The discovery of neurons whose activity correlates with memory activity, often referred to as engram cells, has offered evidence that certain memories are stored in a sparse set of neuronal ensembles across the hippocampus (Reijmers et al., 2007). These cells are active during the encoding of a memory and reactivate upon recall of that specific event (Denny et al., 2014; Tayler et al., 2013). Further, artificial reactivation of engram neurons induces recall-like behavior, thus establishing a causal role for these neurons in memory processing (Liu et al., 2012; Ramirez et al., 2013).

Previous studies have utilized activity-based neural tagging strategies, which link expression of a protein of interest (e.g. Channelrhodopsin) to the expression of immediate early genes (IEG) (most commonly Arc [Denny et al., 2014] and cFos [Liu et al., 2012]) to tag and modulate active populations during a specific event. The modulation of memories through activity-based tagging of engram neurons has often targeted cells in the hippocampus (Josselyn and Tonegawa, 2020; Tonegawa et al., 2015); a brain structure in the temporal lobe with a modular design that consists of three major sub-regions: the dentate gyrus (DG), CA3, and CA1, all with extensive interconnectivity (Andersen et al., 2009; Squire et al., 2004). Each of the sub-regions has distinct connectivity patterns that potentially provide unique stages in the processing of memories.

Recently, studies have probed this functional organization by driving engram neurons in different regions of the hippocampus, such as DG (Liu et al., 2012; Ramirez et al., 2013) and CA1 (Redondo et al., 2014; Ryan et al., 2015). In these studies, however, there have been discrepancies in the most effective stimulation frequency, both between regions and within regions (cCompare Ohkawa et al., 2015; Ryan et al., 2015). Further, studies have been limited to activating engram neurons using fixed-frequency stimulation, without taking into consideration the ongoing spontaneous network activity. In particular, hippocampal regions are dominated by a quasi-periodic 4–10 Hz network-wide theta oscillation in the field potential generated by temporally organized firing during memory processing (Buzsáki, 2002; Colgin, 2013).

The hippocampus is tasked with both encoding of new information and recalling past experiences. A prominent model, termed the Separate Phase of Encoding and Recall (SPEAR) model (Hasselmo et al., 2002), posits that encoding and retrieval are temporally interleaved at different phases of hippocampal theta oscillations. In the SPEAR model (Hasselmo et al., 2002; Hasselmo and Stern, 2014), the peak of the hippocampal theta oscillation (as measured in striatum pyramidale) is dominated by inputs from the entorhinal cortex, which carry sensory information that is potentially required for the encoding process. In contrast, the trough (negative peak) of theta oscillations occurs during strong CA3 activity, a region of the hippocampus known for pattern completion that is supported through strong recurrent connections (Leutgeb et al., 2007; Rolls, 2016; Senzai, 2019), and thus ideally suited for the retrieval of previously stored memories.

The SPEAR model has been supported by electrophysiological data in vivo (Hyman et al., 2003; Kerrén et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2020) and in vitro (Kwag and Paulsen, 2009). These studies have indicated that the peak of theta oscillations is associated with strong long-term potentiation, which can support the encoding process, while the trough of theta has strong long-term depression that supports the recall of previously stored memories (Douchamps et al., 2013; Manns et al., 2007). In behaving mice, memory performance can be altered through phase-specific inhibition of neurons in CA1, the output region of the hippocampus (Siegle and Wilson, 2014). Finally, a recent study in human subjects has shown a strong correlation between memory tasks and the phase of theta (Kragel et al., 2020). Despite these results, as well as the prior development of closed-loop optogenetics stimulation (Grosenick et al., 2015), the activation of engram neurons has been carried out at fixed frequencies, without taking into account the phase of theta oscillations.

Here, we tie the modulation of engram neurons to specific phases of theta oscillations. We hypothesize that trough stimulation is more effective than peak or fixed frequencies of stimulation for inducing artificial memory reactivation. To test this hypothesis, we implemented a real-time phase prediction algorithm and tested the behavioral and electrophysiological effects of theta-phase-specific stimulation of DG memory neurons in gating memory recall. We measured theta in CA1 to be consistent with past literature and the SPEAR model. We tagged and reactivated memory neurons in DG rather than CA3, as would be ideal in a test of the SPEAR model. We did this because reactivation of tagged CA3 neurons is not well studied and tends to generate seizure-like activity (unpublished data), presumably because of the higher probability of connection among CA3 pyramidal cells. In contrast, DG stimulation causes robust behavior without generating seizure-like activity. We compared the results of phase-specific stimulation with those using fixed-frequency stimulation at the previously established value of 20 Hz, as well as stimulation at 6 Hz, which provided a control representing the average stimulation frequency during phase-specific activation. Our results support the SPEAR model, with optogenetic stimulation of engram neurons in DG at the trough (recall) phase driving the most robust behavioral recall and the largest amount of coupling between the theta and gamma rhythms in CA1 region.

Using c-fos-dependent neuronal tagging of cells associated with fear conditioning, as well as theta-phase-specific photo-stimulation, we assessed the functional role of theta phase in memory processing. We show that activating DG memory neurons during the trough of the theta field potential is most effective at inducing recall of stored memories and yields the most robust behavioral outcome corresponding to successful artificial reactivation of the tagged memory. When artificial recall is elicited through phase-specific stimulation, the behavioral outcome is well correlated with an increase in phase-amplitude coupling between theta and gamma oscillations, which has been established as an electrophysiological correlate of memory performance (Kragel et al., 2020; Tort et al., 2009).

Previous studies have observed frequency dependence in eliciting behavioral responses across different regions of the hippocampus. For example, Ryan et al., 2015, activated CA1 memory neurons using 4 Hz optogenetic stimulation and observed consistent behavioral responses, while Ohkawa et al., 2015, were able to drive behavior with 20 Hz stimulation in the same region. In the case of DG, the majority of past studies have used 20 Hz stimulation to drive engram activation despite the rate being much higher than natural DG granule cell firing rates in vivo (GoodSmith et al., 2017; Senzai and Buzsáki, 2017).

Overall, our results support the SPEAR model (Hasselmo et al., 2002), as well as a general role for theta oscillations in organizing memory recall in the hippocampus. The effectiveness of trough stimulation in eliciting recall is also consistent with previous experiments in rodents (Douchamps et al., 2013; Manns et al., 2007; Siegle and Wilson, 2014) and human subjects (Kragel et al., 2020; Kerrén et al., 2018) performing memory tasks. However, given the artificial nature of our reactivation protocol, it is unlikely that we are regenerating quasi-natural, circuit-wide activity. For example, to avoid generating seizure-like activity, we stimulated in DG rather than CA3. It seems quite unlikely that our rather crude reactivation protocol replicates the intricate phase relationships of cellular activity, relative to theta, that are seen in careful measurement of cellar inputs and outputs in DG, CA3, and CA1 under natural conditions of recall (Mizuseki et al., 2009; Fernández-Ruiz et al., 2017). Additionally, because we are not measuring theta where we are reactivating, we do not know if our driven DG activity is properly phase-locked with the local theta rhythm in stratum granulosum, which is typically antiphase from theta in CA1 stratum pyramidale (Buzsáki, 2002). Nevertheless, our results align well with predictions of the SPEAR model, and it says something about the robustness of hippocampal functional organization that this artificial drive yields a positive result. Our results support the SPEAR model and move the field closer to more naturalistic manipulations in the brain. Direct measures of neuronal activity in CA1 and CA3 are required to further understand the downstream effects of in phase and out of phase engram activation in DG. Additional future work could investigate methods to induce more naturalistic recall optogenetically by incorporating previously measured temporal sequences of activity with high spatial resolution. Though exceedingly challenging, such experiments might potentially drive more robust behavioral responses and would represent a detailed test of the SPEAR model.

