mice, suggesting that GABA is not co-transmitted together with ACh. However, PG cells may still receive a GABAergic input from separate BF neurons. To test this possibility, a virus encoding ChR2-eYFP was injected into the HDB/MCPO of dlx5/6Cre mice, a transgenic line that expresses the Cre recombinase in neurons originating from the embryonic ganglionic eminence during development, which includes GABAergic as well as cholinergic neurons in the forebrain (Monory et al., 2006; Figure 3A). Accordingly, we showed in our previous study that recombination induces the expression of ChR2-eYFP in several populations of GABAergic neurons as well as in ChAT-expressing cholinergic neurons in the BF (Sanz Diez et al., 2019).

Figure 3 with 3 supplements see all
In dlx5/6 mice, a single photostimulation of basal forebrain (BF) axons evokes a biphasic inhibition-excitation response in periglomerular (PG) cells with a muscarinic excitation.

(A) Schematic of the virus injection in the horizontal limb of the diagonal band of Broca/magnocellular preoptic nucleus (HDB/MCPO) of dlx5/6Cre mice. (B) ChR2-eYFP expression in BF axons (yellow) in a sagittal section of the olfactory bulb (OB). DAPI staining (blue) delimits the different layers (GL: glomerular layer; EPL: external plexiform layer; MCL: mitral cell layer; GCL: granule cell layer). Scale bar 100 µm. Higher-resolution image in Figure 3—figure supplement 1. (C) Representative spiking response, raster plot, and cumulative peri stimulus time histogram (PSTH) (10 consecutive sweeps, 200 ms/bin) of a typical biphasic inhibition-excitation response evoked by a single photostimulation of BF fibers and recorded over 15 s in a PG cell from a dlx5/6 mouse. (D) Average spiking frequency per bin (200 ms) and per episode. Each gray line corresponds to a cell. The black line is the ensemble average. Photostimulation at blue arrow. Only one cell in the dataset responded with a long-lasting excitation that was not preceded by an inhibitory component (Figure 3—figure supplement 3). (E) The nonselective muscarinic ACh receptor (mAChR) antagonist atropine (10 µM) blocked BF-evoked excitation. (F) Firing rate before (pre) and after (post) photostimulation of BF axons in artificial cerebrospinal fluid (ACSF) (green) in the presence of 6-nitro-7-sulfamoylbenzo[f]quinoxaline-2,3-dione (NBQX), D-2-amino-5-phosphonopentanoic acid (D-AP5), and mecamylamine (violet) or in the presence of the muscarinic receptor antagonist atropine (n = 7) or scopolamine (n = 2) (red). Each line indicates a cell. Blue circles indicate means. Paired t-test.

Axonal projections of ChR2-eYFP-expressing neurons densely innervated the OB in dlx5/6 mice, especially in the glomerular layer and the granule cell layer (Figure 3B, Figure 3—figure supplement 1). This projection pattern is consistent with earlier reports in GAD2-cre mice (Böhm et al., 2020; Villar et al., 2021) or vGAT-cre mice (Hanson et al., 2020), two other lines often used to label BF GABAergic neurons. In OB slices from dlx5/6 mice, 0.5 Hz photostimulations affected post-stimulus spiking activity in 30% of the cells tested (116/383). Responses were heterogeneous, but three clearly distinct types of responses were evoked (Figure 3—figure supplement 2): 12% of the cells tested (45/383) responded with a transient inhibition of spiking immediately after the stimulation, as expected for a classical inhibitory input (see also Figure 8). 7% of the cells responded with a brief excitation (29/383 cells), that is, the photostimulation induced a single spike, sometimes two (see also Figure 9). Finally, 11% of the cells (42/383 cells) responded with a transient inhibition of spiking after each flash and with a robust and long-lasting increase in baseline firing rate as soon as low-frequency photostimulations started. This last group of cells with dual responses likely correspond to those receiving a muscarinic excitation. Consistent with this, a single flash evoked a robust and long-lasting increase in firing rate in these cells (Figure 3C), similar to in ChAT mice. This excitation persisted in the presence of NBQX, D-AP5, and mecamylamine and was blocked by atropine (n = 7) or scopolamine (n = 2) (Figure 3C–F). However, contrasting with the exclusive excitatory muscarinic responses in ChAT mice, spiking was also transiently blocked after the photostimulation. PG cells with these dual responses had a low and irregular firing activity in control condition (range 0–4 Hz, mean 1.95 ± 1.6 Hz, n = 13) and switched to a sustained higher-frequency firing mode upon the 0.5 Hz low-frequency photostimulations in artificial cerebrospinal fluid (ACSF) (mean 8.6 ± 3 Hz, n = 13, Figure 4A–C). This sustained spiking regime was also induced when low-frequency stimulations were done in the presence of NBQX, D-AP5, and mecamylamine (n = 10, Figure 4D–F). When delivered every 2 s, each flash was followed by a period of spiking inhibition (Figure 4A–E). Photo-evoked spiking inhibition lasted 391 ± 142 ms (n = 21), persisted in the presence of NBQX, D-AP5, and mecamylamine (n = 10, Figure 4D–F), and was blocked by the GABAA receptor antagonist gabazine (5 µM, Figure 4G and H). Gabazine did not prevent the ACh-mediated increase of basal firing evoked by the 0.5 Hz photostimulations (n = 8, Figure 4G–I). Only one cell with the muscarinic excitatory response lacked the GABAergic component in dlx5/6 mice (Figure 3—figure supplement 3). Although rare, this single case confirms that the cholinergic neurons stimulated in dlx5/6 mice do not co-transmit ACh and GABA. Altogether, the results are consistent with previous investigations demonstrating that although BF cholinergic neurons express molecular markers of GABAergic neurons, only a fraction of them co-releases GABA and ACh (Saunders et al., 2015). They further indicate that a subset of PG cells receives both ACh and GABA inputs from separate BF axons. GABA release inhibits spiking through GABAA receptors, whereas ACh release activates mAChRs and produces a long-lasting excitation.

In dlx5/6 mice, a monosynaptic GABAergic input inhibits spiking in cells with a muscarinic response.

(A) Two representative traces (scale bar 100 pA) showing spiking activity in control condition and while basal forebrain (BF) axons were photostimulated with a single flash per episode every 2 s (blue arrow). Middle: corresponding raster plot. Photostimulations started at episode 31 (blue line). Bottom: cumulative peri stimulus time histogram (PSTH) (bin size 20 ms) in the same cell for the trials with a photostimulation (blue arrow). (B) Average firing rate per bin (20 ms) and per episode for 17 cells (± SEM, gray bars) while BF axons were photostimulated every 2 s with a single flash (at blue arrow). (C) Average firing frequency per episode (2 s each) for 13 cells recorded in artificial cerebrospinal fluid (ACSF) in control condition (no light, episodes 1–30) and during photostimulation of the BF afferents once per episode (31–60). (D–F) Same as in (AC) in the presence of 6-nitro-7-sulfamoylbenzo[f]quinoxaline-2,3-dione (NBQX) (10 µM), D-2-amino-5-phosphonopentanoic acid (D-AP5) (50 µM),, and mecamylamine (MECA, 50 µM). Traces, raster plot, and PSTH in (D) are from the same cell as in (A). (G–I) Same as in (A–C) when gabazine (GBZ, 5 µM) was added to the cocktail of blockers. Traces, raster plot, and PSTH in (G) are from the same cell as in (A) and (D).

Endogenous ACh release elicits a slow muscarinic excitatory postsynaptic current (EPSC in type 2.3 PG cells)

In our previous report, we did not detect any BF-evoked muscarinic EPSC in whole-cell (WC) recordings from various PG cell subtypes in dlx5/6 mice (Sanz Diez et al., 2019). To understand the mechanism underlying photo-evoked muscarinic excitation, I re-examined this question using a slightly different K-gluconate-based internal solution supplemented with phosphocreatine to improve ATP supply. PG cells receiving a muscarinic input were first identified using LCA spike recording and then WC patched with a pipette filled with the new internal solution (n = 5 cells in ChAT mice and n = 12 in dlx5/6 mice). In dlx5/6 mice, a single photostimulation evoked a biphasic response initiated by an outward IPSC followed by a slow-rising inward current in 7/12 cells (Figure 5A). The slow EPSC was undetectable in five other cells. In ChAT mice, BF axons photostimulation induced a slow inward EPSC in 5/5 cells. Consistent with the LCA experiments, the slow inward current was not preceded by an outward IPSC, further confirming that cholinergic axons do not release GABA on these PG cells (Figure 5D). In both transgenic lines, photo-evoked muscarinic EPSCs recorded at negative holding potentials (from –30 to –60 mV) were small and often at the limit of detection (max 10 pA, mean 5 ± 3 pA, data obtained in ChAT and dlx5/6 mice pooled together). In current-clamp, at membrane potential close to the resting potential, photo-evoked excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs did not exceed 5 mV (mean 3.1 ± 1.1 mV, two cells in ChAT mice and three cells in dlx5/6 mice)) (Figure 5A and D). Unfortunately, muscarinic EPSC/EPSP ran down in few minutes, precluding any further characterization.

Basal forebrain (BF) cholinergic inputs produce a slow muscarinic EPSC in type 2.3 periglomerular (PG) cells.

(A) Biphasic GABAergic-muscarinic voltage-clamp (VC) and current-clamp (CC) whole-cell responses to a single photostimulation (blue arrow) of BF axons in a cell from a dlx5/6 mouse. Responses recorded in the presence of 6-nitro-7-sulfamoylbenzo[f]quinoxaline-2,3-dione (NBQX), D-2-amino-5-phosphonopentanoic acid (D-AP5), and mecamylamine. The current is an average of eight consecutive sweeps, the voltage response is a single trace eliciting four spikes (truncated for display). (B) Morphology of a biocytin-filled PG cell in which photostimulation of BF axons (eYFP-positive, green) produced a dual GABA-ACh response in a dlx5/6 mouse. DAPI staining (blue) shows the outline of the glomerulus. Scale bar 20 µm. Inset: voltage responses of this cell to depolarizing and hyperpolarizing current steps (20 pA, 500 ms). Scale bar 20 mV. (C) Photo-evoked GABAergic IPSC recorded in the same PG cell as in (A) at a holding potential of 0 mV. Average of 10 sweeps. The decay was best fitted with two exponentials (magenta) with a weighted decay time constant of 153 ms. Inset: distribution histogram of the decay time constants of photo-evoked GABAergic IPSCs in PG cells with a mixed GABA/ACh response in dlx5/6 mice. (D) Photo -evoked muscarinic EPSC (VC) and EPSP (CC) recorded in artificial cerebrospinal fluid (ACSF) in a PG cell from a choline acetyltransferase (ChAT) mouse. Average of six consecutive sweeps for the EPSC, single trace for the EPSP. (E) Morphology of a biocytin-filled cell that responded to the photostimulation of BF cholinergic axons with a muscarinic excitation in a ChAT mouse. Scale bar 20 µm. Blue: DAPI; green: eYFP-positive BF axons. Inset: membrane voltage responses of this cell to the injection of current steps (–20/+ 35 pA, 500 ms). Scale bar 20 mV. (F) Long-lasting barrage of EPSCs evoked by an electrical stimulation of the olfactory nerves (black arrow, 0.1 ms/100 µA) in the cell shown in (E). Inset: zoom on the earliest phase of the response (six consecutive traces, truncated for display). Responses had onset latencies > 2 ms. The distribution histogram shows the duration of the olfactory nerve (ON)-evoked response elicited in 10 cells receiving a muscarinic excitation (seven cells from dlx5/6 mice and three cells from ChAT mice).

Intrinsic, synaptic, and morphological properties of the ACh-responsive PG cells were also examined. In addition to the 17 WC-recorded cells from ChAT and dlx5/6 mice, the dataset included WC recordings from previous experiments in dlx5/6 mice in which a photo-evoked muscarinic excitation was noticed in the cell-attached configuration but not detected in the WC mode (n = 9). The morphology of each cell was assessed at the end of the recording by visual inspection of the dye present in the internal solution. Moreover, six cells filled with biocytin were successfully recovered for post-hoc morphological reconstruction. All had the typical morphology of PG cells. Their soma was small, ovoid, or round, with no apparent axon. Thin dendrites projected within a single glomerulus (Figure 5B and E). On average, their electrical membrane resistance was 1061 ± 524 MΩ. They all fired regularly at up to 100 Hz with overshooting action potentials in response to depolarizing current steps (Figure 5B and E). Another striking hallmark of these PG cells was their prolonged response to a single electrical stimulation of the ONs. ON-evoked response consisted of a barrage of fast EPSCs lasting several hundreds of ms (average 1760 ± 927 ms, n = 10) (Figure 5F). Evoked responses had an onset latency >2 ms (average 3.14 ± 0.66 ms) as typically seen in pluri-synaptic ON-evoked responses of type 2 PG cells (Sanz Diez et al., 2019; Najac et al., 2015). Finally, in dlx5/6 mice, photo-evoked BF IPSCs (amplitude range 10–186 pA, mean 62 ± 40 pA) were particularly slow (average decay time constant 162 ± 55 ms, range 69–258 ms, n = 16) (Figure 5C). Together, these intrinsic and synaptic properties unambiguously identify type 2.3 PG cells as the principal and perhaps unique synaptic target of BF cholinergic axons among PG cells.

