Prosapip1 in the dorsal hippocampus mediates synaptic protein composition, long-term potentiation, and spatial memory

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In the manuscript by Hoisington et al., the authors utilized a novel conditional neuronal prosap2-interacting protein 1 (Prosapip1) knockout mouse to delineate the effects of both neuronal and dorsal hippocampal (dHP)-specific knockout of Prosapip1 impacts biochemical and electrophysiological neuroadaptations within the dHP that may mediate behaviors associated with this brain region.

Strengths:

(1) Methodological Strengths

a. The generation and use of a conditional neuronal knockout of Prosapip1 is a strength. These mice will be useful for anyone interested in studying or comparing and contrasting the effects of loss of Prosapip1 in different brain regions or in non-neuronal tissues.

b. The use of biochemical, electrophysiological, and behavioral approaches are a strength. By providing data across multiple domains, a picture begins to emerge about the mechanistic role for Prosapip1. While questions still remain, the use of the 3 domains is a strength.

c. The use of both global, constitutive neuronal loss of Prosapip1 and postnatal dHP-specific knockout of Prosapip1 help support and validate the behavioral conclusions.

(2) Strengths of the results

a. It is interesting that loss of Prosapip1 leads to specific alterations in the expression of GluN2B and PSD95 but not GluA1 or GluN2A in a post-homogenization fraction that the author's term a "synaptic" fraction. Therefore, these results suggest protein-specific modulation of glutamatergic receptors within a "synaptic" fraction.

b. The electrophysiological data demonstrate an NMDAR-dependent alteration in measures of hippocampal synaptic plasticity, including long-term potentiation (LTP) and NMDAR input/output. These data correspond with the biochemical data demonstrating a biochemical effect on GluN2B localization. Therefore, the conclusion that loss of Prosapip1 influences NMDAR function is well supported.

c. The behavioral data suggest deficits in memory in particular novel object recognition and spatial memory, in the Prosapip1 knockout mice. These data are strongly bolstered by both the pan-neuronal knockout and the dHP Cre transduction.

Weaknesses:

(1) Methodological Weaknesses

a. The synapsin-Cre mice may more broadly express Cre-recombinase than just in neuronal tissues. Specifically, according to Jackson Laboratories, there is a concern with these mice expressing Cre-recombinase germline. As the human protein atlas suggests that Prosapip1 protein is expressed extraneuronally, validation of neuron or at least brain-specific knockout would be helpful in interpreting the data. Having said that, the data demonstrating that the brain region-specific knockout has similar behavioral impacts helps alleviate this concern somewhat; however, there are no biochemical or electrophysiological readouts from these animals, and therefore an alternative mechanism in this adult knockout cannot be excluded.

b. The use of the word synaptic and the crude fractionation make some of the data difficult to interpret/contextualize. It is unclear how a single centrifugation that eliminates the staining of a nuclear protein can be considered a "synaptic" fraction. This is highlighted by the presence of GAPDH in this fraction which is a cytosolically-enriched protein. While GAPDH may be associated with some membranes it is not a synaptic protein. There is no quantification of GAPDH against total protein to validate that it is not enriched in this fraction over control. Moreover, it should not be used as a loading control in the synaptic fraction. There are multiple different ways to enrich membranes, extrasynaptic fractions, and PSDs and a better discussion on the caveats of the biochemical fractionation is a minimum to help contextualize the changes in PSD95 and GluN2B.

c. Also, the word synaptosomal on page 7 is not correct. One issue is this is more than synaptosomes and another issue is synaptosomes are exclusively presynaptic terminals. The correct term to use is synaptoneurosome, which includes both pre and postsynaptic components. Moreover, as stated above, this may contain these components but is most likely not a pure or even enriched fraction.

d. The age at which the mice underwent injection of the Cre virus was not mentioned.

(2) Weaknesses of results

a. There were no measures of GluN1 or GluA2 in the biochemical assays. As GluN1 is the obligate subunit, how it is impacted by the loss of Prosapip1 may help contextualize the fact that GluN2B, but not GluN2A, is altered. Moreover, as GluA2 has different calcium permeance, alterations in it may be informative.

b. While there was no difference in GluA1 expression in the "synaptic" fraction, it does not mean that AMPAR function is not impacted by the loss of Prosapip1. This is particularly important as Prosapip1 may interact with kinases or phosphatases or their targeting proteins. Therefore, measuring AMPAR function electrophysiologically or synaptic protein phosphorylation would be informative.

c. There is a lack of mechanistic data on what specifically and how GluN2B and PSD95 expression is altered. This is due to some of the challenges with interpreting the biochemical fractionation and a lack of results regarding changes in protein posttranslational modifications.

d. The loss of social novelty measures in both the global and dHP-specific Prosapip1 knockout mice were not very robust. As they were consistently lost in both approaches and as there were other consistent memory deficits, this does not impact the conclusions, but may be important to temper discussion to match these smaller deficits within this domain.

e. Alterations in presynaptic paired-pulse ratio measures are intriguing and may point to a role for Prosapip1 in synapse development, as discussed in the manuscript. It would be interesting to delineate if these PPR changes also occur in the adult knockout to help detail the specific Prosapip1-induced neuroadaptations that link to the alterations in novelty-induced behaviors.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors provide valuable findings characterizing a Prosapip1 conditional knockout mouse and the effects of knockout on hippocampal excitatory transmission, NMDAR transmission, and several learning behaviors. Furthermore, the authors selectively and conditionally knockout Prosapip1 in the dorsal hippocampus and show that it is required for the same spatial learning and memory assessed in the conditional knockout mice. The study uncovers how Prosapip1 is involved PSD organization and is a functional and critical player in dorsal Hippocampal LTP via its interaction with GluN2B subunits.

Strengths:

The study is well-controlled and detailed, and the data in the paper match the conclusions.

Weaknesses:

Some statistical information is lacking.