Our controls included open-loop stimulation at both 6 Hz, representing the average frequency of our closed-loop stimulation, and 20 Hz, representing a standard value for such studies. Although open-loop, 6 Hz stimulation was moderately effective in eliciting recall, recall only occurred when the baseline freezing rate was low. It should be noted that this mode of activation is close to the peak physiological firing rates of the DG granule and mossy cells (GoodSmith et al., 2017; Senzai and Buzsáki, 2017). Despite the success of 20 Hz stimulation in artificial recall of the tagged memory in DG (Liu et al., 2012; Ohkawa et al., 2015; Ramirez et al., 2013; Redondo et al., 2014), we did not observe significant light-induced freezing with this frequency of stimulation. A possible explanation for this discrepancy was the presence of an elevated baseline freezing rate post fear conditioning in the neutral context in our study (average 10% [Figure 2] versus less than 5% in previous studies [e.g. Cowansage et al., 2014]). As a result, the elevated baseline freezing could be masking the effect of the 20 Hz stimulation. Moreover, based on the distribution of enhanced and inhibited freezing with 20 Hz stimulation (Figure 3), we hypothesize that this frequency of stimulation could both activate or inhibit engram neurons. In support, work measuring the impact of mossy fiber stimulation on CA3 neuron firing rates (Lee et al., 2019) indicates that 20 Hz stimulation of DG mossy fibers can potentially lead to inhibition of CA3 neurons through feedforward inhibition. For this reason, the potential inhibition caused by 20 Hz stimulation could lead to a lack of stimulation efficacy. In contrast, Lee et al. also showed that 6 Hz stimulation can have a net positive effect on CA3 neuron activity, which is consistent with us observing elevated light-induced freezing during 6 Hz stimulation (Lee et al., 2019). Testing all four different forms of stimulation within a single subject to control for inter-subject variability, however, did not allow us to assess the specific effects of each type of stimulation on the original memory. Future experiments could conduct the same stimulation within one animal to assess the efficacy of certain forms of stimulation in eliciting artificial recall and its impact on the original memory and synaptic plasticity (Chen et al., 2019; Nabavi et al., 2014).

Theta-gamma coupling was found to be modulated only in the trough stimulation during the stimulation epoch relative to the pre- and post-stimulation baselines. In past literature, slow gamma (25–50 Hz) is associated with CA3 inputs to CA1 during recall, though the frequency ranges for each sub-band of gamma vary between publications (Colgin, 2015; Colgin, 2016; Fernández-Ruiz et al., 2017; Schomburg et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2019). Surprisingly, we did not observe modulation in the slow gamma band. Instead, we saw significant modulation in the mid-gamma band of 55–85 Hz, typically associated with EC input during encoding (Colgin, 2015; Colgin, 2016; Fernández-Ruiz et al., 2017; Schomburg et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2019). Consistent with prior literature, but not with the recall phase, we found that the mid-gamma modulation arrived at the descending phase of theta (Figure 5—figure supplement 2; Colgin et al., 2009; Fernández-Ruiz et al., 2017). We have two potential hypotheses for this discrepancy. First, the neuronal circuitry responsible for artificial and natural memory reactivation may be distinct, as the Tet-tag system has been shown to primarily label excitatory cells. This difference between natural and artificial memory reactivation could result in different LFP signatures. Second, it is possible that the induction of a fear memory also results in the encoding of the context. Evidence for this hypothesis comes from experiments demonstrating that engram stimulation in DG with opposite valence stimuli can re-associate the tagged cells with the new stimuli (Redondo et al., 2014).

We tried to limit variability of behavioral results by employing a number of exclusion criteria, as described in the Methods section. We tested the data to look for factors that could explain the remaining variability, and found that the MI was significantly correlated with freezing, but only for trough-phase stimulation (Figure 5D). This result suggests to us that the behavioral variability we see has underpinnings in neural processing.

Results presented here open the door for an exciting line of research with regard to a role of theta oscillations in the context of memory processing. Future studies using phase-specific activation of engram neurons will greatly benefit from combining stimulation with calcium imaging (Grienberger and Konnerth, 2012) or high-density electrode arrays (Jun et al., 2017), which could provide single neuron- and network-based mechanisms for hippocampal theta oscillation function during memory processing. Another potential research route for probing the role of theta oscillations in memory gating is through a comparison of encoding and recall engram neurons in the CA3 and EC regions, respectively. For example, we expect tagged CA3 neurons, which are associated with the recall of a fearful memory, to be more robustly reactivated when stimulating at the trough of theta. To our knowledge, however, no studies to date have demonstrated the successful artificial reactivation of memories in CA3. We also hypothesize that EC inputs to the hippocampus can be tagged during the encoding of an experience, with subsequent peak stimulation of the tagged neurons during a second experience disrupting the encoding of that event.

In conclusion, our systematic investigation of engram neuron activation using different modes of stimulation provides new insights regarding the impact of stimulation frequency and phase on engram reactivation, as well as the utility of using a closed-loop photo-stimulation approach. Work to follow should allow the community to refine these early experiments to reproduce behavioral and electrophysiological correlates of normal recall more closely.

Data collected for the purpose of this paper and the custom algorithms that were used in performing the analysis are available at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.k0p2ngfc0. The theta-phase detection algorithm is accessible at https://github.com/ndlBU/phase_specific_stim (copy archived at Noueihed, 2022). It can be run using the RTXI platform accessible through http://rtxi.org. Behavioral scoring was done using the ezTrack package (Penn, 2021).

1. 1. Norman JF
   2. Rahsepar B
   3. White JA
   4. Ramirez S
   5. Noueihed J
   6. Ghaemi K
   7. Pandya A
   8. Lahner B
   9. Quick M

   (2022) Dryad Digital Repository

   Motion and LFP Data.

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.k0p2ngfc0

1. Book

   1. Andersen P
   2. Morris R
   3. Amaral D
   4. Bliss T
   5. Keefe JO

   (2009) The Hippocampus Book

   Oxford University Press.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195100273.001.0001

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Bokil H
   2. Andrews P
   3. Kulkarni JE
   4. Mehta S
   5. Mitra PP

   (2010) Chronux: a platform for analyzing neural signals

   Journal of Neuroscience Methods 192:146–151.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.06.020

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. Software

   1. Branlard E

   (2022) Matlab2Python

   V.1.0.

   https://github.com/dz256/Matlab2Python
4. 1. Buzsáki G

   (2002) Theta Oscillations in the hippocampus

   Neuron 33:325–340.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00586-x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Chen BK
   2. Murawski NJ
   3. Cincotta C
   4. McKissick O
   5. Finkelstein A
   6. Hamidi AB
   7. Merfeld E
   8. Doucette E
   9. Grella SL
   10. Shpokayte M
   11. Zaki Y
   12. Fortin A
   13. Ramirez S

   (2019) Artificially enhancing and suppressing Hippocampus- mediated memories

   Current Biology 29:1885–1894.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.04.065

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Colgin LL
   2. Denninger T
   3. Fyhn M
   4. Hafting T
   5. Bonnevie T
   6. Jensen O
   7. Moser M-B
   8. Moser EI

   (2009) Frequency of gamma oscillations routes flow of information in the hippocampus

   Nature 462:353–357.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08573

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Colgin Ll

   (2013) Mechanisms and functions of Theta rhythms

   Annual Review of Neuroscience 36:295–312.

   https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-062012-170330

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Colgin Ll

   (2015) Do slow and fast gamma rhythms correspond to distinct functional States in the hippocampal network

   Brain Research 1621:309–315.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.01.005

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Colgin LL

   (2016) Rhythms of the hippocampal network

   Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 17:239–249.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.21

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Cowansage KK
    2. Shuman T
    3. Dillingham BC
    4. Chang A
    5. Golshani P
    6. Mayford M

    (2014) Direct reactivation of a coherent neocortical memory of context

    Neuron 84:432–441.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.09.022

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Denny CA
    2. Mazen AK
    3. Eva LA
    4. kenji FT
    5. Attila L
    6. René H

    (2014) Hippocampal memory traces are Differentially modulated by experience, time, and adult Neurogenesis

    Neuron 83:189–201.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.05.018

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Douchamps V
    2. Jeewajee A
    3. Blundell P
    4. Burgess N
    5. Lever C

    (2013) Evidence for Encoding versus retrieval scheduling in the hippocampus by Theta phase and acetylcholine

    The Journal of Neuroscience 33:8689–8704.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4483-12.2013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Fernández-Ruiz A
    2. Oliva A
    3. Nagy GA
    4. Maurer AP
    5. Berényi A
    6. Buzsáki G

    (2017) Entorhinal-Ca3 dual-input control of spike timing in the hippocampus by Theta-gamma coupling

    Neuron 93:1213–1226.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2017.02.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. GoodSmith D
    2. Chen X
    3. Wang C
    4. Kim SH
    5. Song H
    6. Burgalossi A
    7. Christian KM
    8. Knierim JJ

    (2017) Spatial representations of granule cells and mossy cells of the dentate gyrus