To confirm that type 2.3 PG cells are the only PG cell target of BF cholinergic neurons, I examined WC responses evoked by a single flash in other types of PG cells in ChAT mice (n = 54). Photo-evoked responses were recorded in voltage-clamp at 0 mV and at negative holding potential in order to detect possible monosynaptic GABAergic, nicotinic, or muscarinic responses. Membrane properties and ON-evoked responses were examined when possible to identify each cell type. Photostimulation of the BF fibers did not evoke any response in type 1 PG cells (n = 4), type 2.1 PG cells (n = 21), and type 2.2 PG cells (n = 17). 12 additional PG cells that could not be firmly classified did not respond either. Only one PG cell, which could not be unambiguously classified, responded with a fast IPSC, a rare event that possibly reflected unspecific expression of ChR2 in BF GABAergic neurons. Together, these results indicate that BF cholinergic axons innervating the glomerular layer of the OB have a unique and selective synaptic target among PG cells and do not release GABA.

M1 mAChR mediates the muscarinic excitation

Next, I determined what muscarinic receptor mediates the cholinergic response in type 2.3 PG cells and what downstream mechanism produces the excitation. There are five types of mAChRs, and three of those (M1, M3, and M5) are coupled to excitatory Gq/11 proteins that activate PLCβ, causing hydrolysis of PIP2 into DAG and IP3. Activation of these receptors most often depolarizes neurons. M1 receptors are widely expressed in the OB (Le Jeune et al., 1995) and their blockage impairs olfactory-evoked fear learning (Ross et al., 2019), making them a likely candidate. To test this hypothesis, I examined the effects of pirenzepine (1–2 µM), a selective antagonist of M1 receptors, on BF-induced muscarinic excitation in both ChAT (n = 3 cells) and dlx5/6 mice (n = 7). Experiments were done using LCA recording in the presence of glutamate and nicotinic receptor antagonists. Pirenzepine fully blocked the excitation evoked by light stimulation of the BF fibers in six cells and reduced its strength in four cells (Figure 6A and B). On average, post-stimulation spike frequency was reduced fourfold by pirenzepine (control: 10 ± 3.4 Hz; pirenzepine: 2.6 ± 3.3 Hz, p<0.0001, data from ChAT and dlx5/6 mice pooled together, Figure 6B). These results support the idea that M1 receptors mediate the muscarinic excitation of type 2.3 PG cells.

Figure 6 with 1 supplement see all
M1 muscarinic ACh receptors (mAChRs) mediate basal forebrain (BF)-evoked excitation by closing M channels.

(A) Photo-evoked loose cell-attached (LCA) responses and cumulative peri stimulus time histograms (PSTHs) (over 22 consecutive sweeps, 200 ms/bin) recorded in a periglomerular (PG) cell from a dlx5/6 mouse in control condition (left) and in the presence of the M1 mAChR antagonist pirenzepine (2 µM). Scale bar for traces 50 pA. (B) Summary graphs. Firing rate before (pre) and after (post) photostimulation of BF fibers in control condition (left, paired t-test) and in the presence of pirenzepine (PIR, 1 or 2 µM, paired Wilcoxon signed-rank-sum test). Right graph shows that pirenzepine decreased BF-evoked excitation in every cell tested (paired t-test). Partial washout was obtained in five cells. Cells were recorded in choline acetyltransferase (ChAT) mice (n = 3, black lines) and dlx5/6 mice (n = 7, gray lines). (C) Photo-evoked LCA responses and cumulative PSTHs recorded in a PG cell from a dlx5/6 mouse showing the effects of the M-channel blocker XE-991 (10 µM) on spiking frequency. BF fibers were photostimulated with a single flash (blue arrow and dotted line). (D) XE-991 increased baseline spiking rate (blue line, measured during a 15 s time period preceding the flash) and decreased post-stimulus spike frequency (gray line). Average from 14 cells (eight in dlx5/6 mice, six in ChAT mice). Each episode was 30 s long. (E) Summary graph showing the two effects of XE-991 on each cell. Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank-sum tests. (F) Firing rate before (pre) and after (post) photostimulation of BF fibers in control condition (left, paired Wilcoxon signed-rank-sum test) and in the presence of XE-991 (t-test). Experiments were all done in the presence of 6-nitro-7-sulfamoylbenzo[f]quinoxaline-2,3-dione (NBQX) (10 µM), D-2-amino-5-phosphonopentanoic acid (D-AP5) (50 µM), and mecamylamine (50 µM). Means are the blue circles.

Could M1 receptors serve as a molecular marker for type 2.3 PG cells? To address this question, I examined the distribution of an mRNA transcript of Chrm1, the gene encoding M1 mAChRs, using RNAscope fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in OB sections. Hybridization signals were found around DAPI-stained nuclei in all layers of the OB (Figure 6—figure supplement 1A and B). This widespread distribution is consistent with an earlier autoradiography binding study (Le Jeune et al., 1995) and with more recent ISH data in the Allen Brain Atlas (https://mouse.brain-map.org/experiment/show/73907497; Lein et al., 2007) or immunohistochemical data in the Human Protein Atlas (https://www.proteinatlas.org/ENSG00000168539-CHRM1/brain; Sjöstedt et al., 2020). The signal was particularly strong in granule cells (Figure 6—figure supplement 1B–D), consistent with previous functional data demonstrating that M1 mAChRs potentiate the excitability of granule cells (Pressler et al., 2007). However, all the granule cells recorded in this study in ChAT mice in the LCA mode were silent and remained silent during the low-frequency photostimulations of the cholinergic fibers (n = 17, not shown). M1 could still be a useful molecular marker of type 2.3 PG cells if it is strongly and consistently expressed in these cells and have minimal expression in other cell types in the glomerular layer. However, most cells around glomeruli expressed the mRNA transcript of Chrm1. Cells with no signal were more abundant in the glomerular layer than in the granule cell layer but still represented a small fraction of the cells (Figure 6—figure supplement 1C and D). Moreover, ISH combined with immunodetection of CR or tyrosine hydroxylase (TH), two commonly used markers of nonoverlapping juxtaglomerular cell types, revealed that the Chrm1 transcript was expressed in 85% of the CR-positive (n = 372 cells counted) and 94% of the TH-positive cells (n = 181 cells) (Figure 6—figure supplement 1E and F). These results thus suggest that multiple cell types in the glomerular layer express M1 receptors.

M1 receptors classically suppress the M current, a slow voltage-activated potassium current mediated by KCNQ2/3 potassium channels and active at resting membrane potential (Brown and Passmore, 2009; Suh and Hille, 2008). KCNQ2 subunits are strongly expressed in PG cells (Cooper et al., 2001). The fast run-down of the BF-evoked muscarinic EPSC in WC recordings as well as its strong dependence on intracellular ATP is also consistent with this downstream mechanism. Cell dialysis is indeed often deleterious for M currents because M-channels opening depends on PIP2 binding, a process that is itself highly dependent on intracellular ATP supply for PIP2 phosphorylation (Suh and Hille, 2008; Zhang et al., 2003). To investigate whether closure of the M current causes the muscarinic depolarization of type 2.3 PG cells, I applied the selective M-channel antagonist XE-991 (10 µM) in the presence of NBQX, D-AP5, and mecamylamine. XE-991 had two noticeable effects in type 2.3 PG cells recorded in LCA. First, it increased baseline spike frequency in all the cells tested (n = 14, eight in dlx5/6 mice, six in ChAT mice, Figure 6C–E), suggesting that M-channels are indeed open at rest in type 2.3 PG cells and hyperpolarize their membrane potential. Second, although XE-991 did not fully block photo-evoked muscarinic excitation in most cells (Figure 6C and F), it reduced the strength of BF-induced excitation (Figure 6D and E). A persistent photo-evoked excitation is expected if the muscarinic EPSP is partially blocked while the membrane potential is more depolarized compared to control condition. Overall, these data support the hypothesis that activation of M1 mAChRs depolarizes type 2.3 PG cells by blocking a potassium M current.

Muscarinic excitation of type 2.3 PG cells leads to an increase of inhibitory synaptic inputs in principal neurons

PG cells are classically viewed as a source of inhibitory GABAergic synaptic currents (IPSCs) for mitral and tufted cells, the two OB output channels that project to distinct cortical areas. However, the targets and output properties of type 2.3 PG cells have never been specifically investigated. Thus, to evaluate the impact of the muscarinic excitation of type 2.3 PG cells, I recorded IPSCs in mitral cells and superficial or middle tufted cells (s/mTC) in the presence of NBQX, D-AP5, and mecamylamine (Figure 7A). I also examined IPSCs in external tufted cells (eTCs) (Figure 7A). Although it is still unclear whether eTCs have axonal projections outside the OB like other tufted cells, they play a major role in processing incoming OSN information by coordinating rhythmic activity within each glomerulus and providing feedforward excitation to various types of neurons, including PG, mitral, and tufted cells (De Saint Jan et al., 2009; Hayar et al., 2004; Najac et al., 2011; Najac et al., 2015).

Figure 7 with 1 supplement see all
Basal forebrain (BF) muscarinic inputs lead to an increase of inhibitory synaptic inputs in tufted cells.

(A) Morphologies of two biocytin-filled tufted cells recorded in different slices from choline acetyltransferase (ChAT) mice. The localization of the soma and the presence or not of lateral dendrites in the external plexiform layer (arrowheads) distinguish a superficial tufted cell (sTC) (left) and an external tufted cell (eTC) (right). DAPI staining (blue) shows the outline of glomeruli. ChR2-eYFP-expressing cholinergic fibers are visible in green. Scale bars 50 µm. (B) Increase of inhibition evoked by a single photostimulation (blue arrow) of the cholinergic axons in an sTC (top). Pirenzepine (2 µM) blocked this response (bottom). Five traces are superimposed in each condition. Peri stimulus time histograms (PSTHs) show the cumulative number of IPSCs/bin (200 ms) across 15 consecutive trials. (C) Four consecutive traces of spontaneous IPSCs recorded in an eTC in control condition (top) and during low-frequency photostimulation of the cholinergic BF fibers (one flash every 2 s at blue arrow, middle). Pirenzepine (2 µM) blocked the increase of IPSC frequency evoked by the photostimulations (bottom). (D) Average IPSC frequency per 200 ms bin and per episode for 17 tufted cells (eight s/mTC and nine eTC). BF axons were photostimulated once (blue arrow). Pirenzepine was tested on 11/17 cells and reduced photo-evoked increase of IPSCs. (E) Average IPSC frequency per episode (2 s) for 18 cells (10 s/mTC and 8 eTC). Photostimulation of the cholinergic fibers at 0.5 Hz rapidly and persistently increased IPSC frequency. Pirenzepine was tested in 15/18 cells. Experiments were done in ChAT mice in the presence of 6-nitro-7-sulfamoylbenzo[f]quinoxaline-2,3-dione (NBQX), D-2-amino-5-phosphonopentanoic acid (D-AP5), and mecamylamine. Individual data points are shown in Figure 7—figure supplement 1.

Photostimulation of the cholinergic axons significantly increased IPSCs frequency in eTCs (n = 9) and s/mTCs (n = 10) (Figure 7), whereas no response was found in mitral cells (n = 17). However, three of the recorded mitral cells had severed apical dendrites and most of the intact cells (10/14) projected in glomeruli located deep within the slice, where light stimulation may be less efficient. Baseline IPSCs frequency greatly varied across cells and was on average smaller in s/mTC (7.0 ± 5.1 Hz) compared to eTC (15.7 ± 10 Hz, p=0.0285, t-test). Yet, IPSCs increased in similar proportion and with comparable time course in both cell types after photostimulation (Figure 7—figure supplement 1). Data were thus pooled in Figure 7D and E. Thus, low-frequency photostimulation led to a rapid and persistent increase in IPSCs frequency in 8/10 eTC and 10/23 s/mTC. This response was blocked (n = 8) or reduced (n = 3) when the experiment was repeated in the presence of 2 µM pirenzepine (Figure 7C and E). Pirenzepine had little effect in 4/15 cells. A single photostimulation also transiently increased IPSCs frequency in eTC (n = 9) and s/mTC (n = 8) (Figure 7B and D). Addition of pirenzepine attenuated this response in 10/11 cells. Together, these results suggest that type 2.3 PG cells release GABA onto tufted cells following their excitation by muscarinic activation. This increase in inhibitory synaptic inputs could lead to profound changes in the activity and output of the OB network.

