Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, and public reviews.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorMychael LourencoFederal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
- Senior EditorLaura ColginUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, United States of America
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Summary:
In this manuscript, Fuchsberger et al. demonstrate a set of experiments that ultimately identifies the de novo synthesis of GluA1-, but not GluA2-containing Ca2+ permeable AMPA receptors as a key driver of dopamine-dependent LTP (DA-LTP) during conventional post-before-pre spike-timing dependent (t-LTD) induction. The authors further identify adenylate cyclase 1/8, cAMP, and PKA as the crucial mitigators of these actions. While some comments have been identified below, the experiments presented are thorough and address the aims of the manuscript, figures are presented clearly (with minor comments), and experimental sample sizes and statistical analyses are suitable. Suitable controls have been utilized to confirm the role of Ca2+ permeable AMPAR. This work provides a valuable step forward built on convincing data toward understanding the underlying mechanisms of spike-timing-dependent plasticity and dopamine.
Strengths:
Appropriate controls were used.
The flow of data presented is logical and easy to follow.
The quality of the data, except for a few minor issues, is solid.
Weaknesses:
The drug treatment duration of anisomycin is longer than the standard 30-45 minute duration (as is the 500uM vs 40uM concentration) typically used in the field. Given the toxicity of these kinds of drugs long term it's unclear why the authors used such a long and intense drug treatment.
With some of the normalizations (such as those in S1) there are dramatic differences in the baseline "untreated" puromycin intensities - raising some questions about the overall health of slices used in the experiments.
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
The aim was to identify the mechanisms that underlie a form of long-term potentiation (LTP) that requires the activation of dopamine (DA).
Strengths:
The authors have provided multiple lines of evidence that support their conclusions; namely that this pathway involves the activation of a cAMP / PKA pathway that leads to the insertion of calcium-permeable AMPA receptors.
Weaknesses:
Some of the experiments could have been conducted in a more convincing manner.
Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
The manuscript of Fuchsberger et al. investigates the cellular mechanisms underlying dopamine-dependent long-term potentiation (DA-LTP) in mouse hippocampal CA1 neurons. The authors conducted a series of experiments to measure the effect of dopamine on the protein synthesis rate in hippocampal neurons and its role in enabling DA-LTP. The key results indicate that protein synthesis is increased in response to dopamine and neuronal activity in the pyramidal neurons of the CA1 hippocampal area, mediated via the activation of adenylate cyclases subtypes 1 and 8 (AC1/8) and the cAMP-dependent protein kinase (PKA) pathway. Additionally, the authors show that postsynaptic DA-induced increases in protein synthesis are required to express DA-LTP, while not required for conventional t-LTP.
The increased expression of the newly synthesized GluA1 receptor subunit in response to DA supports the formation of homomeric calcium-permeable AMPA receptors (CP-AMPARs). This evidence aligns well with data showing that DA-LTP expression requires the GluA1 AMPA subunit and CP-AMPARs, as DA-LTP is absent in the hippocampus of a GluA1 genetic knock-out mouse model. Overall, the study is solid, and the evidence provided is compelling. The authors clearly and concisely explain the research objectives, methodologies, and findings. The study is scientifically robust, and the writing is engaging. The authors' conclusions and interpretation of the results are insightful and align well with the literature. The discussion effectively places the findings in a meaningful context, highlighting a possible mechanism for dopamine's role in the modulation of protein-synthesis-dependent hippocampal synaptic plasticity and its implications for the field. Although the study expands on previous works from the same laboratory, the findings are novel and provide valuable insights into the dynamics governing hippocampal synaptic plasticity.
The claim that GluA1 homomeric CP-AMPA receptors mediate the expression of DA-LTP is fascinating, and although the electrophysiology data on GluA1 knock-out mice are convincing, more evidence is needed to support this hypothesis. Western blotting provides useful information on the expression level of GluA1, which is not necessarily associated with cell surface expression of GluA1 and therefore CP-AMPARs. Validating this hypothesis by localizing the protein using immunofluorescence and confocal microscopy detection could strengthen the claim. The authors should briefly discuss the limitations of the study.
Additional comments to address:
(1) In Figure 2A, the representative image with PMY alone shows a very weak PMY signal. Consequently, the image with TTX alone seems to potentiate the PMY signal, suggesting a counterintuitive increase in protein synthesis.
(2) In Figures 3A-B, the Western blotting representative images have poor quality, especially regarding GluA1 and α-actin in Figure 3A. The quantification graph (Figure 3B) raises some concerns about a potential outlier in both the DA alone and DA+CHX groups. The authors should consider running a statistical test to detect outlier data. Full blot images, including ladder lines, should be added to the supplementary data.