    Neuron 93:677–690.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.12.026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Grienberger C
    2. Konnerth A

    (2012) Imaging calcium in neurons

    Neuron 73:862–885.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Grosenick L
    2. Marshel JH
    3. Deisseroth K

    (2015) Closed-loop and activity-guided Optogenetic control

    Neuron 86:106–139.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.03.034

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Hasselmo ME
    2. Bodelón C
    3. Wyble BP

    (2002) A proposed function for hippocampal Theta rhythm: separate phases of Encoding and retrieval enhance reversal of prior learning

    Neural Computation 14:793–817.

    https://doi.org/10.1162/089976602317318965

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Hasselmo ME
    2. Stern CE

    (2014) Theta rhythm and the Encoding and retrieval of space and time

    NeuroImage 85:656–666.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.06.022

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Hyman JM
    2. Wyble BP
    3. Goyal V
    4. Rossi CA
    5. Hasselmo ME

    (2003) Stimulation in hippocampal region Ca1 in behaving rats yields long-term potentiation when delivered to the peak of Theta and long-term depression when delivered to the trough

    The Journal of Neuroscience 23:11725–11731.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-37-11725.2003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Josselyn SA
    2. Tonegawa S

    (2020) Memory Engrams: recalling the past and imagining the future

    Science 367:eaaw4325.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw4325

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Jun JJ
    2. Steinmetz NA
    3. Siegle JH
    4. Denman DJ
    5. Bauza M
    6. Barbarits B
    7. Lee AK
    8. Anastassiou CA
    9. Andrei A
    10. Aydın Ç
    11. Barbic M
    12. Blanche TJ
    13. Bonin V
    14. Couto J
    15. Dutta B
    16. Gratiy SL
    17. Gutnisky DA
    18. Häusser M
    19. Karsh B
    20. Ledochowitsch P
    21. Lopez CM
    22. Mitelut C
    23. Musa S
    24. Okun M
    25. Pachitariu M
    26. Putzeys J
    27. Rich PD
    28. Rossant C
    29. Sun W-L
    30. Svoboda K
    31. Carandini M
    32. Harris KD
    33. Koch C
    34. O’Keefe J
    35. Harris TD

    (2017) Fully integrated Silicon probes for high-density recording of neural activity

    Nature 551:232–236.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24636

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Kerrén C
    2. Linde-Domingo J
    3. Hanslmayr S
    4. Wimber M

    (2018) An optimal oscillatory phase for pattern reactivation during memory retrieval

    Current Biology 28:3383–3392.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.08.065

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Kragel JE
    2. VanHaerents S
    3. Templer JW
    4. Schuele S
    5. Rosenow JM
    6. Nilakantan AS
    7. Bridge DJ

    (2020) Hippocampal Theta coordinates memory processing during visual exploration

    eLife 9:e52108.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Kwag J
    2. Paulsen O

    (2009) The timing of external input controls the sign of plasticity at local synapses

    Nature Neuroscience 12:1219–1221.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2388

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Lee J
    2. Yun M
    3. Cho E
    4. Lee JW
    5. Lee D
    6. Jung MW

    (2019) Transient effect of mossy fiber stimulation on spatial firing of Ca3 neurons

    Hippocampus 29:639–651.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.23066

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Leutgeb JK
    2. Leutgeb S
    3. Moser MB
    4. Moser EI

    (2007) Pattern separation in the dentate gyrus and Ca3 of the hippocampus

    Science 315:961–966.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1135801

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. Conference

    1. Lin RJ
    2. Bettencourt J
    3. Wha Ite J
    4. Christini DJ
    5. Butera RJ

    (2010) Real-time experiment interface for biological control applications

    Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference. pp. 4160–4163.

    https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5627397

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Lisman JE
    2. Jensen O

    (2013) The Theta-gamma neural code

    Neuron 77:1002–1016.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.03.007

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Liu X
    2. Ramirez S
    3. Pang PT
    4. Puryear CB
    5. Govindarajan A
    6. Deisseroth K
    7. Tonegawa S

    (2012) Optogenetic stimulation of a hippocampal Engram activates fear memory recall

    Nature 484:381–385.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Manns JR
    2. Zilli EA
    3. Ong KC
    4. Hasselmo ME
    5. Eichenbaum H

    (2007) Hippocampal Ca1 Spiking during Encoding and retrieval: relation to Theta phase

    Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 87:9–20.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2006.05.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Mizuseki K
    2. Sirota A
    3. Pastalkova E
    4. Buzsáki G

    (2009) Theta Oscillations provide temporal windows for local circuit computation in the entorhinal-hippocampal loop

    Neuron 64:267–280.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.08.037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Nabavi S
    2. Fox R
    3. Proulx CD
    4. Lin JY
    5. Tsien RY
    6. Malinow R

    (2014) Engineering a memory with LTD and LTP

    Nature 511:348–352.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13294

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. Software

    1. Noueihed J

    (2022) Phase-specific stimulation, version swh:1:rev:36a0cc21dbfd742298ad78da0f82fa25d1745455

    Software Heritage.

    https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:ce89dcb610ca4109926263f8d1353d54729d0a90;origin=https://github.com/ndlBU/phase_specific_stim;visit=swh:1:snp:15a64923635a917825f6bce4ac658a75a2726045;anchor=swh:1:rev:36a0cc21dbfd742298ad78da0f82fa25d1745455
34. 1. Ohkawa N
    2. Saitoh Y
    3. Suzuki A
    4. Tsujimura S
    5. Murayama E
    6. Kosugi S
    7. Nishizono H
    8. Matsuo M
    9. Takahashi Y
    10. Nagase M
    11. Sugimura YK
    12. Watabe AM
    13. Kato F
    14. Inokuchi K

    (2015) Artificial Association of pre-stored information to generate a qualitatively new memory

    Cell Reports 11:261–269.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2015.03.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. Software

    1. Penn Z

    (2021) ezTrack, version V.1.0

    GitHub.

    https://github.com/denisecailab/ezTrack
36. 1. Pennington ZT
    2. Dong Z
    3. Feng Y
    4. Vetere LM
    5. Page-Harley L
    6. Shuman T
    7. Cai DJ

    (2019) ezTrack: an open-source Video analysis pipeline for the investigation of animal behavior

    Scientific Reports 9:19979.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56408-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Pernía-Andrade AJ
    2. Jonas P

    (2014) Theta-gamma-modulated synaptic currents in hippocampal granule cells in vivo define a mechanism for network Oscillations

    Neuron 81:140–152.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.09.046

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Ramirez S
    2. Liu X
    3. Lin PA
    4. Suh J
    5. Pignatelli M
    6. Redondo RL
    7. Ryan TJ
    8. Tonegawa S

    (2013) Creating a false memory in the hippocampus

    Science 341:387–391.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239073

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Redondo RL
    2. Kim J
    3. Arons AL
    4. Ramirez S
    5. Liu X
    6. Tonegawa S

    (2014) Bidirectional switch of the Valence associated with a hippocampal Contextual memory Engram

    Nature 513:426–430.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13725

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Reijmers LG
    2. Perkins BL
    3. Matsuo N
    4. Mayford M

    (2007) Localization of a stable neural correlate of associative memory

    Science 317:1230–1233.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1143839

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Rolls ET

    (2016) Pattern separation, completion, and Categorisation in the hippocampus and neocortex

    Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 129:4–28.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2015.07.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Ryan TJ
    2. Roy DS
    3. Pignatelli M
    4. Arons A
    5. Tonegawa S

    (2015) Memory Engram cells retain memory under retrograde amnesia

    Science 348:1007–1013.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa5542

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Schomburg EW
    2. Fernández-Ruiz A
    3. Mizuseki K
    4. Berényi A
    5. Anastassiou CA
    6. Koch C
    7. Buzsáki G

    (2014) Theta phase segregation of input-specific gamma patterns in entorhinal-hippocampal networks

    Neuron 84:470–485.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.051

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Senzai Y
    2. Buzsáki G

    (2017) Physiological properties and behavioral correlates of hippocampal granule cells and mossy cells

    Neuron 93:691–704.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.12.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Senzai Y

    (2019) Function of local circuits in the hippocampal dentate gyrus-Ca3 system

    Neuroscience Research 140:43–52.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2018.11.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Siegle JH
    2. Wilson MA

    (2014) Enhancement of Encoding and retrieval functions through Theta phase-specific manipulation of hippocampus

    eLife 3:e03061.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03061

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Squire LR
    2. Stark CEL
    3. Clark RE