BF GABAergic inputs inhibit type 2.2 PG cells

Besides type 2.3 PG cells described above, a second group of cells in dlx5/6 mice responded to the optogenetic stimulation of the BF axons with a transient block of spiking immediately after the photostimulation (n = 45/383, 12% of the cells tested) (Figure 8). However, unlike type 2.3 PG cells, they did not show any evidence of parallel cholinergic excitation. Baseline firing activity did not rapidly increase when BF fibers were photostimulated at 0.5 Hz and a single flash did not elicit a long-lasting mAChR-evoked increase in firing (Figure 8—figure supplement 1). In these cells, basal firing frequency was, on average, higher than in type 2.3 PG cells (mean 7.8 ± 5.6 Hz, n = 21, p=0.00058, Mann–Whitney rank-sum test). However, the nature of this activity (single spike vs. burst of spikes) and its frequency (range 2–21 Hz) varied greatly across cells (Figure 8—figure supplement 2). Spontaneous spiking was also diversely affected by NBQX, D-AP5, and mecamylamine, being totally blocked in some cells (n = 3) and not affected in others (n = 9). In the latter, BF-induced inhibition persisted in the presence of the blockers (n = 9) and was blocked by gabazine (Figure 8B, n = 7), suggesting that it was caused by a direct GABAergic BF input. The duration of the BF-induced inhibition also varied across cells. In about half of the cells, the BF input induced a shorter (<200 ms) inhibition than in type 2.3 PG cells, whereas inhibition was longer and similar to in type 2.3 PG cells in others (Figure 8C). However, it is noteworthy that cells with a prolonged inhibition often fired at low rate or fired irregularly with bursts of spikes (Figure 8—figure supplement 2). In these cells, the duration of BF-induced inhibition, as measured as the mean delay between the flash and the first spike after the flash, varied across sweeps, making this estimate imprecise (Figure 8—figure supplement 2A).

Figure 8 with 2 supplements see all
Type 2.2 periglomerular (PG) cells are inhibited by the basal forebrain (BF) GABAergic input.

(A) 10 superimposed loose cell-attached (LCA) traces and the corresponding peri stimulus time histogram (PSTH) for 44 consecutive trials (bin 20 ms) in a cell from a dlx5/6 mouse. Photostimulation of the BF fibers (blue arrow) transiently blocked spiking. Bottom: average firing frequency per bin (20 ms) and per episode for 28 cells that were inhibited by the BF input, without evidence of parallel cholinergic excitation (Figure 8—figure supplement 1). (B) BF-induced spiking inhibition persisted in the presence of 6-nitro-7-sulfamoylbenzo[f]quinoxaline-2,3-dione (NBQX), D-2-amino-5-phosphonopentanoic acid (D-AP5), and mecamylamine but was blocked by gabazine (GBZ). The two PSTHs are from the same cell as in (A) (bin 20 ms). Bottom: average firing rate per bin (20 ms) and per episode for seven cells in control conditions (gray line, six cells in the presence of blockers, one cell in artificial cerebrospinal fluid [ACSF]) and when GBZ (5 µM) was added (blue). (C) Duration of the post-stimulus spiking inhibition in cells with a BF-induced inhibitory response (blue) vs. in cells with a biphasic inhibition-muscarinic excitation response (gray). See also Figure 8—figure supplement 2 for caveats in these measurements. (D) Whole-cell characterization of a cell with an inhibitory response. Top: BF impact on firing (cell-attached recording, 38 episodes are superimposed) and BF-evoked IPSCs (whole-cell recording, 15 superimposed episodes). The histogram compares the decay time constants of photo-evoked GABAergic IPSCs in seven PG cells that were only inhibited (blue bars) vs. in cells with a mixed GABA/ACh response (gray bars). Bottom left: olfactory nerve (ON)-evoked EPSCs (left, four superimposed traces). Onset latencies > 2 ms (inset) are consistent with a plurisynaptic response. Bottom right: current-clamp voltage responses to current steps.

Cells with BF-induced spiking inhibition and no evidence for cholinergic excitation in the cell-attached configuration were subsequently characterized in the WC mode (n = 7, Figure 8D). Their electrical membrane resistance was 1119 ± 789 mOhm. BF axons photostimulation evoked large IPSCs (amplitude range 69–464 pA, mean 170 ± 144 pA) with an average decay time constant of 37 ± 9 ms, which was significantly shorter than in type 2.3 PG cells (p<0.0001, Mann–Whitney rank-sum test). Three cells in which ON-evoked responses were recorded responded with a short burst of EPSCs (duration <150 ms). Onset latencies (2.45 ± 0.23 ms) were consistent with plurisynaptic responses. Firing properties were more heterogeneous. Injection of a depolarizing current step evoked a burst of action potentials followed by a plateau (n = 3 cells, as in the example shown in Figure 8D) or sustained firing of action potentials (n = 3, not shown). In 5/6 cells, injection of a hyperpolarizing step caused a voltage sag, suggesting the activation of an Ih current. Altogether, these properties match well with those of type 2.2 PG cells (Najac et al., 2015). This suggests that type 2.2 PG cells only receive an inhibitory GABAergic input from the BF.

GABA is excitatory in a minority of CR-expressing type 2.1 PG cells

Finally, photo-evoked BF inputs elicited a single spike (Figure 9A) or, more rarely, a doublet (Figure 9C) in a small number of cells in dlx5/6 mice (n = 29/383, 7% of the cells tested). These excitatory responses were not seen in ChAT mice, persisted in the presence of NBQX, D-AP5, and mecamylamine (n = 6), and were blocked by gabazine (n = 4, Figure 9B and D), suggesting that they were caused by a direct excitatory GABAergic input. It would not be surprising if GABA was depolarizing in CR-expressing PG cells that retain many properties of newborn immature neurons (Benito et al., 2018). Consistent with this hypothesis, most of the cells with an excitatory response (26/29) had no or little (<1 Hz) spontaneous firing activity, similar to CR + PG cells (Benito et al., 2018; Fogli Iseppe et al., 2016). However, photo-evoked action potentials occurred within a short delay after the flash, as expected for synaptically driven spikes, in only 15/29 cells (average spike timing 13.4 ± 9.9 ms, Figure 9A and E). In the other cells, the average delay was longer (329 ± 191 ms) and more variable (n = 14, Figure 9C and E), suggesting that distinct mechanisms drive the two types of response. Strikingly, the photo-evoked BF synaptic input evoked a small but detectable gabazine-sensitive capacitive current that was inward in 14/15 cells responding with early spikes (Figure 9A, B, and E), whereas it was outward in all the cells responding with delayed spikes (Figure 9C–E). Thus, a likely explanation of the data is that a depolarizing GABAergic input directly triggered early spikes, whereas delayed spikes could be induced by rebound depolarization following a hyperpolarizing GABAergic IPSP, as often seen in CR + PG cells (Benito et al., 2018). Eight cells responding with early action potentials in the cell-attached mode (average timing 20 ± 19 ms) were subsequently characterized in the WC configuration. All of them had properties consistent with those of CR + PG cells, that is, a large input resistance (6 ± 3.1 GΩ), a characteristic voltage response to depolarizing current steps, and a large and fast photo-evoked BF IPSC (amplitude range 133–1300 pA, mean 370 ± 139 pA; weighted decay time constant 7.7 ± 3.6 ms) (Figure 9G).

Basal forebrain (BF)-evoked GABAergic excitation in a fraction of type 2.1 periglomerular (PG) cells.

(A) Example of a BF-evoked excitatory response in a PG cell. One representative loose cell-attached (LCA) recording episode (duration 2 s) is shown on top. Photostimulation of the BF fibers (blue arrow) induced an inward current followed by a single spike (inset). Each tick is a spike in the raster plot of these cell responses (stimulation: episodes 31–61). Bottom: corresponding peri stimulus time histogram (PSTH). Note the temporal precision of the evoked spikes. Bin size 50 ms. (B) Same cell as in (A). The evoked inward current and the evoked spike both persisted in 6-nitro-7-sulfamoylbenzo[f]quinoxaline-2,3-dione (NBQX), D-2-amino-5-phosphonopentanoic acid (D-AP5), and mecamylamine but were blocked by gabazine. At least four traces are superimposed in each condition. (C) Another example of a PG cell responding to the photostimulation with action potentials. Photostimulation (blue arrow, episodes 31–65 in the raster plot) induced an outward current (inset) and, in some trials, a delayed doublet of spikes. Bottom: corresponding cumulative PSTH (bin size 50 ms). (D) Same cell as in (C). Gabazine blocked both the evoked outward current and the evoked spikes. (E) Distribution histogram of the average spike timing in each cell responding with spikes. Cells in which the stimulation evoked an inward capacitive current are in violet, and cells in which the stimulation evoked an outward current are in green. (F) Total number of cells responding with an inward (violet) or an outward (green) capacitive current followed or not with evoked spikes. (G) Whole-cell characterization of a cell excited by the BF input. Left: BF-evoked spike response (LCA recording, top, 20 consecutive episodes are superimposed) and BF-evoked IPSC (whole-cell recording, 20 consecutive responses). Right: current-clamp voltage responses to current steps in the same cell. The distribution histogram compares the decay time constants of photo-evoked GABAergic IPSCs in the seven PG cells that were excited (violet bars) vs. in type 2.2 cells with an inhibitory response (blue) and type 2.3 cells with a mixed GABA/ACh response (gray bars).

The BF input induced a detectable capacitive current, but no spike, in 70 additional cells, all with no or little spontaneous activity (these cells were classified as nonresponsive in Figure 3—figure supplement 2). BF-evoked capacitive current was inward in 54% of these cells (n = 38/70) and outward in the other cells (n = 32, Figure 9F). Eight of these cells were characterized with WC recording, and all displayed the typical intrinsic and synaptic properties of CR + PG cells including a high membrane resistance (3 ± 1.2 GΩ) and large and fast BF IPSCs (amplitude: 284 ± 107 pA; decay 12.2 ± 2.9 ms). Altogether, this analysis suggests that the BF GABAergic input is depolarizing in as much as half of the CR-expressing type 2.1 PG cells that may have an elevated chloride reversal potential, more depolarized than the membrane potential. However, this input drives spiking in only a minority of them.

Discussion

This study shows that OB-projecting BF neurons have diverse impacts on PG cells. GABAergic inputs potently block the discharge of type 2.2 and type 2.3 PG cells with a target-specific time course. In contrast, GABA release is excitatory and eventually triggers action potentials in a fraction of type 2.1 PG cells. Data also reveal that BF cholinergic fibers strongly and exclusively excite type 2.3 PG cells. Thus, intraglomerular inhibition of principal neurons mediated by PG cells can be modulated in various ways by multiple BF pathways that potentially regulate olfactory processing in a context and behavior-specific manner.

A previously ignored cholinergic pathway

The main finding of this study is that endogenous phasic ACh release from BF cholinergic neurons selectively evokes a remarkably strong and reliable muscarinic excitation in a previously overlooked PG cell subtype, which are referred to as type 2.3 PG cells. This novel cholinergic pathway concerns a small population of neurons lacking a molecular marker and evokes small muscarinic EPSP/EPSCs that rapidly runs down in WC recording, explaining why it has been missed until now. Here, I provide pharmacological evidence suggesting that the slow cholinergic response is mediated by M1 mAChRs that suppress an M current. This downstream mechanism classically washes out quickly, and future experiments using perforated patch-clamp experiments will be necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

This pathway adds to other mAChR-dependent mechanisms capable of increasing tonic inhibition in mitral and tufted cells. Activation of M1 receptors increases the excitability of granule cells, the most abundant interneurons in the OB, by potentiating current-evoked afterdepolarization (Pressler et al., 2007). mAChR activation also directly enhances transmitter release at reciprocal dendrodendritic synapses between mitral and granule cells (Castillo et al., 1999; Ghatpande and Gelperin, 2009) or between juxtaglomerular interneurons and mitral/tufted cells (Liu et al., 2015). However, there is yet no evidence that endogenous ACh can recruit these previously described pathways. In the previous studies, ACh or cholinergic agonists were exogenously applied on slices. This results in prolonged and uniform activation of synaptic and extrasynaptic ACh receptors and induces multiple concomitant effects that may not necessarily be evoked by physiological release of ACh, even in case of strong afferent activity in cholinergic neurons leading to diffuse volume transmission (Unal et al., 2015).

Physiological implications

Like other sensory systems, olfactory perception is context-dependent. This modulation already takes place in OB circuits, where odor-evoked neural responses depend on reward (Doucette and Restrepo, 2008) or on the difficulty of the task (Koldaeva et al., 2019) and are shaped by learning and experience (Martin et al., 2004; Chu et al., 2017; Ross and Fletcher, 2018). Whether BF cholinergic innervation of the OB plays a role in context-dependent neuromodulation is suspected, but has never been proven.

In the cortex, transient increased cholinergic signaling signals a transition to a behaviorally important context and adjust neural output to improve task performances (Gritton et al., 2016; Kuchibhotla et al., 2017; Pinto et al., 2013). In Pavlovian learning paradigms, BF cholinergic neurons respond with brief and temporally precise burst of activity to reward or aversive stimuli and to conditioning stimuli, including olfactory cues (Guo et al., 2019; Hangya et al., 2015; Hanson et al., 2021; Crouse et al., 2020). This results in fast and precise transients of ACh in target sensory cortical areas (Guo et al., 2019) or in the basolateral amygdala (Crouse et al., 2020). The physiological dynamics of ACh within the OB are unknown, but it is tempting to speculate that similar ACh transients are evoked in the OB during olfactory-guided aversive or appetitive learning, a behavior that critically depends on M1 mAChRs in the OB (Ross et al., 2019).