    (2004) The medial temporal lobe

    Annual Review of Neuroscience 27:279–306.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144130

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Tayler KK
    2. Tanaka KZ
    3. Reijmers LG
    4. Wiltgen BJ

    (2013) Reactivation of neural ensembles during the retrieval of recent and remote memory

    Current Biology 23:99–106.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.11.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Tonegawa S
    2. Liu X
    3. Ramirez S
    4. Redondo R

    (2015) Memory Engram cells have come of age

    Neuron 87:918–931.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.08.002

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Tort ABL
    2. Komorowski RW
    3. Manns JR
    4. Kopell NJ
    5. Eichenbaum H

    (2009) Theta-gamma coupling increases during the learning of item-context associations

    PNAS 106:20942–20947.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0911331106

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Tort ABL
    2. Komorowski R
    3. Eichenbaum H
    4. Kopell N

    (2010) Measuring phase-amplitude coupling between neuronal Oscillations of different frequencies

    Journal of Neurophysiology 104:1195–1210.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00106.2010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Virtanen P
    2. Gommers R
    3. Oliphant TE
    4. Haberland M
    5. Reddy T
    6. Cournapeau D
    7. Burovski E
    8. Peterson P
    9. Weckesser W
    10. Bright J
    11. van der Walt SJ
    12. Brett M
    13. Wilson J
    14. Millman KJ
    15. Mayorov N
    16. Nelson ARJ
    17. Jones E
    18. Kern R
    19. Larson E
    20. Carey CJ
    21. Polat İ
    22. Feng Y
    23. Moore EW
    24. VanderPlas J
    25. Laxalde D
    26. Perktold J
    27. Cimrman R
    28. Henriksen I
    29. Quintero EA
    30. Harris CR
    31. Archibald AM
    32. Ribeiro AH
    33. Pedregosa F
    34. van Mulbregt P
    35. Vijaykumar A
    36. Bardelli AP
    37. Rothberg A
    38. Hilboll A
    39. Kloeckner A
    40. Scopatz A
    41. Lee A
    42. Rokem A
    43. Woods CN
    44. Fulton C
    45. Masson C
    46. Häggström C
    47. Fitzgerald C
    48. Nicholson DA
    49. Hagen DR
    50. Pasechnik DV
    51. Olivetti E
    52. Martin E
    53. Wieser E
    54. Silva F
    55. Lenders F
    56. Wilhelm F
    57. Young G
    58. Price GA
    59. Ingold GL
    60. Allen GE
    61. Lee GR
    62. Audren H
    63. Probst I
    64. Dietrich JP
    65. Silterra J
    66. Webber JT
    67. Slavič J
    68. Nothman J
    69. Buchner J
    70. Kulick J
    71. Schönberger JL
    72. de Miranda Cardoso JV
    73. Reimer J
    74. Harrington J
    75. Rodríguez JLC
    76. Nunez-Iglesias J
    77. Kuczynski J
    78. Tritz K
    79. Thoma M
    80. Newville M
    81. Kümmerer M
    82. Bolingbroke M
    83. Tartre M
    84. Pak M
    85. Smith NJ
    86. Nowaczyk N
    87. Shebanov N
    88. Pavlyk O
    89. Brodtkorb PA
    90. Lee P
    91. McGibbon RT
    92. Feldbauer R
    93. Lewis S
    94. Tygier S
    95. Sievert S
    96. Vigna S
    97. Peterson S
    98. More S
    99. Pudlik T
    100. Oshima T
    101. Pingel TJ
    102. Robitaille TP
    103. Spura T
    104. Jones TR
    105. Cera T
    106. Leslie T
    107. Zito T
    108. Krauss T
    109. Upadhyay U
    110. Halchenko YO
    111. Vázquez-Baeza Y
    112. SciPy 1.0 Contributors

    (2020) Scipy 1.0: fundamental Algorithms for scientific computing in python

    Nature Methods 17:261–272.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-020-0772-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Wang M
    2. Foster DJ
    3. Pfeiffer BE

    (2020) Alternating sequences of future and past behavior encoded within hippocampal Theta Oscillations

    Science 370:247–250.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb4151

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Zhang L
    2. Lee J
    3. Rozell C
    4. Singer AC

    (2019) Sub-second Dynamics of Theta-gamma coupling in hippocampal Ca1

    eLife 8:e44320.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.44320

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "Theta phase specific modulation of hippocampal memory neurons" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by Laura Colgin as the Senior Editor. The following individuals involved in the review of your submission have agreed to reveal their identity: Josh Siegle (Reviewer #1); Antonio Fernandez-Ruiz (Reviewer #3).

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

Essential revisions:

1) Clarify why the dentate gyrus was chosen for stimulation and discuss the implications of recording in CA1 while stimulating in the dentate gyrus.

2) The authors should expand γ analyses and better explain γ methods and results. See individual reviews below for details.

3) Attempt to account for the variability of effects across mice. Specific factors that may have contributed to different effect sizes, and different effects, across different mice are suggested below and should be explored.

4) Make the open-source platform more easily available for use by other labs.

5) Add key references related to separate encoding and retrieval phases of the theta cycle and theta-phase specific inputs to hippocampal regions. See individual reviews below for details.

6) Clarify data exclusion criteria.

7) Improve statistics. Corrections for multiple comparisons are needed in statistical analyses. Also, sample sizes and statistics are missing for some analyses. See individual reviews below for details.

8) The authors should better explain how they accounted for theta phase differences across different electrodes.

9) The authors should discuss how freezing behavior may affect the detection of the theta phase.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

The number of mice in the experimental group drops from 43 to 17 after applying three exclusion criteria. Based on the description in the methods, it sounds like two of these criteria were not independent (lack of increase in freezing and low viral expression levels). It would be helpful to include the number of mice that were excluded based on only one factor, two factors, or all three factors.

The authors should cite two additional studies that provide correlational evidence for separate encoding and retrieval phases of theta:

Kerrén et al. (2018) Current Biology 28: 3383-3392.e6

Wang et al. (2020) Science 370: 247-250

The combined use of capital letters and roman numerals in the figure labels is unconventional and somewhat confusing. It would be clearer to just use consecutive letters for all panels.

Figure 1

The caption should state the criteria used to determine whether stimulation occurred at the peak or trough (stimulation within 1/4 cycle of the target). Although this is available in the methods section, it should be included here as well, since it's critical for interpreting these results. It would also be helpful to indicate the extent of this range in panel 1Ci.

The labels on Figure 1Cii are hard to interpret – it's not clear what "True" and "False" mean without carefully reading the text.

Figure 2

Please use consistent nomenclature throughout all panels. Panel A uses "Habituation Trials 1-4" and "Engram Reactivation Trials 1-4", which are later referred to as "Day 1-4" and "Day 7-10". In addition, the meaning of "FC", "FS", and "GC" should be defined in the caption, so the figure can stand on its own.

While Figure 3 shows all data points, Figure 2 only includes dots for outliers; ideally, all points should be shown in both figures.

Figure 3

Again, there is inconsistency in the labels. "FS+" and "FS-" are used in the caption, but "E" and "C" are used in the Figure legend (and are not defined).

In, panels Ai and Aii, the sub-panels should be vertically aligned within conditions.

The low-frequency open-loop stimulation condition should be labeled "6 Hz" instead of "06 Hz", to match the text and other figures.

Figure 5

Please add labels to the sub-panels in 5C and 5D-the colors don't appear when printed in black & white.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

– Why stimulate in dentate instead of CA3 inputs to CA1? The rationale for dentate and its role in the SPEAR hypothesis should be explained in the introduction.

– It is unclear how the authors correct for theta phase differences based on the location of the electrode. The authors state if the recording location is deemed out of the striatum pyramidal then it was "corrected" but the correction method and accuracy are unclear.

– Could the mice see the laser light during stimulation? Did that affect their behavior?

– How many DG cells were labeled? How many were stimulated? Did that have an effect on freezing behavior? Is this study labeling and stimulating similar numbers of neurons and areas of DG as prior studies, especially those that did see a significant increase in freezing with 20Hz stimulation?

– The statistical approach needs revisions. Many statistical comparisons were made in freezing behavior without controlling for multiple comparisons. Multiple comparisons should be taken into account. In some cases the statistical tests used are unclear, e.g. Figure 3Bii, C, and D.