I showed that a single stimulation of the cholinergic BF axons, which evokes transient, temporally, and spatially precise release of ACh, triggers a long-lasting discharge in type 2.3 PG cells. This target-specific muscarinic response likely involves synaptic or perisynaptic mAChRs and provides support for phasic, spatially restricted cholinergic transmission as opposed to spatially diffuse volume transmission (Sarter and Lustig, 2020). The same stimulus repeated every 2 s, a low-frequency stimulation that is insufficiently strong to induce massive diffusion of ACh in the extracellular space, rapidly transforms type 2.3 PG cells that usually fire at low rate into tonically active neurons that fire at high frequency. This, in turn, leads to a rapid and persistent increase of synaptic inhibitory currents in principal neurons, thus potentially driving OB circuits in a different state of activity. This target-specific muscarinic transmission may have widespread circuit implications because single cholinergic axons frequently ramify and innervate multiple glomeruli in different OB areas (Hamamoto et al., 2017). This could ultimately reduce the firing rate in output neurons but could also shape the temporal structure of mitral and tufted cells output at diverse time scales. Inhibitory inputs regulate spike timing and synchrony in mitral and tufted cells (Najac et al., 2015; Schoppa, 2006; Shao et al., 2012), and inhibition of eTCs might modulate slow glomerulus-specific coordinated activity (De Saint Jan et al., 2009; Hayar et al., 2004; Najac et al., 2011). Based on previous studies on ACh functions, increased inhibition driven by the muscarinic excitation of type 2.3 PG cells may improve olfactory perception of behaviorally important odorants. Interestingly, BF GABAergic fibers innervating type 2.3 PG cells potently block their activity and could act as a powerful brake to reverse the cholinergic effects. Future in vivo experiments will be necessary to explore these possibilities.

In vivo, optogenetic stimulation of the cholinergic axons in the OB of ChatCre mice increases mitral and tufted cells’ spontaneous and odor-evoked firing (Böhm et al., 2020; Rothermel et al., 2014). This result seems at odds with the expected implications of the new muscarinic pathway described in this study. However, photostimulation was strong and sustained in these in vivo studies (light continuously on for 10 s). Although it is difficult to compare stimulations in vivo and in slices, a prolonged photostimulus could recruit additional cholinergic pathways that need volume transmission to be activated and that have opposite impacts compared with those of type 2.3 PG cells. For instance, TH-expressing dopaminergic/GABAergic juxtaglomerular neurons express the M2 mAChR (Crespo et al., 2000; Hamamoto et al., 2017). Activation of these receptors inhibits tonically active TH-expressing cells (Pignatelli and Belluzzi, 2008) that provide an inhibitory drive to mitral and tufted cells (Liu et al., 2016; Whitesell et al., 2013; Zhou et al., 2020). Thus, understanding the physiological impact of the muscarinic excitation of type 2.3 PG cells on the OB output and network activity will require targeted stimulations that selectively engage this pathway in vivo as well as specific approaches to determine the in vivo activity of the cholinergic afferents.

Multiple cell-type-specific pathways for BF control of glomerular inhibition

Results of this study also provide new insights into PG cell diversity. Immunohistochemical studies have already demonstrated that the few classical markers commonly used to label PG cells do not label all of them (Panzanelli et al., 2007; Parrish-Aungst et al., 2007; Whitman and Greer, 2007). Yet, most functional studies only distinguish type 1 and type 2 PG cells and ignore type 2’s diversity. CR-expressing type 2.1 PG cells are by far the most abundant, representing 40–50% of the entire PG cell population. They are predominately generated postnatally and persist in an immature stage in terms of connectivity and membrane properties (Benito et al., 2018). The present data suggest that BF GABAergic inputs are excitatory in a fraction of them, likely the most immature, whereas GABA is inhibitory in the other PG cells. The functional impact of this excitation is unclear because it concerns a minority of PG cells and there is no evidence that immature CR + PG cells form output synapses. However, this result may explain why GABA appears predominantly excitatory in calcium imaging of unidentified PG cells (Parsa et al., 2015). Type 2.3 PG cells constitute about 20% of the whole PG cell population and are approximately as numerous as type 2.2 PG cells (Sanz Diez et al., 2019). These regular spiking interneurons have pluri-synaptic long-lasting ON-evoked responses and receive remarkably slow BF IPSCs that readily distinguish them from type 2.1 and type 2.2 PG cells. As shown here, their muscarinic input is another selective feature. Although their input and output connections are not firmly established, type 2.3 PG cells are presumably activated by the glutamate released from mitral and tufted cell dendrites and most likely release GABA unselectively onto mitral and tufted cells. Consistent with this idea, a previous study showed that mAChR activation within glomeruli increases IPSCs equally well in mitral and tufted cells (Liu et al., 2015). The present data confirm that type 2.3 PG cells inhibit various classes of tufted cells, but I found no evidence that they also inhibit mitral cells. However, this negative result has to be interpreted with caution as it is challenging in slices from adult mice to find mitral cells projecting in surface glomeruli, a technical requirement for optimal LED stimulation of the cholinergic afferents.

The functional implications of PG cells’ diversity are not known. Cholinergic and GABAergic inputs from the BF may provide physiological tools to manipulate each PG cell subtype selectively in future studies exploring this question. Like elsewhere in the brain, BF GABAergic neurons are highly diverse and each cell population makes cell-type-specific long-range connections (Do et al., 2016) and plays specific functions. For instance, somatostatin (SOM)- and parvalbumin (PV)-expressing subpopulations have distinct impacts on arousal control (Anaclet et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2015) or food intake (Zhu et al., 2017). Distinct classes of BF GABAergic neurons may thus modulate distinct classes of PG cells. Similarly, muscarinic excitation of type 2.3 PG cells may involve a specific population of BF cholinergic neurons. There are at least two distinct types of BF cholinergic neurons that differ in their firing modes and synchronization properties and that are differently engaged during behaviors (Laszlovszky et al., 2020). This specificity could also rely on connectivity. For instance, BF cholinergic neurons modulating distinct areas are driven by specific combinations of synaptic inputs (Do et al., 2016; Gielow and Zaborszky, 2017; Zaborszky et al., 2015; Zheng et al., 2018). The recent discovery of a genetically defined subpopulation of cholinergic neurons that selectively innervates a specific subgroup of deep short-axon cells in the OB (Case et al., 2017) also supports the hypothesis of cell-specific innervation of OB interneurons by specific subsets of cholinergic neurons. Hence, each of the BF neuromodulatory pathways innervating PG cells might be independently recruited during specific tasks or internal states.

Materials and methods

Animals and ethical approval

Request a detailed protocol

All experimental procedures were approved by the French Ministry and the local ethic committee for animal experimentation (CREMEAS; agreement number/reference protocol: APAFIS#5250–2016042115058488v3 and v7). Mice were housed in the animal facility (Chronobiotron, UMS3415, CNRS, University of Strasbourg) with ad libitum access to food and water in accordance with the European Convention 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. Adult heterozygous dlx5/6Cre mice (n = 36, 34 females and 2 males, C57BL6/J background; Jackson Laboratory stock no: 008199; Monory et al., 2006) and ChatCre mice (n = 44 of either sex, CD1 background; Jackson Laboratory stock no: 006410; Rossi et al., 2011) were used in this study.

Stereotaxic viral injection

Request a detailed protocol

3–8-week-old mice were anesthetized with intraperitoneal injection of Zoletil 50 (tiletamine/zolazepam, 60–70 mg/kg) and Rompun 2% (xylasine, 18–20 mg/kg) and placed in a stereotaxic apparatus. Metacam (meloxicam, 2 mg/kg, SC injection) and lurocaine + bupivacaine (2 mg/kg both, SC, local) were administered prior incision. Mice were craneotomized, and a volume of 300–400 nl of AAV9.EF1a.DIO.hChR2(H134R).eYFP.WPRE.hGH was stereotaxically injected in the left hemisphere at 0/+0.2 mm AP, 1.4/1.6 mm ML, and 5.4/5.6 mm DV from bregma. Viruses were purchased from the University of Pennsylvania Viral Vector Core (RRID:Addgene#20298; virus titer 1.8 × 1013 vg/ml) and the Canadian Neurophotonics Platform Viral Vector Core Facility (RRID:SCR_016477, virus titer 9 × 1012 GC/ml). After surgery, antisedan (atipamezol, 2.5%) was injected IP and mice were rehydrated with 0.5 ml of NaCl 0.9% and placed under a heating lamp. Mice recovered during 2–4 weeks after injection before anatomical or physiological experiments.

Slice preparation

Request a detailed protocol

Mice were killed by cervical dislocation and the OB rapidly removed in ice-cold oxygenated (95% O2–5% CO2) cutting solution containing (in mM) 83 NaCl, 26.2 NaHCO3, 1 NaH2PO4, 2.5 KCl, 3.3 MgSO4, 0.5 CaCl2, 70 sucrose, and 22 D-glucose (pH 7.3, osmolarity 300 mOsm/l). Horizontal OB slices (300-µm-thick) were cut using a Microm HM 650V vibratome (Microm, Germany) in the same solution, incubated for 30–40 min at 34°C, stored at room temperature (RT) in a regular ACSF until use. ACSF contained (in mM) 125 NaCl, 25 NaHCO3, 2.5 KCl, 1.25 NaH2PO4, 1 MgCl2, 2 CaCl2, and 25 D-glucose and was continuously bubbled with 95% O2–5% CO2.

Electrophysiological recordings

Request a detailed protocol

Slices were transferred to a recording chamber and perfused with ACSF at 32–34°C under an upright microscope (SliceScope, Scientifica, Uckfield, UK) with differential interference contrast (DIC) and fluorescence optics. Spontaneous action potential firing activity was monitored using LCA recording (15–100 MΩ seal resistance). LCA recordings were made in the voltage-clamp mode of the amplifier (multiclamp 700B, Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, CA) with no current injected through the pipette. In these conditions, large and fast membrane potential changes such as action potentials are detected as capacitive currents flowing across the patch capacitance (Barbour and Isope, 2000). A regular patch pipette filled with ACSF was used on several successively recorded cells. WC PG cell recordings were made with glass pipettes (4–7 MΩ) filled with a regular K-gluconate-based internal solution containing (in mM) 135 K-gluconate, 2 MgCl2, 0.025 CaCl2, 1 EGTA, 4 Na-ATP, 0.5 Na-GTP, and 10 HEPES (pH 7.3, 280 mOsm, 15 mV junction potential). The intracellular solution used to record the muscarinic EPSC was adapted from Lawrence et al., 2006 and contained (in mM) 110 K-gluconate, 4 MgCl2, 0.1 EGTA, 4 Na2-ATP, 0.5 Na2-GTP, 10 HEPES, and 10 phosphocreatine (pH 7.3, 250 mOsm/l, 15 mV junction potential). WC voltage-clamp recording from mitral and tufted cells was made with an internal solution containing (in mM) 120 Cs-MeSO3, 20 tetraethylammonium-Cl, 5 4-aminopyridine, 2 MgCl2, 0.025 CaCl2, 1 EGTA, 4 Na-ATP, 0.5 Na-GTP, and 10 HEPES (pH 7.3, 280 Osm/l, 10 mV junction potential). Atto 594 (10 µM, Sigma) was systematically added to the internal solution in order to visualize the cell morphology during the recording. Optical stimulation of the BF axons was done using a blue LED (490 nm, pE 100, CoolLED Ltd., Andover, UK) directed through the ×40 objective of the microscope at 50–100% of its maximum power (5 mW at the objective output) and driven by the AxoGraph X acquisition software (AxoGraph Scientific). ONs projecting inside a given glomerulus were electrically stimulated using a theta pipette filled with ACSF. The electrical stimulus (100 µs) was delivered using a Digitimer DS3 (Digitimer, Welwyn Garden City, UK). Recordings were low-pass-filtered at 2–4 kHz and digitized at 20 kHz using the AxoGraph X software. In WC voltage-clamp recordings, access resistance was not compensated. Voltages indicated in the article were corrected for the junction potential.