– The figures need clarification and lack key info. First, several figures/captions lack an adequate explanation of colors or acronyms. Some examples:

– Throughout color meaning should be indicated in the caption.

– Line plots throughout do not note errors being shown.

– Statistical details beyond p-values are required: n and the statistical tests used are also required.

– Figure 2Ci – caption is missing or mislabeled as C.

– Figure 2Cii: What are X and Stim on the x-axis? Needs to be explained.

– Figure 2E left graph – you cannot see the color of the smallest bars. They should be labeled with words/letters.

– Figure 3A – define E and C or use FS+ and FS- in the legend. Define x.

– Is each dot with the box plots an animal or a day or something else?

– Figure 3B – what do open vs filled box plots mean?

Second, some figure colors are unclear/confusing:

– Figure 1Ci – is there green (20Hz stim)? If so, I can't tell where.

– Figure 2 – the pink and purple are hard to distinguish. Looking at Figure 2E left graph I could not tell if that was Habituation or Engram Reactivation, eg pink or purple.

– Figure 3 – A schematic showing the stimulation paradigm and interleaved stimulation trials is warranted. I am confused about how long was given between different types of stimulation.

– The authors show that theta trough stimulation of DG cells increases medium γ coupling to theta while other stimulation parameters do not increase. Slow γ is thought to correspond to periods of stronger CA3 input to CA1, while medium γ is thought to correspond to periods of stronger EC input to CA1. The authors should explicitly examine these different gammas separately and their modulation by theta. What phase of theta is each γ coupled to after trough or peak stimulation? Does this shift from baseline coupling? If the authors find trough stimulation increased theta modulation of medium γ, in particular, they should explain how this fits into their hypothesis that this stimulation leads to stronger CA3-CA1 coupling when other works suggest this should result in more slow γ.

– The discussion and Figure 6 caption imply that peak stimulation is disrupting CA1 activity due to the arrival of the CA3 input at the same time as EC inputs. This could be described further to support the behavioral result in 5D. Is there any data to support this point?

– Is there any correlation with freezing behavior in the 20 or 6 Hz groups?

– What was the modulation index of animals that did not show light-induced freezing?

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

The authors tag and manipulate engram cells in the DG but they performed analysis on CA1 LFPs and used the CA1 theta phase as a reference signal. While this is not necessarily a problem per se, it needs to be explicitly addressed and its implication discussed. Likewise, through the text allusions to work on CA1 are used to interpret results from DG manipulations without a clear rationale.

– The abstract should state that engram cells are been tagged and reactivated in the DG. The title will also be more informative if instead of 'hippocampal memory neurons' it said 'dentate gyrus engram neurons'.

– The inputs that impinge DG granular cells during theta are different from those received by CA1 pyramidal cells. This needs to be explained, either in the Introduction or the Discussion. CA1 receives input from CA3 at the descending theta phase and from entorhinal layer 3 at the trough (e.g. Mizuseki et al., Neuron, 2009; Fernandez-Ruiz et al., Neuron, 2017). On the other hand, entorhinal input to DG granular cells originates in layer 2 and arrives at the trough of the CA1 pyramidal layer theta cycle (e.g. Mizuseki et al., Neuron, 2009; Fernandez-Ruiz et al., Science, 2021). It would be also useful to mention that the theta phase completely reverses from the CA1 pyramidal layer to the DG (e.g., Buzsaki, Neuron, 2002).

– If memory encoding and retrieval occur at the same theta phase in CA1 and DG is not yet clear. This needs to be acknowledged as most of the supporting references cited are for CA1. This can actually add additional value to the present paper and previous work (e.g. Siegle et al., eLife, 2014) was done in CA1.

– It needs to be explicitly discussed the potential relationships between stimulating DG cells, the behavioral effects observed, and the fact that LFP analysis was done in CA1. The current discussion on the topic lacks depth, and misses some details (e.g., different phases and layers of origin of entorhinal inputs to CA1 and DG). Excessive speculative statements (e.g., "Activating engrams neurons in DG at the trough of theta leads to in-phase activation of CA3 neurons") should be removed or supporting evidence provided.

Statistics and n's are missing for several analysis

– In figure legends, the n of both animals and sessions that went into each analysis should be clearly stated

– The metric plotted in each case should also be clearly stated. For example, what do the shaded error bars in Figure 2A represent, mean +/- SEM? What do boxplots represent, median +/- CI?

– Figure 4 is missing all statistics and n's (e.g., spectral power comparison across states). That whole figure should be better described. Also, panels A and B are missing voltage and colormap scales respectively.

Theta-γ analysis in Figure 5 has several issues that need to be corrected.

– It needs to be clearly stated from which layer the LFP signals came, as there are strong laminar differences in CA1 γ oscillations (e.g., Schomburg et al., Neuron, 2014; Lasztoczni and Klausberger, Neuron, 2014)

– The following sentence is not accurate: "Our analysis indicated that the MI was highest between the phase of theta filtered at 4-8 Hz frequency and the amplitude of 55-85 Hz γ, known as mid γ. This is similar to previous observations in CA1 (Jiang et al. 2020; Schomburg et al. 2014; Zhang et al. 2019) and consistent with CA3 inputs to CA1 driving recall of memories (Colgin 2015, 2016)". The papers cited, and many others (e.g., Colgin et al., Nature, 2009; Bieri et al., Neuron, 2014; Lasztoczni and Klausberger, Neuron, 2014; Fernandez-Ruiz et al., Neuron, 2017; Lopes dos Santos et al., Neuron, 2018) show that CA3 input to CA1 in dominant is a slower γ band (~30-50 Hz) while entorhinal input is of higher frequency (60-100 Hz), the so-called 'mid γ' sub-band.

– Related to the point above, in the comodulograms of Figure 5Aii I only see the mid-γ component (thus most likely the EC3 to CA1 input) but not the slow γ (the CA3 to CA1 input). The authors can refer to the papers mentioned above to see how at least 3 γ sub-bands are typically found with CFC analysis in CA1. This should be acknowledged in the manuscript. More importantly, the authors should try to separate slow and mid-γ sub-bands and then interpret their results in terms of CA3 and EC3 inputs to CA1. To further verify this separation, theta-phase γ-amplitude analysis can be conducted, as EC3 mid-γ input arrives at the CA1 theta peak and CA3 slow γ input at the descending phase.

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

Thank you for resubmitting your work entitled "Theta-phase-specific modulation of dentate gyrus memory neurons" for further consideration by eLife. Your revised article has been evaluated by Laura Colgin (Senior Editor).

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

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

In my initial review, I assumed (along with the authors) that the stronger theta-γ coupling observed during trough stimulation was associated with the enhanced flow of information between CA3 and CA1, as is expected during memory recall. However, the other two reviewers correctly pointed out that the modulation occurred at higher γ frequencies (55 Hz and above), which likely indicates stronger coupling between EC and CA1 (associated with stronger encoding). The authors now acknowledge the apparent contradiction here and have removed the schematic previously shown in Figure 6. Since this undermines a key argument of the original manuscript, they should discuss more possible explanations for their observations, rather than just attributing it to the "somewhat abnormal" effects of their optogenetic intervention. For example, there could actually be stronger coupling theta-slow γ coupling in a different portion or layer of hippocampus, but they've just failed to record it-they mention earlier in the discussion that the sites of recording and reactivation are not spatially aligned. In addition, it's highly plausible that the induction of a fear-related freezing state *does* lead to stronger encoding of the present environment, and hence stronger EC-CA1 interactions. The reactivation of the contextual memory may occur within the first few cycles of stimulation, after which the physiological measurements in the trough stimulation condition are most strongly influenced by differences in behavioral state. It would also be helpful to clarify what is meant by "future imaging experiments should help us understand why our γ modulation experiments differ from those seen in normal behavior."

In their response to reviewers, the authors state that "stringent inclusion criteria were used to ensure that mice had adequate viral expression levels." Although there is a note that the behavior-based exclusion criteria was "further confirmed" based on "post-hoc analysis of brain slice slides," there is no information about how this analysis was conducted. What was the threshold for adequate expression? Were there any mice that showed behavioral effects but had low expression levels?

The frequency range that corresponds to "mid γ" is not stated consistently across the manuscript. The authors should also mention that the specific boundaries (and name) of this frequency band are not universally agreed upon in the literature.