Cell selection

Request a detailed protocol

PG cells were selected based on the small size of their cell body and their position within the first rings of cells surrounding the glomerulus. Although they have a larger cell body, it cannot be excluded that TH-expressing cells or eTCs have been erroneously included in the LCA recording dataset. However, these cells usually have remarkable spontaneous activity patterns (eTCs are rhythmically bursting, TH+ cells have a highly regular rhythmic discharge) and cells with this kind of activity constituted a minority of the dataset. eTC, superficial or middle tufted cells (collectively called s/mTC), and mitral cells were identified based on the localization of their soma and the presence or not of lateral dendrites in the external plexiform layer, as seen during WC recording by visual inspection of the dye-filled cell morphology. In addition, some cells were filled with biocytin for post-hoc anatomical reconstruction. Thus, eTCs were selected based on their large pear-shaped soma within the glomerular layer, a short and thick apical dendrite extensively ramifying into a single glomerulus and the lack of lateral dendrites. In addition, they often, but not always, spontaneously fired short bursts of action potentials in the cell-attached configuration even in the presence of NBQX, D-AP5, and mecamylamine. Superficial tufted cells were found at the border between the glomerular layer and the external plexiform layer. Compared to eTC, their soma was located further from the glomerulus into which they projected, and they had long lateral dendrites extending into the external plexiform layer. Middle tufted cells and mitral cells had large cell bodies located in the external plexiform layer and the mitral cell layer, respectively, a thick apical dendrite projecting into a single glomerulus and long lateral dendrites in the external plexiform layer.

Morphological reconstruction

Request a detailed protocol

Neurobiotin or biocytin (Vector Laboratories Inc, Burlingame, CA) was added to the intracellular solution (1 mg/ml). The patch pipette was slowly retracted after the recording to avoid damaging the cell body. The slice was then fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) overnight, washed three times in PBS, and incubated in a permeabilizing solution containing Alexa Fluor 555-conjugated streptavidin (1 µg/ml; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) overnight. After three rinses with PBS, sections were mounted in Vectashield Hardset with DAPI (Vector Laboratories, Inc). Labeled cells were imaged with a confocal microscope (Leica TCS SP5 II).

Immunohistochemistry

Request a detailed protocol

ChAT mice expressing ChR2-eYFP in BF neurons were deeply anesthetized with zolazepam tiletamine/xylasine and transcardially perfused with PBS at RT followed by 4% PFA (4°C). Brains were removed, postfixed 3–6 hr in 4% PFA at 4°C, rinsed in PBS, and incubated in PBS until cut on a vibratome (VT 1000S, Leica). 50-µm-thick coronal sections were collected and stored in PBS. For ChAT staining, sections were incubated overnight at 4°C with a goat anti-ChAT (1:1000; Millipore, Cat# AB144P, RRID:AB_2079751) in Tris-Triton buffer containing 2% donkey serum and 0.2% Triton X100. After three washes in Tris-Triton, sections were incubated for 1 hr at RT with Alexa Fluor 647-conjugated donkey anti-goat (1:500; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Cat# A-21447, RRID:AB_2535864). After three washes, sections were mounted in Prolong Diamond Antifade Mountant (Thermo Fisher) or Vectashield Hardset with DAPI. Images were taken using a Leica TCS SP5 II confocal microscope or a Zeiss Axio Imager M2 for mosaic images. Immunostained and EYFP-expressing cells were manually counted using the cell counter plug-in on Fiji software.

Fluorescence in situ hybridization

Request a detailed protocol

FISH, combined with immunohistochemistry, was done using the RNAscope Multiplex Fluorescent Reagent Kit v2 (Advanced Cell Diagnostics Cat# 323100) according to the manufacturer’s protocols. Briefly, whole brains from 6-week-old transcardially perfused mice (n = 3, male and female wild-type littermates from the dlx5/6Cre colony) were extracted and immediately placed in 4% PFA, post-fixed 6 hr in 4% PFA at 4°C, and cryoprotected with successive incubations in 10, 20, and 30% sucrose solution. OBs were then embedded in Tissue-Tek OCT, frozen on dry ice, and stored at –80°C until sliced with a cryostat (Leica CM3050 S) into 10–15 µm coronal sections, adhered to SuperFrost Plus slides (VWR), and immediately refrozen at –80°C.

Unless otherwise stated, the probe and all reagents were provided in the RNAscope Multiplex Fluorescent Reagent Kit v2. On day 1, samples were washed in PBS to remove OCT, incubated 30 min at 60°C, post-fixed in 4% PFA for 15 min at 4°C, and dehydrated with 50 (x1), 70 (x1), and 100% (x2) ethanol washes for 5 min. Slides were air-dried and a barrier drawn around the tissue section with an Immedge hydrophobic barrier pen (Vector Laboratories Inc). Endogenous peroxidase activity was blocked using hydrogen peroxide for 10 min at RT. Sections then underwent antigen retrieval by submersion into boiling (~98–102°C) co-detection target retrieval solution for 5 min and were rinsed in distilled water (five times) and then in PBS-tween (PBS-T, 1 time). Sections were incubated overnight at 4°C with primary antibodies (rabbit anti-CR, 1:1000; Swant Cat# 7697, RRID:AB_2721226, or rabbit anti-TH, 1:500, Millipore, Cat# AB152, RRID:AB_390204) diluted in the co-detection antibody diluent provided by the manufacturer.

On day 2, slices were washed in PBS-T three times for 2 min, post-fixed in PFA 4% for 30 min at RT, washed four times in PBS-T, and treated with protease reagent for 30 min at 40°C. After rinsing twice in distilled water, sections were incubated with the RNAscope probe for Chrm1 (RNAscope Probe- Mm-Chrm1, target region 851-1994; Cat# 495291-C1) for 2 hr at 40°C for the hybridization step. Sections were then washed twice in wash buffer at RT, then incubated in Multiplex v2 AMP 1 (40°C for 30 min), AMP 2 (40°C for 30 min), and AMP3 (40 °C for 15 min) for the amplification steps. After rinsing twice in wash buffer, sections were incubated in HRP-C1 for 15 min at 40°C, washed twice in wash buffer, and incubated 30 min at 40°C with the Opal 570 fluorophore (Akoya Biosciences, Cat# FP1488001KT) to mark Chrm1. Sections were washed and subsequently incubated in HRP blocker for 15 min at 40°C. The sections were then further incubated in a secondary antibody (Alexa Fluor 488 goat anti-rabbit; 1:500; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Cat# A-11008, RRID:AB_143165) diluted in co-detection antibody diluent for 45 min at RT to visualize CR or TH. The slides were then washed in PBS-T, incubated with DAPI for 30 s at RT, and covered with ProLong gold antifade mounting medium (Thermo Fisher Scientific, RRID:SCR_015961).

Confocal images were acquired using a Leica TCS SP5 II confocal microscope through a ×20 air objective and a ×63 oil-immersion objective. Images were analyzed using the Fiji software. Hybridization signal was converted into a binary mask by setting a single threshold. Hybridization dots were counted using the analyze particle function on Fiji software, and DAPI-stained cells were manually counted using the cell counter plug-in. Normalized fluorescence intensity profiles were estimated within a 650 × 50 µm area spanning from the nerve layer to the granule cell layer and centered on the mitral cell layer.

Drugs

Chemicals used to prepare cutting, recording, and internal solutions were acquired from MilliporeSigma, Carl Roth, and Fisher Scientific. NBQX, D-AP5, 2-(3-carboxypropyl)-3-amino-6-(4 methoxyphenyl)pyridazinium bromide (gabazine), mecamylamine hydrochloride, and atropine were purchased from Abcam Biochemicals. Scopolamine hydrobromide, pirenzepine, and XE-991 were purchased from Tocris Bioscience.

Electrophysiological analysis

Request a detailed protocol

Action potential capacitive currents were automatically detected by the AxoGraph X software using an amplitude threshold. The timing of each spike was used to construct peri stimulus time histograms (PSTHs) representing the total number of action potentials per time period (bin of 20 ms for 2-s-long episodes, of 200 ms for 15 s or longer episodes) across several consecutive sweeps (>30 for 2-s-long episodes, >10 for 15-s-long episodes). For cell classification, a post-stimulus spiking inhibition was a statistically significant (paired t-test or paired Wilcoxon signed-rank-sum test) decrease in spike rate within a 100-ms or 200-ms-long time period immediately after the flash compared to the same period preceding the flash across at least 30 consecutive trials. The duration of spiking inhibition was calculated as the average duration between the flash and the first spike fired after the flash. A muscarinic excitation was a statistically significant increase in spike probability within a 1 s period starting 1 s after the flash compared to the 1 s period immediately preceding the flash across at least 10 consecutive trials.

Photo-evoked IPSC amplitudes were measured as the peak of an average response computed from multiple sweeps. The decay of photo-evoked IPSCs was most often best fitted with a double exponential with time t = 0 at the peak of the current. Time constant values indicated in the text are weighted decay time constants calculated using the following equation: τw = (τ1A1 + τ2A2)/(A1 + A2), where τ1 and τ2 are the fast and slow decay time constants, and A1 and A2 are the equivalent amplitude weighting factors.

EPSCs and IPSCs were automatically detected by the AxoGraph X software using a sliding template function. The onset of ON-evoked EPSCs was measured at 5% of the first peak of the response. The latency of an ON-evoked EPSC was defined as the time interval between the beginning of the stimulation artifact and the onset of the first EPSC. To estimate the duration of an ON-evoked plurisynaptic excitatory response, PSTHs representing the cumulative number of EPSCs per 20 ms bin across several consecutive sweeps were constructed. The time needed after stimulation for the EPSC frequency to come back to baseline frequency +2 SD during at least five consecutive bins was then determined. Baseline frequency was calculated over the 25 bins (i.e., 500 ms) preceding the stimulation.

Data are presented as mean ± SD in the text and as mean ± SEM in the graphs for display purpose. Data points from experiments were tested for normality using a Shapiro–Wilk test. Experiments with a normal distribution were tested for statistical significance with a paired Student’s t-test. Experiments with skewed distributions were tested for statistical significance using a paired Wilcoxon signed-rank-sum test. For experiments comparing data points from different cells, statistical significance was determined using an unpaired t-test (normal distribution) or a Mann–Whitney test (non-normal distribution).

Data availability

All numerical data used to construct graphs in each figure are available on ZENODO, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6259698https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6259698.

The following data sets were generated
    1. De Saint Jan D
    (2022) Zenodo
    Target-specific control of olfactory bulb periglomerular cells by GABAergic and cholinergic basal forebrain inputs.
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6259698

References

    1. Cooper EC
    2. Harrington E
    3. Jan YN
    4. Jan LY
    (2001)
    M channel KCNQ2 subunits are localized to key sites for control of neuronal network oscillations and synchronization in mouse brain
    The Journal of Neuroscience 21:9529–9540.

Decision letter

  1. Jun Ding
    Reviewing Editor; Stanford University, United States
  2. John R Huguenard
    Senior Editor; Stanford University School of Medicine, United States

Our editorial process produces two outputs: i) public reviews designed to be posted alongside the preprint for the benefit of readers; ii) feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions, shown below. We also include an acceptance summary that explains what the editors found interesting or important about the work.

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "Target-specific control of olfactory bulb periglomerular cells by GABAergic and cholinergic basal forebrain inputs" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors, and the evaluation has been overseen by John Huguenard as the Senior Editor. The reviewers have opted to remain anonymous.

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

All three reviewers agree that the manuscript presented interesting findings on how GABAergic and cholinergic signals impact the input layer of the primary olfactory area of the mouse brain and reports that the effect depends on the cell type. The reviewers appreciate the precise analysis using brain slices and do not have major concerns regarding technical issues. However, the reviewers feel strongly that essential revisions are needed to strengthen the conclusions and to make the paper more accessible to a wide audience.

Essential revisions:

1. The author suggests a classification of type 2 PGs into 3 further subtypes (2.x) based on their expression of CR (2.1), Kv3.1 (2.2) and cholinergic response (2.3). However, it is unclear whether these really reflect a separate cell class. The reviewers suggest that adding further evidence substantiating this claim would be important to avoid creating a potentially unnecessary and confusing nomenclature.

2. A better characterization of the BF neurons stimulated in the experiments with Dlx5/6-cre and Chat-cre mice. Reviewer #2 noted that some technical details regarding mice are missing, and that higher resolution images would, at minimum, be needed. All reviewers suggested a better characterization of transduced neurons: What fraction of Chat neurons are captured in dlx5/6 mice (e.g. assessed by IHC)? Do the Chat-negative neurons labeled in Chat-Cre mice project to OB (perhaps assessed with retrobeads from OB)? Also Dlx5/6-cre mice likely label many GABAergic neurons in the forebrain: Do the author manage to label only cells within the HDB? If not, where else may the GABAergic inputs come from and is it fair to unambiguously refer to them as BF inputs?

3. Reviewer#2 suggested that the "inhibition" of sTC and eTC by cholinergic stimulation be measured in a decrease in firing rate, as opposed to an increase in sIPCS frequency. It is presently unclear that the observed sIPSC effect comes from these cells. While a demonstration of this is likely beyond the scope of this study , showing that M1 receptors are selectively expressed in PG 2,3 cells (see point 1 above, see comments by reviewer #1) or that this effect is also dependent on M-channels would help bridge that gap.

4. Additional clarity on impact and a larger picture. Multiple things can/should be done in this regard:

a. This paper follows another from the same group (Sanz Diez et al. 2019) that already looked at the postsynaptic effects of BF afferents onto OB cells using optogenetics in dlx5/6-cre mice. That paper focused mainly on GABAergic inputs, and reported dense innervation of all layers of the OB and potent GABAergic responses in granule cells, short axon cells and subpopulations of type 2 PG cells (but not type 1s). Reviewers feel that an analysis performed by the same group that ought to be repeated here to compare their new classification scheme with their previous one.

b. This paper builds onto this 2019 paper, but focuses exclusively onto PG cells for both GABA and ACh responses. What motivates this focus is not presently clear, as several classes of OB neurons express nicotinic and muscarinic receptors (Castillo et al. 1999, Liu et al. 2015, Smith et al. 2015, Brunert and Rothermel 2021). A better justification for their exclusive focus on PG cells is warranted, together with some illustration that helps understand how cholinergic excitation and GABAergic inhibition of PG cells might affect OB output.

c. Related to this, the focus of the paper remains vague: is it to define multiple subclasses of type 2 PG cells, in which case the functional GABAergic and cholinergic responses help substantiate the claim that these cells ought to be broken down into 3 subtypes? Or is the focus on the impact of BF inputs to OB function, in which case the focus on type 2 PG cells should be clarified (as well as the identity of the BF cells transduced with ChR2; see point 2)? Can we assume that ACh does not directly influence other cells? And what about the relative contribution of GABAergic signaling onto PG cells vs other interneurons and principal cells?

d. The utility of figure 1 is still unclear. All it does is to confuse the reader as to the potential existence of complex, co-transmission mechanisms, when in fact it derives from describing dlx5/6-cre mice as a specific driver of GABAergic neurons, which it isn't. Dlx5/6 labels neurons that originate in the embryonic ganglionic eminences during development, which includes GABAergic interneurons as well as cholinergic neurons in the forebrain. If one were interested in understanding how ACh modulates OB circuits, as the introduction suggests, one would not use dlx5/6-cre mice to start. Because the subsequent figures use more specific Cre lines, therefore, Figure 1 here may confuse readers who are not aware of the caveats associated with the Dlx5/6cre mice.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

– The paper would be strengthened by converging approaches that add to the data presented. Specifically, M1 AChRs appear to be a molecular identifier of type 2.3 PG neurons. It would be interesting to perform in situ hybridization for M1 AChR to examine the distribution in the olfactory bulb to determine what extent it serves as a marker for this functionally identified class of neurons.

– A novel finding of this paper is that a subset of BF neurons that release only ACh make direct connections with PG 2.3 neurons in the olfactory bulb. However, there is still a substantial population of neurons that co-release both ACh and GABA. In order to more fully appreciate the relative size of the population that releases ACh only, it would be helpful if the author could perform quantification of ChAT+ neurons in the BF that are not labeled by Dlx5/6. This could be achieved by performing ChAT immunohistochemistry in a Dlx5/6 cre mouse that was injected with a cre-dependent virus to estimate the relative size of the co-releasing and non-co-releasing populations.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Has the author tested the specificity of conditional expression using the AAV? The cre-dependence of conditional expression depends on the production method and the virus titre (Fisher et al. 2019, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1915974116). If this is available, please describe this in a supplementary figure. If not, at the least, please include the titre information.

Please include more information in the methods about the Cre lines used (stock number, original reference etc).

It would be beneficial if the author could provide high resolution versions of the images used in Figure 1B and Figure 4C in the supplement, to be able to see the labelled structures better.

Figure 1C – if I understand correctly, the "excitation" in the pie chart is sometimes very brief type (as in Figure 1E), and sometimes the longer-lasting type, of the type analysed in Figure 3. It would be better if these could be labelled more precisely.

In general, the definition of cell types is ambiguous and not consistent with the definitions described elsewhere. For example, in Sanz Diez et al., the author used the response latency from the time of ON stimulation as a way to distinguish type 1 vs. type 2 PG cells. Please include analyses that allow comparisons with previous work(s). Similarly, a summary (e.g., a table) that describes the distinguishing properties of the PG cell types (types 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3) would help.

Figure 7 – The effect on sTC and eTCs is an increase in iPSCs in voltage clamp, which is clearly shown. The term "inhibition", however, suggests a cessation of the action potential generation, which is not shown. As the net effect on the overall firing rates would likely depend on many factors, here, it is better to simply call it an increase in inhibitory synaptic inputs or similar.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

– The presentation of the findings could be made stronger by providing a diagram of the OB and its component cells types and microcircuits. This would help non-experts understand which cell types are recorded from and how they fit into the shaping of odor responses in the OB. While the many subtypes of neurons populating the OB, their anatomical connections and functional roles remain incompletely understood, one issue with the current presentation of the findings is that we lose track of the forest for the trees. It is difficult to shake the feeling that we keep slicing smaller and smaller parts of a circuit that is not familiar to many, obscuring the significance of the findings. A better description of the roles that PG cells play in olfaction, especially vis-à-vis other interneurons and principal neurons, supplemented with a clear diagram, is necessary to help emphasize the importance of this work.

– The paper opens with a striking observation: stimulation of BF afferents evokes a range of excitatory and inhibitory responses in PG cells. However, as the paper unfolds and more specific methods targeting BF GABAergic and cholinergic neurons are leveraged, it becomes clear that the inhibitory and excitatory components originate in separate populations of afferents. The striking observation of Figure 1 is therefore nothing more than the result of non-selective axonal stimulation. Is starting with a confusing picture necessary, especially when more specific methods yielding more classical findings are utilized in later figures? Are there reasons to believe that BF GABAergic and cholinergic neurons are co-active in vivo?

– The molecular and synaptic basis for the segregation of GABAergic and cholinergic responses onto different subtypes of PG cells is not investigated. The author interprets this finding as resulting from differences in presynaptic innervation/specialization (e.g. lines 460, or 586-588). While probable, what evidence supports this possibility over others? Can we exclude postsynaptic components, such as differential postsynaptic clustering of GABA receptors, or expression of M1 receptors and/or M-channels? Can volume transmission can be excluded as a mode of release based on the data at hand?

– Figure 9 provides evidence that GABA exerts a direct excitatory influence on some PG cells, possibly because their chloride reversal potential is elevated. The author should provide more evidence to substantiate this claim. For instance, does puffing GABA evoke a train of action potentials?

– Line 149: the author describes that AMPA, NMDA and nicotinic ACh receptor blockers prevent excitation of any interneurons. This is not true if one consideres some muscarinic receptors, and indeed this study goes on to show a striking example of this.

– Line 169: remove 'always', since the rest of the sentence describes exceptions.

– Line 208-210: 89% of ChR2+ neurons in the BF of ChAT-Cre mice are cholinergic, leaving 11% of non-specifically labeled cells. Can the author provide any indication as to which other cells are labeled and whether they also project to OB, potentially contributing to postsynaptic responses?

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71965.sa1

Author response

Essential revisions:

1. The author suggests a classification of type 2 PGs into 3 further subtypes (2.x) based on their expression of CR (2.1), Kv3.1 (2.2) and cholinergic response (2.3). However, it is unclear whether these really reflect a separate cell class. The reviewers suggest that adding further evidence substantiating this claim would be important to avoid creating a potentially unnecessary and confusing nomenclature.

There are multiple ways to define neuronal cell classes (synaptic connections, electrophysiological properties, morphology, gene, or protein expression). Previous immunohistochemical investigations have already suggested that there are at least four classes of PG cells (Panzanelli et al., 2007; Parrish-Aungst et al., 2007). However, this classification has never been corroborated by distinctive functional properties and PG cell diversity is still most often overlooked.

In our last report, we proposed a classification with three subclasses of functionally distinct type 2 PG cells (Sanz Diez et al., 2019). We showed that a subclass of type 2 PG cells with prolonged ON-evoked responses that differ from those of previously described CR and Kv3.1-expressing PG cells also has a distinctive remarkably slow BF GABAergic IPSC. The present study further confirms that type 2.3 PG cells constitute a separate subclass by demonstrating its selective muscarinic input.

As requested by reviewer 1, I did additional experiments to determine whether the M1 mAChR is a molecular marker of this new subclass. The results suggest that this is not the case. M1 is widely expressed in the olfactory bulb in multiple cell types. This new result, combined with new recordings in granule cells, i.e. the most abundant OB interneurons, is nonetheless interesting as it suggests that despite the high expression level of M1 in multiple cell types, the synaptic pathway leading to the muscarinic activation of type 2.3 PG cells appears highly specific. The new data are presented in a new figure supplement (Figure 6 —figure supplement 1) and a new paragraph in the result section (page 14).

2. A better characterization of the BF neurons stimulated in the experiments with Dlx5/6-cre and Chat-cre mice. Reviewer #2 noted that some technical details regarding mice are missing, and that higher resolution images would, at minimum, be needed.

I apologize for this missing information. I have now included higher resolution images of BF fibers in the OB in figure supplements (Figure 2 —figure supplement 1 and Figure 3 —figure supplement 1). Each virus titre is now indicated (lines 732-735) and details on the Cre lines used (line 723-725) are provided in the methods.

All reviewers suggested a better characterization of transduced neurons: What fraction of Chat neurons are captured in dlx5/6 mice (e.g. assessed by IHC)?

We already characterized neurons labeled in BF-injected dlx5/6 mice using IHC (Sanz Diez et al., 2019). We reported that about 1/3 of the ChAT+ neurons were labeled. However, this quantification may not only reflect infection specificity but may also depend on infection rate and virus spread. If the question is on the nature of the ChAT+ neurons that were infected (those co-releasing ACh and GABA vs. those only releasing ACh), as reviewer 1 suggested, then IHC experiments do not respond to it. Our recordings indeed demonstrate that both types of cholinergic neurons are captured in BF-injected dlx5/6 mice. In addition to the exclusive cholinergic responses reported in the present manuscript, we also reported in Sanz Diez et al., (2019) mixed GABA/ACh responses in a subset of dSA cells recorded in the OB of BF-injected dlx5/6 mice (see an example in the response to reviewer 2). These responses are similar as those reported in Case et al., (2017) who demonstrated that they are mediated by a specific subpopulation of cholinergic neurons co-releasing ACh and GABA.

Do the Chat-negative neurons labeled in Chat-Cre mice project to OB (perhaps assessed with retrobeads from OB)?

As pointed out by reviewer 3, only 11% of the neurons labeled in ChAT mice were not co-labeled with ChAT in my IHC experiments suggesting a possible non-specific infection. In the other hand, the only type of response observed in my LCA recordings from >350 cells was the muscarinic excitation of type 2.3 PG cells. In addition, I recorded 54 PG cells in the whole-cell mode and only one of these cells responded with a possibly non-specific GABAergic response. This rare possibly unspecific response may have been mediated by a CB-, CR-, PV- or SOM-expressing BF GABAergic neuron. They all project to the OB, as revealed by our unpublished retrograde labeling experiments. However, this point is clearly not central to my study. Therefore, I have not done any additional experiments to determine the nature of these non-specifically labeled cells, which contribute little to the postsynaptic electrophysiological responses examined in this study.

Also, Dlx5/6-cre mice likely label many GABAergic neurons in the forebrain: Do the author manage to label only cells within the HDB? If not, where else may the GABAergic inputs come from and is it fair to unambiguously refer to them as BF inputs?

This is a fair concern, as it is likely that the virus infected a larger area than just the HDB/MCPO. Virus spread was not verified in injected mice from which the OB was extracted for electrophysiological experiments. However, our own retrograde tracing experiments (unpublished) together with those of Hanson et al. (2020), indicate that the other brain areas containing OB-projecting GABAergic neurons (i.e. the medial and lateral anterior olfactory nuclei, the lateral septum, the ventral subiculum) are all located quite far from our injection site in the BF making it unlikely that they contribute to the responses described in this study.

3. Reviewer#2 suggested that the "inhibition" of sTC and eTC by cholinergic stimulation be measured in a decrease in firing rate, as opposed to an increase in sIPCS frequency. It is presently unclear that the observed sIPSC effect comes from these cells. While a demonstration of this is likely beyond the scope of this study , showing that M1 receptors are selectively expressed in PG 2,3 cells (see point 1 above, see comments by reviewer #1) or that this effect is also dependent on M-channels would help bridge that gap.

I agree that the real impact of this new muscarinic pathway should be measured on the discharge of output neurons, which means not only on their firing rate but also on the synchrony of their discharge. This is a lot of work, beyond the scope of this study. As requested by reviewer 2, I replaced the term “inhibition” which implies a measure of firing activity in principal neurons with “IPSCs frequency” i.e. what was actually measured in my experiments. However, I do not agree that it is presently unclear that the increase in IPSCs frequency comes from type 2.3 PG cells. I indeed showed in Figure 7 and reported (page 17 lines 441-445) that “this response was blocked (n=8) or reduced (n=3) when the experiment was repeated in the presence of 2 µM pirenzepine (Figure 7C and 7E). Pirenzepine had little effect in 4/15 cells. A single photostimulation also transiently increased IPSC frequency in eTC (n=9) and s/mTC (n=8)(Figure 7B and 7D). Addition of pirenzepine attenuated this response in 10/11 cells.” This dependence on pirenzepine-sensitive M1 receptors together with the time course of the increase of IPSCs strongly support the idea that type 2.3 PG cells mediate the photo-evoked IPSCs in principal neurons.