It's fine if the authors want to continue their approach of combining capital letters and roman numerals in the figure panel labels, but I still maintain that most readers would appreciate if they switched to the more commonly used convention of consecutive letters for all panels. Closely related panels can be associated with a single letter, as they already are in Figures 2E and 4B, for example.

In several figures, the "6 Hz" condition is still written as "06 Hz"

Figure 2 – The authors state they have changed days to trial numbers, but this change does not appear in the revised manuscript.

Figure 3 – The authors state they have changed the "E" and "C" labels, but this change does not appear in the revised manuscript.

Figure 5 – Sub-panel Aii actually shows the modulation index for a frequency range from 25-90 Hz. The axis labels for this panel should be changed to "γ frequency" and "theta frequency," since "frequency of amplitude" and "frequency of phase" are not valid terms.

Essential revisions:

1) Clarify why the dentate gyrus was chosen for stimulation and discuss the implications of recording in CA1 while stimulating in the dentate gyrus.

We chose to stimulate in DG rather than in CA3 for two, interrelated reasons. First, in most of the historical work on this topic, re-activation has been performed in DG. Repeating this approach allows us to compare our data with those from the bulk of the literature, including recent work from the Ramirez lab involving calcium imaging in CA1 (Zaki et al. 2022, Neuropsychopharmacology). Second, reactivation of memory-encoding cells in CA3 tends to led to seizures that confound results and are unpleasant for the mouse (Ramirez, personal communication), presumably because of the degree of mutual excitation in this structure. As discussed in detail in our response to Reviewer #3, this experimental design has important implications that we did not discuss adequately in the previous version of the manuscript. We have made changes throughout the revised manuscript to clarify these points and avoid overstating our results.

2) The authors should expand γ analyses and better explain γ methods and results. See individual reviews below for details.

Our response to this concern is given below.

3) Attempt to account for the variability of effects across mice. Specific factors that may have contributed to different effect sizes, and different effects, across different mice are suggested below and should be explored.

As described in the methods section, we took steps to attempt to control for animal-to-animal variability. For example, we excluded animals that did freeze in response to light drive of the channelrhodopsin. Additional factors such as baseline freezing both during habituation and during each trial were investigated on an individual basis, but lacked clear trends (data not shown). We did see that the modulation index was correlated with levels of light induced freezing during trough stimulation (Figure 5D), indicating that mice with more successful optogenetic manipulation of the natural brain rhythms responded with larger behavioral changes. This point is made in the revised discussion.

4) Make the open-source platform more easily available for use by other labs.

As noted in the revised manuscript, we have posted the software for real-time phase prediction on Github (https://github.com/ndlBU/phase_specific_stim).

5) Add key references related to separate encoding and retrieval phases of the theta cycle and theta-phase specific inputs to hippocampal regions. See individual reviews below for details.

The following two references were added to capture more of the relevant literature surrounding the theta rhythm and its role in memory.

Kerrén et al. (2018) Current Biology 28: 3383-3392.e6

Wang et al. (2020) Science 370: 247-250

6) Clarify data exclusion criteria.

We have included additional information in the methods section covering how many mice were excluded due to each of the exclusion criteria.

7) Improve statistics. Corrections for multiple comparisons are needed in statistical analyses. Also, sample sizes and statistics are missing for some analyses. See individual reviews below for details.

We have updated the figure captions to include the n values, statistical tests, and corrections applied for each set of experiments. Corrections for multiple comparisons were performed in all cases but were only mentioned in the methods section of the original manuscript. This omission has been rectified.

8) The authors should better explain how they accounted for theta phase differences across different electrodes.

In post-hoc anatomical analysis, we located the tips of the LFP electrodes. We found that the vast majority of electrodes (24/26) were in the correct place, with only 2/26 electrodes being placed too far ventrally, in DG. For these mice, the peak and trough phases were flipped because the phase of the theta oscillation relative to CA1 reverses in DG (Buzsáki 2002). This information has been added to the methods section.

9) The authors should discuss how freezing behavior may affect the detection of the theta phase.

The reviewers raise a good point: a substantial reduction theta power during freezing could interfere with our ability to predict theta phase. Fortunately, this is not the case. We went through all of our data and calculated theta power for both non-freezing and freezing animals. We found that theta power is not affected by freezing in this task (Appendix 1, Figure 4).

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

The number of mice in the experimental group drops from 43 to 17 after applying three exclusion criteria. Based on the description in the methods, it sounds like two of these criteria were not independent (lack of increase in freezing and low viral expression levels). It would be helpful to include the number of mice that were excluded based on only one factor, two factors, or all three factors.

This information has been included in the revised methods section.

The authors should cite two additional studies that provide correlational evidence for separate encoding and retrieval phases of theta:

Kerrén et al. (2018) Current Biology 28: 3383-3392.e6

Wang et al. (2020) Science 370: 247-250

These references have been added.

The combined use of capital letters and roman numerals in the figure labels is unconventional and somewhat confusing. It would be clearer to just use consecutive letters for all panels.

The figure labels were indicted in that manner to group similar experiments and analyses together for the reader. Each figure has sub-themes that are represented by the individual letters, though each of these sub-themes may require multiple presentations of data to convey the full meaning.

Figure 1

The caption should state the criteria used to determine whether stimulation occurred at the peak or trough (stimulation within 1/4 cycle of the target). Although this is available in the methods section, it should be included here as well, since it's critical for interpreting these results. It would also be helpful to indicate the extent of this range in panel 1Ci.

The success criteria for the stimulation (within ¼ cycle of the goal) has been added to the figure caption.

The labels on Figure 1Cii are hard to interpret – it's not clear what "True" and "False" mean without carefully reading the text.

We feel we must use these terms, which are standard in the field, but in the revised legend of Figure 1, we have explained how these entries of the confusion matrix related to sensitivity and specificity.

Figure 2

Please use consistent nomenclature throughout all panels. Panel A uses "Habituation Trials 1-4" and "Engram Reactivation Trials 1-4", which are later referred to as "Day 1-4" and "Day 7-10". In addition, the meaning of "FC", "FS", and "GC" should be defined in the caption, so the figure can stand on its own.

The “days” in Figure 2E have been replaced with engram reactivation trial numbers. Additionally, FS+, FS-, FC, and GC have been defined in the figure caption.

While Figure 3 shows all data points, Figure 2 only includes dots for outliers; ideally, all points should be shown in both figures.

Dots have been included for Figure 2

Figure 3

Again, there is inconsistency in the labels. "FS+" and "FS-" are used in the caption, but "E" and "C" are used in the Figure legend (and are not defined).

E and C have been replaced with FS+ and FS-, respectively.

In, panels Ai and Aii, the sub-panels should be vertically aligned within conditions.

This has been changed.

The low-frequency open-loop stimulation condition should be labeled "6 Hz" instead of "06 Hz", to match the text and other figures.

The title has been renamed to match.

Figure 5

Please add labels to the sub-panels in 5C and 5D-the colors don't appear when printed in black & white.

The labels have been added.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

– Why stimulate in dentate instead of CA3 inputs to CA1? The rationale for dentate and its role in the SPEAR hypothesis should be explained in the introduction.

We chose to stimulate in DG rather than in CA3 for two, interrelated reasons. First, in most of the historical work on this topic, re-activation has been performed in DG. Repeating this approach allows us to compare our data with those from the bulk of the literature, including recent work from the Ramirez lab involving calcium imaging in CA1 (Zaki et al. 2022, Neuropsychopharmacology). Second, reactivation of memory-encoding cells in CA3 tends to led to seizures that confound results and are unpleasant for the mouse (Ramirez, personal communication), presumably because of the degree of mutual excitation in this structure. We have made this point more clearly in the revised manuscript.

– It is unclear how the authors correct for theta phase differences based on the location of the electrode. The authors state if the recording location is deemed out of the striatum pyramidal then it was "corrected" but the correction method and accuracy are unclear.

Because the phase of theta flips between CA1 and DG (Buzsáki 2002), if the recording electrode was too far ventral, then the Peak and Trough stimulations were reversed relative to the other mice. Thus, we flipped the phases for the 2/26 mice with LFP electrodes in DG. We have updated the methods to explain this correction.

– Could the mice see the laser light during stimulation? Did that affect their behavior?

Yes, the mice could see the light during stimulation. We habituated the animals to the light source prior to expression of the opsin and used control animals to ensure that the animals were not freezing in response to the light. We emphasize this point in the revised Methods section.