4. Additional clarity on impact and a larger picture. Multiple things can/should be done in this regard:

a. This paper follows another from the same group (Sanz Diez et al. 2019) that already looked at the postsynaptic effects of BF afferents onto OB cells using optogenetics in dlx5/6-cre mice. That paper focused mainly on GABAergic inputs, and reported dense innervation of all layers of the OB and potent GABAergic responses in granule cells, short axon cells and subpopulations of type 2 PG cells (but not type 1s). Reviewers feel that an analysis performed by the same group that ought to be repeated here to compare their new classification scheme with their previous one.

b. This paper builds onto this 2019 paper, but focuses exclusively onto PG cells for both GABA and ACh responses. What motivates this focus is not presently clear, as several classes of OB neurons express nicotinic and muscarinic receptors (Castillo et al. 1999, Liu et al. 2015, Smith et al. 2015, Brunert and Rothermel 2021). A better justification for their exclusive focus on PG cells is warranted, together with some illustration that helps understand how cholinergic excitation and GABAergic inhibition of PG cells might affect OB output.

c. Related to this, the focus of the paper remains vague: is it to define multiple subclasses of type 2 PG cells, in which case the functional GABAergic and cholinergic responses help substantiate the claim that these cells ought to be broken down into 3 subtypes? Or is the focus on the impact of BF inputs to OB function, in which case the focus on type 2 PG cells should be clarified (as well as the identity of the BF cells transduced with ChR2; see point 2)? Can we assume that ACh does not directly influence other cells? And what about the relative contribution of GABAergic signaling onto PG cells vs other interneurons and principal cells?

I thank the reviewing editor for these suggestions for improving the clarity and impact of my paper. In response to the many points raised in a- c, a new paragraph (page 3, lines 73-104, pasted below) and a new figure (Figure 1) have been added in the introduction. New Figure 1 includes a diagram of the OB glomerular microcircuits and a table that summarizes the properties of the different PG cell subtypes. The new paragraph clarifies the focus on PG cells (recent papers examined the BF connections on granule cells and the influences of this pathway on the OB circuits) and explains better their functions. It also introduces the new nomenclature proposed for the first time in this paper. I believe this addition disambiguates the definition of cell types and will help the reader contextualize the results:

In such complex context, an important step towards understanding the influence and function of the BF inputs in the OB is to investigate the connections, temporal dynamics and functional impact of each BF pathway. […] Their output connections have not been determined.”

Concerning ACh influence on other cell types, new recordings in granule cells (mentioned page 14, lines 369-371) demonstrate that these abundant OB interneurons do not respond to the same stimulations that drive the muscarinic excitation of type 2.3 PG cells. These results further justify the focus on the muscarinic synaptic responses of type 2.3 PG cells, which is an unusual example of target-specific muscarinic transmission. This muscarinic pathway provides support for phasic, spatially restricted cholinergic transmission as opposed to spatially diffuse volume transmission. Yet, experiments are currently in progress in the lab using stronger pulse trains of light to determine whether volume transmission of ACh activates receptors in other cell types. However, these types of responses caused by diffusion of ACh ought to be less specific in terms of targets than synaptic transmission.

d. The utility of figure 1 is still unclear. All it does is to confuse the reader as to the potential existence of complex, co-transmission mechanisms, when in fact it derives from describing dlx5/6-cre mice as a specific driver of GABAergic neurons, which it isn't. Dlx5/6 labels neurons that originate in the embryonic ganglionic eminences during development, which includes GABAergic interneurons as well as cholinergic neurons in the forebrain. If one were interested in understanding how ACh modulates OB circuits, as the introduction suggests, one would not use dlx5/6-cre mice to start. Because the subsequent figures use more specific Cre lines, therefore, Figure 1 here may confuse readers who are not aware of the caveats associated with the Dlx5/6cre mice.

I recognize that starting with a figure summarizing the results obtained in dlx5/6 mice was an error. The new version of the manuscript directly starts with the description of muscarinic responses in ChAT-cre mice. Experiments in dlx5/6 mice come next and the specificity of this line which labels both GABA and ACh neurons is now clearly indicated (page 6-7, line 201). Previous figure 1, which shows the different types of response in dlx5/6-cre and their occurrence, is now shown in a modified version in Figure 3 —figure supplement 2.

Of note, viral injection in the BF of GAD2-cre (Bohm et al., 2020; Villar et al., 2021) or vGAT-cre mice (Hanson et al., 2020) produces the same axonal projection patterns in the OB as in dlx5/6-cre mice. Moreover, in these two models a significant fraction of the neurons labeled in the BF are ChAT-expressing neurons (up to 16% in GAD2-cre mice in Villar et al. (2021)). Co-labeling of cholinergic and GABAergic neurons is therefore not a specific caveat of the dlx5/6-Cre line.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

– The paper would be strengthened by converging approaches that add to the data presented. Specifically, M1 AChRs appear to be a molecular identifier of type 2.3 PG neurons. It would be interesting to perform in situ hybridization for M1 AChR to examine the distribution in the olfactory bulb to determine what extent it serves as a marker for this functionally identified class of neurons.

We have in the past characterized two functionally distinct classes of type 2 PG cells, CR-expressing cells (i.e. type 2.1, Benito et al., 2018) and Kv3.1-expressing cells (i.e. type 2.2, Najac et al., 2015). In our last report (Sanz Diez et al., 2019), we proposed the existence of a third class of type 2 PG cell (type 2.3) that has unique synaptic properties (prolonged ON-evoked response and prolonged BF IPSC) compared to the two previously described classes. The present study adds additional evidence that type 2.3 PG cells constitute a new subclass of PG cells by demonstrating its selective muscarinic input.

As requested by the reviewer, I have done new experiments to examine whether the M1 mAChR is a molecular marker for type 2.3 PG cells. I first tried to detect the expression of M1 mAChRs using an antibody from the Frontier Institute (Japan) that has been successfully used in the past (Yamasaki et al. JNeurosci 2010; Martinello et al., Neuron 2015). Unfortunately, I have not been able to label anything with this antibody (new batches of M1 antibody apparently do not work as well as older batches. Personal communication from the colleague who obtained the results in the Neuron 2015 paper). Then, I examined the distribution of an mRNA transcript of Chrm1, the gene encoding M1 mAChRs, using RNAscope fluorescence in situ hybridization. The results indicate that Chrm1 mRNA signals are widely expressed across all layers of the OB. The signal was particularly strong in granule cells. Thus, I did new LCA recordings in these interneurons indicating that they do not respond to the same photostimulation of the cholinergic afferents as those used to activate type 2.3 PG cells. I also combined FISH with immunohistochemistry to examine more closely the distribution of M1 in the glomerular layer. The results indicate that M1 receptors are non-selectively expressed by multiple cell types, including calretinin (CR) and tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) expressing cells. Thus, M1 is not a selective molecular marker of type 2.3 PG cells.

I have hesitated to include these new results in the paper because I am afraid that the first thing that comes to mind is that the labeling is unspecific. However, the data are consistent with a radiographic binding study (Le Jeune et al., 1995) but also with more recent ISH data in the Allen brain atlas (https://mouse.brain-map.org/experiment/show/73907497) which have been obtained with a different probe than the one provided for the RNAscope assay. Widespread expression of M1 in the OB is also confirmed by the immunohistochemical data shown in the human protein atlas (https://www.proteinatlas.org/ENSG00000168539-CHRM1/brain). Finally, preliminary analysis of available transcriptomic datasets also suggest that M1 is expressed by multiple cell types in the OB, including CR-expressing and CB-expressing neurons (Marcela Lipovsek, personal communication). Overall, these new data are therefore potentially interesting because they suggest that despite a widespread expression of M1 in the OB, only those on type 2.3 PG cells are activated by transient synaptic release of ACh. Thus, I have decided to include these data in a new figure supplement (Figure 6, figure supplement 1). They are described in the result section page 14.

– A novel finding of this paper is that a subset of BF neurons that release only ACh make direct connections with PG 2.3 neurons in the olfactory bulb. However, there is still a substantial population of neurons that co-release both ACh and GABA. In order to more fully appreciate the relative size of the population that releases ACh only, it would be helpful if the author could perform quantification of ChAT+ neurons in the BF that are not labeled by Dlx5/6. This could be achieved by performing ChAT immunohistochemistry in a Dlx5/6 cre mouse that was injected with a cre-dependent virus to estimate the relative size of the co-releasing and non-co-releasing populations.

If I understand well the reviewer, he/she suggests that a possible reason why dual GABA/ACh responses were not detected in my study may be that cholinergic neurons that co-release both transmitters are, for some reasons, not infected in the dlx5/6 mice. However, this is not the case. In our previous report (Sanz Diez et al., 2019), we estimated using immunohistochemistry that about 1/3 of the ChAT-expressing neurons were labeled in dlx5/6 mice that were injected with the same cre-dependent virus as the one used in the present study. We also reported that “in 3 of the 11 deep short axon cells tested, the response had two components that reversed at different potentials. At Vh = −70 mV, the response was biphasic with an outward component that was blocked by the GABAA receptor antagonist gabazine (GBZ, 5 μM), and an inward component that persisted in the presence of GBZ but was inhibited by the nicotinic receptor antagonist mecamylamine (20 μM)(not shown). These dual responses are similar to those mediated by basal forebrain neurons that release both GABA and acetylcholine onto a specific subtype of dSA cells (Case et al. 2017) and were therefore not further studied.” One example of these dual ACh/GABA response is shown in Author response image 1. These responses demonstrate that cholinergic neurons that co-release GABA and ACh are also labeled in the dlx5/6 mouse.

Author response image 1
Light-evoked responses in BF-injected clx5/6 mice.

Example of light-evoked responses recorded at two potentials in a dSA cell. At Vh=-20 mV, the response was dominated by an outward IPSC (top trace). At Vh=-70 mV, the outward current is reduced and followed by an outward component (middle). The outward component was totally blocked by GBZ (bottom). The EPSC that persisted in the presence of GBZ is mostly likely mediated by nicotinic receptors (See Case et el, 2017).

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Has the author tested the specificity of conditional expression using the AAV? The cre-dependence of conditional expression depends on the production method and the virus titre (Fisher et al. 2019, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1915974116). If this is available, please describe this in a supplementary figure. If not, at the least, please include the titre information.

Those are fair concerns. The specificity of the AAV-mediated conditional expression in various types of GABAergic neurons as well as in ChAT-expressing neurons in the dlx5/6 mouse was verified in our previous report (Sanz Diez et al., 2019). I found minimal non-specific expression in the ChAT-cre mouse, as reported in the present study (lines 125-130, Figure 2B). Virus titer information are now indicated in the methods (lines 732-735).

Please include more information in the methods about the Cre lines used (stock number, original reference etc).

This information has now been added in the methods (lines 723-725).

It would be beneficial if the author could provide high resolution versions of the images used in Figure 1B and Figure 4C in the supplement, to be able to see the labelled structures better.

Done. A higher resolution image of BF axons distribution in the OB of ChAT mice is now shown in Figure 2—figure supplement 1. A higher resolution image of BF axons distribution in the OB of dlx5/6 mice is shown in Figure 3—figure supplement 1.

Figure 1C – if I understand correctly, the "excitation" in the pie chart is sometimes very brief type (as in Figure 1E), and sometimes the longer-lasting type, of the type analysed in Figure 3. It would be better if these could be labelled more precisely.

Figure 1 has now been deleted. A modified version appears as Figure 3—figure supplement 1. The labels of the pie chart have been modified. The 3 types of response are now called “brief excitation”, “inhibition only” and “mAChR excitation + inhibition”.

In general, the definition of cell types is ambiguous and not consistent with the definitions described elsewhere. For example, in Sanz Diez et al., the author used the response latency from the time of ON stimulation as a way to distinguish type 1 vs. type 2 PG cells. Please include analyses that allow comparisons with previous work(s). Similarly, a summary (e.g., a table) that describes the distinguishing properties of the PG cell types (types 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3) would help.

In this manuscript, I propose for the first time a new nomenclature of the different type 2 PG cell classes (types 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3). However, these different classes of type 2 PG cells were already identified in our previous study (Sanz Diez et al., 2019) and differentiated based on the same functional criteria as those used here. I apologize if this was not clear in the previous version. A new paragraph and a new Figure 1 has been added to the introduction in order to clarify the focus onto PG cells, help the reader contextualize the results, introduce this new nomenclature and disambiguate the definition of cell types. Figure 1 includes a diagram of the OB glomerular microcircuits as well as a table that describes the properties of the different PG cell subtypes. See the quote of this new paragraph in my response to the reviewing editor.

Concerning the classification as type 2 vs. type 1 PG cells, we found in our previous studies (Figure 3B in Najac et al., 2015; Figure 3E in Sanz Diez et al., 2019) that type 2 PG cells respond to the stimulation of the olfactory nerves with a plurisynaptic EPSC with an onset latency >2 ms whereas the monosynaptic response of type 1 PG cells has a shorter onset latency (<2 ms). An estimate of the onset latency of the ON-evoked response is now provided to support their classification as type 2 PG cells and allow comparison with our previous work. For instance, page 13 line 323 it is now indicated that “Evoked responses had an onset latency >2ms (average 3.14 ± 0.66 ms) as typically seen in pluri-synaptic ON-evoked responses of type 2 PG cells (Sanz Diez, Najac, and De Saint Jan 2019; Najac et al. 2015).” See also line 494 for type 2.2 PG cells. A zoom on the early part of the ON-evoked responses is also now shown in Figure 5F and in Figure 8D to illustrate onset latencies >2 ms.

Figure 7 – The effect on sTC and eTCs is an increase in iPSCs in voltage clamp, which is clearly shown. The term "inhibition", however, suggests a cessation of the action potential generation, which is not shown. As the net effect on the overall firing rates would likely depend on many factors, here, it is better to simply call it an increase in inhibitory synaptic inputs or similar.

This is correct. The term “inhibition” has been deleted and I now describe changes in inhibitory currents (IPSCs) frequency.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

– The presentation of the findings could be made stronger by providing a diagram of the OB and its component cells types and microcircuits. This would help non-experts understand which cell types are recorded from and how they fit into the shaping of odor responses in the OB. While the many subtypes of neurons populating the OB, their anatomical connections and functional roles remain incompletely understood, one issue with the current presentation of the findings is that we lose track of the forest for the trees. It is difficult to shake the feeling that we keep slicing smaller and smaller parts of a circuit that is not familiar to many, obscuring the significance of the findings. A better description of the roles that PG cells play in olfaction, especially vis-à-vis other interneurons and principal neurons, supplemented with a clear diagram, is necessary to help emphasize the importance of this work.

As indicated above in my responses to the reviewing editor and reviewer 2, a new paragraph and a new Figure 1 have been added to the introduction. The new figure shows a diagram of the OB glomerular microcircuits and a table that describes the properties of the different PG cell subtypes. I hope this addition clarifies the focus onto PG cells and the current knowledge about their function. I believe this addition will also help the non-expert readers contextualize the results and emphasize their significance. I thank the reviewer for the advices.

– The paper opens with a striking observation: stimulation of BF afferents evokes a range of excitatory and inhibitory responses in PG cells. However, as the paper unfolds and more specific methods targeting BF GABAergic and cholinergic neurons are leveraged, it becomes clear that the inhibitory and excitatory components originate in separate populations of afferents. The striking observation of Figure 1 is therefore nothing more than the result of non-selective axonal stimulation. Is starting with a confusing picture necessary, especially when more specific methods yielding more classical findings are utilized in later figures? Are there reasons to believe that BF GABAergic and cholinergic neurons are co-active in vivo?

I thank the reviewer for raising this problem with figure 1 that unnecessarily complicated the reading of the paper. Figure 1 has now been replaced and the Results section directly starts with the description of the target-specific muscarinic responses in ChAT-cre mice.

It is true that there is no reason to believe that the GABA and ACh separate inputs onto type 2.3 PG cells are co-active in vivo. It turns out that the inhibitory action on spiking of the GABAergic input (now shown in Figure 3 and 4) is much easier to see on top of a background muscarinic excitation.

– The molecular and synaptic basis for the segregation of GABAergic and cholinergic responses onto different subtypes of PG cells is not investigated. The author interprets this finding as resulting from differences in presynaptic innervation/specialization (e.g. lines 460, or 586-588). While probable, what evidence supports this possibility over others? Can we exclude postsynaptic components, such as differential postsynaptic clustering of GABA receptors, or expression of M1 receptors and/or M-channels? Can volume transmission can be excluded as a mode of release based on the data at hand?

The molecular and synaptic basis for the segregation of distinct GABAergic and cholinergic responses onto different subtypes of PG cells is outside the scope of this study. While different subunit compositions of the postsynaptic GABAA receptors undoubtedly determine the time course of BF IPSCs, we have also shown in our previous report (Sanz Diez et al., 2019) that BF GABAergic inputs have target-specific release properties (i.e. distinctive paired pulse ratio and failure rate) suggesting that they arise from distinct populations of neurons. This is now clearly indicated in the introduction (lines 65-66). Consistent with this, our unpublished retrograde labeling indicates that at least four non-overlapping populations of GABAergic BF neurons (labeled with calbindin, calretinin, somatostatin or parvalbumin) project to the OB. Also, in line with this idea, our experiments using transgenic lines expressing the Cre recombinase in specific GABAergic neurons show that distinct populations of GABAergic BF neurons innervate selective territories in the OB. For instance, CR-expressing BF neurons exclusively project in the granule cell layer whereas PV-expressing neurons project to the glomerular layer (a collaborative paper is in preparation on this finding). Thus, although postsynaptic mechanisms cannot be excluded, it is reasonable to think that different sub-populations of BF neurons modulate selective targets in the OB. There is a precedent in the literature: a specific sub-population of cholinergic neurons selectively innervates a sparse and specific subgroup of deep short axon cells located in the internal plexiform layer of the OB (Case et al., 2017). Identifying the populations of BF neurons that differentially modulate PG cell subclasses is the priority of our projects in the lab.

Concerning the cholinergic innervation, I focused on the muscarinic response of type 2.3 PG cells because it is evoked by a single brief stimulation of the afferent cholinergic fibers and it is target-specific. Activation of M1 receptors by a single transient of ACh suggests that postsynaptic M1 receptors are clustered near ACh release sites, which perhaps implies the existence of real anatomically-defined muscarinic synapses. This type of response is unusual in the brain. Slow M-channel-mediated muscarinic EPSP are usually evoked by strong and prolonged stimulations of the cholinergic neurons that favor spatial diffusion of ACh. The new FISH data suggest that expression of M1 is not specific to type 2.3 PG cells. Volume transmission of ACh may thus less specifically activate M1 receptors in several other cell subtypes. M2 receptors are also expressed in spontaneously active TH-expressing juxtaglomerular neurons. Their activation by bath-applied ACh inhibits spontaneous activity (Pignatelli et al., Chem senses 2008. doi:10.1093/chemse/bjm091). Experiments with stronger pulse-trains of ChR2 activation are ongoing in the lab to test whether they are activated by endogeneous ACh.

– Figure 9 provides evidence that GABA exerts a direct excitatory influence on some PG cells, possibly because their chloride reversal potential is elevated. The author should provide more evidence to substantiate this claim. For instance, does puffing GABA evoke a train of action potentials?

I think that further investigating this question would distract the reader from the main point. Here the principal result is not that GABA is depolarizing in some PG cells (this is consistent with the literature, see Parsa et al. PNAS 2015 or Smith and Jahr NatureNeurosci 2002), the main point is that GABA is depolarizing and excitatory in a minority of CR-expressing PG cells. The title (line 521) and conclusion of this paragraph (lines 552-55) have been slightly modified to emphasize this point.

We have shown that CR+ cells conserve functional properties of immature neurons (Benito et al., 2018). However, each cell is at a specific stage of maturation. An elevated chloride potential may be expected in the most immature ones. Puffing GABA would not evoke a train of APs. CR-expressing PG cells only express a single potassium current, the A-type. Once this current is inactivated, they cannot repolarize quickly. Thus, in response to prolonged depolarization, these cells only fire once and after the spike stay depolarized as shown in Pignatelli et al. (2016) and in Benito et al. (2018).

– Line 149: the author describes that AMPA, NMDA and nicotinic ACh receptor blockers prevent excitation of any interneurons. This is not true if one consideres some muscarinic receptors, and indeed this study goes on to show a striking example of this.

This is correct. Thanks for pointing out this error. The text (lines 147-149) has been modified as followed:

“Photo-evoked responses persisted in the presence of NBQX (10 µM), D-AP5 (50 µM) and mecamylamine (50 µM)(n=5, Figure 2E-F), which inhibit AMPA, NMDA and nicotinic ACh receptors, respectively. This cocktail of antagonist blocks a possible direct nicotinic excitation of PG cells (Castillo et al. 1999) as well as a putative indirect glutamatergic excitation following the nicotinic activation of mitral and tufted cells (Liu et al. 2015).”

– Line 169: remove 'always', since the rest of the sentence describes exceptions.

Done.

– Line 208-210: 89% of ChR2+ neurons in the BF of ChAT-Cre mice are cholinergic, leaving 11% of non-specifically labeled cells. Can the author provide any indication as to which other cells are labeled and whether they also project to OB, potentially contributing to postsynaptic responses?

The possibility that non-specifically labeled cell project to the OB was not verified as the electrophysiological recordings indicate that they contribute little if anything to the postsynaptic responses. See my detailed response to the reviewing editor.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71965.sa2

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Didier De Saint Jan

    Institut des Neurosciences Cellulaires et Intégratives, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Strasbourg, France
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - original draft
    For correspondence
    desaintjan@inci-cnrs.unistra.fr
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2459-9703

Funding

Université de Strasbourg (UPR3212)

  • Didier De Saint Jan

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (UPR3212)

  • Didier De Saint Jan

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

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (UPR3212) and the Université de Strasbourg (UPR3212). I thank Alvaro Sanz Diez, Julie Perraud, and Andréa Grinner, who contributed preliminary data. Ipek Yalcin and Matilde Cordero-Erausquin (Institut des Neurosciences Cellulaires et Intégratives, Strasbourg) for the kind gift of the dlx5/6Cre mice and ChatCre mice. Pierre Hener and Jennifer Kaufling (Institut des Neurosciences Cellulaires et Intégratives, Strasbourg) for their technical support with the RNAscope assay. Marion Najac, Philippe Isope, Antoine Valera, Karin Aubrey, and Yo Otsu for their helpful comments on the manuscript. I also thank Dr. Sophie Reibel-Foisset and the staff of the animal facility (Chronobiotron, UMS 3415 CNRS and Strasbourg University) for technical assistance and members of the team Physiology of Neural Networks for their support throughout the project.

Ethics

All experiments procedures were approved by the French Ministry and by the local ethic committee for animal experimentation (CREMEAS) (authorization number APAFIS#5250-2016042115058488v3 and v7) . Mice were housed in the animal facility with ad libitum access to food and water. Animals were sacrificed by cervical dislocation following the methods approved by the directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and Council. Surgeries were performed under anesthesia and every effort was made to minimize suffering.

Senior Editor

  1. John R Huguenard, Stanford University School of Medicine, United States

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jun Ding, Stanford University, United States

Publication history

  1. Preprint posted: July 6, 2021 (view preprint)
  2. Received: July 6, 2021
  3. Accepted: February 16, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: February 28, 2022 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: March 7, 2022 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2022, De Saint Jan

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

Metrics

  • 655
    Page views
  • 126
    Downloads
  • 1
    Citations

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

Download links

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

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

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

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

  1. Didier De Saint Jan
(2022)
Target-specific control of olfactory bulb periglomerular cells by GABAergic and cholinergic basal forebrain inputs
eLife 11:e71965.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71965

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    David S Jacobs, Madeleine C Allen ... Bita Moghaddam
    Research Advance Updated

    Previously, we developed a novel model for anxiety during motivated behavior by training rats to perform a task where actions executed to obtain a reward were probabilistically punished and observed that after learning, neuronal activity in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) represent the relationship between action and punishment risk (Park and Moghaddam, 2017). Here, we used male and female rats to expand on the previous work by focusing on neural changes in the dmPFC and VTA that were associated with the learning of probabilistic punishment, and anxiolytic treatment with diazepam after learning. We find that adaptive neural responses of dmPFC and VTA during the learning of anxiogenic contingencies are independent from the punisher experience and occur primarily during the peri-action and reward period. Our results also identify peri-action ramping of VTA neural calcium activity, and VTA-dmPFC correlated activity, as potential markers for the anxiolytic properties of diazepam.

    1. Neuroscience
    Haiwei Zhang, Hongchen Li ... Ping Lv
    Research Article Updated

    Repressor element 1-silencing transcription factor (REST) is a transcriptional repressor that recognizes neuron-restrictive silencer elements in the mammalian genomes in a tissue- and cell-specific manner. The identity of REST target genes and molecular details of how REST regulates them are emerging. We performed conditional null deletion of Rest (cKO), mainly restricted to murine hair cells (HCs) and auditory neurons (aka spiral ganglion neurons [SGNs]). Null inactivation of full-length REST did not affect the development of normal HCs and SGNs but manifested as progressive hearing loss in adult mice. We found that the inactivation of REST resulted in an increased abundance of Kv7.4 channels at the transcript, protein, and functional levels. Specifically, we found that SGNs and HCs from Rest cKO mice displayed increased Kv7.4 expression and augmented Kv7 currents; SGN’s excitability was also significantly reduced. Administration of a compound with Kv7.4 channel activator activity, fasudil, recapitulated progressive hearing loss in mice. In contrast, inhibition of the Kv7 channels by XE991 rescued the auditory phenotype of Rest cKO mice. Previous studies identified some loss-of-function mutations within the Kv7.4-coding gene, Kcnq4, as a causative factor for progressive hearing loss in mice and humans. Thus, the findings reveal that a critical homeostatic Kv7.4 channel level is required for proper auditory functions.