– How many DG cells were labeled? How many were stimulated? Did that have an effect on freezing behavior? Is this study labeling and stimulating similar numbers of neurons and areas of DG as prior studies, especially those that did see a significant increase in freezing with 20Hz stimulation?

Although we did not make a quantitative comparison, there were a similar number of DG cells labeled as in previous studies (Figure 2B). Viral expression and stimulation effects were controlled for with the stringent inclusion criteria.

– The statistical approach needs revisions. Many statistical comparisons were made in freezing behavior without controlling for multiple comparisons. Multiple comparisons should be taken into account. In some cases the statistical tests used are unclear, e.g. Figure 3Bii, C, and D.

In the original and revised manuscripts, Bonferroni correction was used in any case that required multiple comparisons, but we failed to mention this in the figure captions. Figure captions have been updated to emphasize this correction and the statistical tests have been added where missing.

– The figures need clarification and lack key info. First, several figures/captions lack an adequate explanation of colors or acronyms. Some examples:

These concerns have all been addressed and the updated manuscript is more clear.

– Throughout color meaning should be indicated in the caption.

The color meaning has been added to all relevant figure captions.

– Line plots throughout do not note errors being shown.

The errors are confidence intervals, and the figure captions have been updated to specify this.

– Statistical details beyond p-values are required: n and the statistical tests used are also required.

Statistics and n values were added to the figure captions.

– Figure 2Ci – caption is missing or mislabeled as C.

The figure caption has been added.

– Figure 2Cii: What are X and Stim on the x-axis? Needs to be explained.

The definition was added to the figure legend.

– Figure 2E left graph – you cannot see the color of the smallest bars. They should be labeled with words/letters.

The labels have been added.

– Figure 3A – define E and C or use FS+ and FS- in the legend. Define x.

The legend has been changed to use FS+ and FS-. Also, x has been defined in the figure caption.

– Is each dot with the box plots an animal or a day or something else?

Each dot is an animal, and figure captions have been updated to include this information.

– Figure 3B – what do open vs filled box plots mean?

The open box plots are FS-, while the filled box plots are FS+. This difference has been added to the figure caption and a legend has been included.

Second, some figure colors are unclear/confusing:

– Figure 1Ci – is there green (20Hz stim)? If so, I can't tell where.

There is green, but it overlaps entirely with the yellow. This information has been added to the figure caption.

– Figure 2 – the pink and purple are hard to distinguish. Looking at Figure 2E left graph I could not tell if that was Habituation or Engram Reactivation, eg pink or purple.

The pink and purple were used to be separate from the colors used later in the manuscript, and to be distinguishable by readers who may be color blind. We’ve added labels to make Figure 2E more clear.

– Figure 3 – A schematic showing the stimulation paradigm and interleaved stimulation trials is warranted. I am confused about how long was given between different types of stimulation.

The schematic in Figure 2 has been updated to be more clear and consistent with terminology, and we have explained the experimental paradigm more clearly. Now, trials are days of reactivation, while epochs are within a single day of stimulation. There were habituation trials, tagging, recall, and reactivation trials. Each mouse was stimulated with one of the frequencies on a single day, with the order of the stimulations across days balanced so that each stimulation type was equally represented across all four days.

– The authors show that theta trough stimulation of DG cells increases medium γ coupling to theta while other stimulation parameters do not increase. Slow γ is thought to correspond to periods of stronger CA3 input to CA1, while medium γ is thought to correspond to periods of stronger EC input to CA1. The authors should explicitly examine these different gammas separately and their modulation by theta. What phase of theta is each γ coupled to after trough or peak stimulation? Does this shift from baseline coupling? If the authors find trough stimulation increased theta modulation of medium γ, in particular, they should explain how this fits into their hypothesis that this stimulation leads to stronger CA3-CA1 coupling when other works suggest this should result in more slow γ.

As we note in the revised discussion, elicited increases in theta-γ coupling are by far strongest for medium γ, in contrast with results for natural recall. Light-stimulated effects on slow γ are not statistically significant (Appendix 1, Figure 2). We believe this anomalous effect is due to the artificial memory reactivation, where an entire group of neurons are activated simultaneously. Additionally, engram neurons expressing channelrhodopsin are typically excitatory cells, which further differentiates this manipulation from natural recall. In future work, when the downstream effects of engram reactivation are understood, a stronger explanation may emerge.

– The discussion and Figure 6 caption imply that peak stimulation is disrupting CA1 activity due to the arrival of the CA3 input at the same time as EC inputs. This could be described further to support the behavioral result in 5D. Is there any data to support this point?

The convergence of simultaneous inputs in CA1 is our working hypothesis of why peak stimulation does not elicit as strong of a behavioral effect as trough stimulation, though we have not investigated the physiological basis for this result. We hope that future work will elucidate the mechanisms underlying the behavior observed. As emphasized in the revised document, the discussed hypothesis is based on the previous literature.

– Is there any correlation with freezing behavior in the 20 or 6 Hz groups?

There was no correlation between freezing behavior and the modulation index in the 20 Hz or 6 Hz groups. Because the peak and trough groups are the only groups with physiological stimulation, we felt it was only necessary to show them in Figure 5D.

– What was the modulation index of animals that did not show light-induced freezing?

Because those animals did not show light induced freezing, they were excluded from all analysis. The lack of light induced freezing could stem from a range of reasons, with some so basic as having poor viral expression to where trying to categorize all of the cases would be tedious and potentially not very fruitful. For that reason, we elected to limit the scope of our analysis to mice showing behavioral effects.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

The authors tag and manipulate engram cells in the DG but they performed analysis on CA1 LFPs and used the CA1 theta phase as a reference signal. While this is not necessarily a problem per se, it needs to be explicitly addressed and its implication discussed. Likewise, through the text allusions to work on CA1 are used to interpret results from DG manipulations without a clear rationale.

– The abstract should state that engram cells are been tagged and reactivated in the DG. The title will also be more informative if instead of 'hippocampal memory neurons' it said 'dentate gyrus engram neurons'.

We have made it clear in the revised Abstract and title that the tagged and reactivated cells were in DG. Due to shifts in the field over what constitutes an engram, that term was intentionally avoided.

– The inputs that impinge DG granular cells during theta are different from those received by CA1 pyramidal cells. This needs to be explained, either in the Introduction or the Discussion. CA1 receives input from CA3 at the descending theta phase and from entorhinal layer 3 at the trough (e.g. Mizuseki et al., Neuron, 2009; Fernandez-Ruiz et al., Neuron, 2017). On the other hand, entorhinal input to DG granular cells originates in layer 2 and arrives at the trough of the CA1 pyramidal layer theta cycle (e.g. Mizuseki et al., Neuron, 2009; Fernandez-Ruiz et al., Science, 2021). It would be also useful to mention that the theta phase completely reverses from the CA1 pyramidal layer to the DG (e.g., Buzsaki, Neuron, 2002).

– If memory encoding and retrieval occur at the same theta phase in CA1 and DG is not yet clear. This needs to be acknowledged as most of the supporting references cited are for CA1. This can actually add additional value to the present paper and previous work (e.g. Siegle et al., eLife, 2014) was done in CA1.

– It needs to be explicitly discussed the potential relationships between stimulating DG cells, the behavioral effects observed, and the fact that LFP analysis was done in CA1. The current discussion on the topic lacks depth, and misses some details (e.g., different phases and layers of origin of entorhinal inputs to CA1 and DG). Excessive speculative statements (e.g., "Activating engrams neurons in DG at the trough of theta leads to in-phase activation of CA3 neurons") should be removed or supporting evidence provided.

The reviewer raises several excellent points here. By not expressing ourselves clearly enough, we appeared to be overstating our results. In the revised manuscript, we have added the following clarifications.

• We have revised the Abstract and the title to make it clear we tagged and reactivated cells in the DG. As explained in this version, we stimulated DG rather than CA3 because optogenetic stimulation of CA3 tends to generate seizures.

• As we make more clear, the hypothesized “encoding” and “retrieval” phases of SPEAR model are defined relative to the theta rhythm in CA1 stratum pyramidale. Our goal was to drive CA3 inputs to CA1 using the practical but indirect method of stimulating tagged DG neurons. We did not demonstrate that we were driving CA3 inputs to CA1 at the trough, nor did we recreate natural recall-related activity in DG, CA3, and CA1. Our positive results add a new piece to the puzzle here, as we note in the revised Discussion.

• As the reviewer notes, natural activity throughout the hippocampal formation is far more intricate and complex than in our experiments. We have modified the discussion, eliminating the last figure, which we think contributed to the perception that we were making overly bold claims. We have added suggested content to the Discussion about the intricacy of natural, phase-locked activity in the region.

Statistics and n's are missing for several analysis

– In figure legends, the n of both animals and sessions that went into each analysis should be clearly stated

n values and statistical tests have been added to all figure captions.

– The metric plotted in each case should also be clearly stated. For example, what do the shaded error bars in Figure 2A represent, mean +/- SEM? What do boxplots represent, median +/- CI?

The errors have been clarified in all of the figure captions.

– Figure 4 is missing all statistics and n's (e.g., spectral power comparison across states). That whole figure should be better described. Also, panels A and B are missing voltage and colormap scales respectively.

There are not statistics because the data are a representative sample. Scales bars have been added to panels A and B.

Theta-γ analysis in Figure 5 has several issues that need to be corrected.

– It needs to be clearly stated from which layer the LFP signals came, as there are strong laminar differences in CA1 γ oscillations (e.g., Schomburg et al., Neuron, 2014; Lasztoczni and Klausberger, Neuron, 2014)

The recording layer has been restated in the Results section for Figure 5, in addition to being specified in the Results section for Figure 1.

– The following sentence is not accurate: "Our analysis indicated that the MI was highest between the phase of theta filtered at 4-8 Hz frequency and the amplitude of 55-85 Hz γ, known as mid γ. This is similar to previous observations in CA1 (Jiang et al. 2020; Schomburg et al. 2014; Zhang et al. 2019) and consistent with CA3 inputs to CA1 driving recall of memories (Colgin 2015, 2016)". The papers cited, and many others (e.g., Colgin et al., Nature, 2009; Bieri et al., Neuron, 2014; Lasztoczni and Klausberger, Neuron, 2014; Fernandez-Ruiz et al., Neuron, 2017; Lopes dos Santos et al., Neuron, 2018) show that CA3 input to CA1 in dominant is a slower γ band (~30-50 Hz) while entorhinal input is of higher frequency (60-100 Hz), the so-called 'mid γ' sub-band.

This sentence was made in error, apologies. The Discussion section has been updated to include a more thorough review of how the theta-γ coupling results fit in with the prior literature.

– Related to the point above, in the comodulograms of Figure 5Aii I only see the mid-γ component (thus most likely the EC3 to CA1 input) but not the slow γ (the CA3 to CA1 input). The authors can refer to the papers mentioned above to see how at least 3 γ sub-bands are typically found with CFC analysis in CA1. This should be acknowledged in the manuscript. More importantly, the authors should try to separate slow and mid-γ sub-bands and then interpret their results in terms of CA3 and EC3 inputs to CA1. To further verify this separation, theta-phase γ-amplitude analysis can be conducted, as EC3 mid-γ input arrives at the CA1 theta peak and CA3 slow γ input at the descending phase.

This additional analysis has been conducted and included in the supplementary figures. While there is modulation in mid-γ, surprisingly there is minimal modulation in the slow-γ band. We believe this discrepancy is due to the non-physiological stimulation taking place, with only excitatory cells in DG being activated. We find it unsurprising that a non-physiological stimulation would result in shifted hallmarks of network activity downstream relative to non-perturbed hippocampal function. These ideas have been added to the Discussion section in a separate paragraph.

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

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

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

In my initial review, I assumed (along with the authors) that the stronger theta-γ coupling observed during trough stimulation was associated with the enhanced flow of information between CA3 and CA1, as is expected during memory recall. However, the other two reviewers correctly pointed out that the modulation occurred at higher γ frequencies (55 Hz and above), which likely indicates stronger coupling between EC and CA1 (associated with stronger encoding). The authors now acknowledge the apparent contradiction here and have removed the schematic previously shown in Figure 6. Since this undermines a key argument of the original manuscript, they should discuss more possible explanations for their observations, rather than just attributing it to the "somewhat abnormal" effects of their optogenetic intervention. For example, there could actually be stronger coupling theta-slow γ coupling in a different portion or layer of hippocampus, but they've just failed to record it-they mention earlier in the discussion that the sites of recording and reactivation are not spatially aligned. In addition, it's highly plausible that the induction of a fear-related freezing state *does* lead to stronger encoding of the present environment, and hence stronger EC-CA1 interactions. The reactivation of the contextual memory may occur within the first few cycles of stimulation, after which the physiological measurements in the trough stimulation condition are most strongly influenced by differences in behavioral state. It would also be helpful to clarify what is meant by "future imaging experiments should help us understand why our γ modulation experiments differ from those seen in normal behavior."

Thank you for the insight. We have updated the manuscript to reflect these ideas. The discrepancy between the mid-γ coupling during induced recall is a surprising result with many possible explanations. As you suggest, it is possible that the induction of a fear memory also results in the encoding of the context, as can be seen with memory re-association (Redondo et al., 2014). Another explanation is that the neuronal circuitry responsible for artificial and natural memory reactivation are distinct, thus resulting in different LFP signatures. In order to differentiate these possibilities, we believe calcium imaging provides more detailed insight into the neuronal mechanisms underlying memory reactivation. These points have been added, clarified, and expanded upon in the revised discussion.

In their response to reviewers, the authors state that "stringent inclusion criteria were used to ensure that mice had adequate viral expression levels." Although there is a note that the behavior-based exclusion criteria was "further confirmed" based on "post-hoc analysis of brain slice slides," there is no information about how this analysis was conducted. What was the threshold for adequate expression? Were there any mice that showed behavioral effects but had low expression levels?

Expression data were inspected manually, with each mouse checked for positive expression. Perhaps because of the stringent nature of the behavioral criteria, no mice exhibited positive behavior without high levels of opsin expression. We have updated the methods section to include this information.

The frequency range that corresponds to "mid γ" is not stated consistently across the manuscript. The authors should also mention that the specific boundaries (and name) of this frequency band are not universally agreed upon in the literature.

Fixed, and the variation in frequency bands has been mentioned in the discussion.

It's fine if the authors want to continue their approach of combining capital letters and roman numerals in the figure panel labels, but I still maintain that most readers would appreciate if they switched to the more commonly used convention of consecutive letters for all panels. Closely related panels can be associated with a single letter, as they already are in Figures 2E and 4B, for example.

Our apologies for missing this. We’ve fixed this problem in Figures 2-5.

In several figures, the "6 Hz" condition is still written as "06 Hz"

Figure 2 – The authors state they have changed days to trial numbers, but this change does not appear in the revised manuscript.

Fixed.

Figure 3 – The authors state they have changed the "E" and "C" labels, but this change does not appear in the revised manuscript.

Fixed.

Figure 5 – Sub-panel Aii actually shows the modulation index for a frequency range from 25-90 Hz. The axis labels for this panel should be changed to "γ frequency" and "theta frequency," since "frequency of amplitude" and "frequency of phase" are not valid terms.

Fixed. Thanks for catching this.

Author details

1. Bahar Rahsepar

   1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States
   2. Center for Systems Neuroscience, Neurophotonics Center, Boston University, Boston, United States
   3. Department of Biology, Boston University, Boston, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - original draft

   Contributed equally with

   Jacob F Norman

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

2. Jacob F Norman

   1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States
   2. Center for Systems Neuroscience, Neurophotonics Center, Boston University, Boston, United States

   Contribution

   Resources, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Bahar Rahsepar

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Jad Noueihed

   1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States
   2. Center for Systems Neuroscience, Neurophotonics Center, Boston University, Boston, United States

   Contribution

   Software, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Benjamin Lahner

   Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States

   Contribution

   Software, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Melanie H Quick

   Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States

   Contribution

   Software, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Kevin Ghaemi

   Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States

   Contribution

   Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Aashna Pandya

   Department of Biology, Boston University, Boston, United States

   Contribution

   Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Fernando R Fernandez

   1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States
   2. Center for Systems Neuroscience, Neurophotonics Center, Boston University, Boston, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Steve Ramirez

   1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States
   2. Center for Systems Neuroscience, Neurophotonics Center, Boston University, Boston, United States
   3. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9966-598X

10. John A White

    1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States
    2. Center for Systems Neuroscience, Neurophotonics Center, Boston University, Boston, United States

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

    For correspondence

    jwhite@bu.edu

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1073-2638

• 671

  Page views

• 140

  Downloads

• 1

  Citations

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