Characterization of direct Purkinje cell outputs to the brainstem

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper is an incremental follow-up to the authors' recent paper which showed that Purkinje cells make inhibitory synapses onto brainstem neurons in the parabrachial nucleus which project directly to the forebrain. In that precedent paper, the authors used a mouse line that expresses the presynaptic marker synaptophysin in Purkinje cells to identify Purkinje cell terminals in the brainstem and they observed labeled puncta not only in the vestibular and parabrachial nuclei, as expected, but also in neighboring dorsal brainstem nuclei, prominently the central pontine grey. The present study, motivated by the lack of thorough characterization of PC projections to the brainstem, uses the same mouse line to anatomically map the density and a PC-specific channelrhodopsin mouse line to electrophysiologically assess the strength of Purkinje cell synapses in dorsal brainstem nuclei. The main findings are (1) the density of Purkinje cell synapses is highest in vestibular and parabrachial nuclei and correlates with the magnitude of evoked inhibitory synaptic currents, and (2) Purkinje cells also synapse in the central pontine grey nucleus but not in the locus coeruleus or mesencephalic nucleus.

Strengths:

The complementary use of anatomical and electrophysiological methods to survey the distribution and efficacy of Purkinje cell synapses on brainstem neurons in mouse lines that express markers and light-sensitive opsins specifically in Purkinje cells is the major strength of this study. By systematically mapping presynaptic terminals and light-evoked inhibitory postsynaptic currents in the dorsal brainstem, the authors provide convincing evidence that Purkinje cells do synapse directly onto pontine central grey and nearby neurons but do not synapse onto trigeminal motor or locus coeruleus neurons. Their results also confirm previously documented heterogeneity of Purkinje cell inputs to the vestibular nucleus and parabrachial neurons.

Weaknesses:

Although the study provides strong evidence that Purkinje cells do not make extensive synapses onto LC neurons, which is a helpful caveat given previous reports to the contrary, it falls short of providing the comprehensive characterization of Purkinje cell brainstem synapses which seemed to be the primary motivation of the study. The main information provided is a regional assessment of PC density and efficacy, which seems of limited utility given that we are not informed about the different sources of PC inputs, variations in the sizes of PC terminals, the subcellular location of synaptic terminals, or the anatomical and physiological heterogeneity of postsynaptic cell types. The title of this paper would be more accurate if "characterization" were replaced by "survey".

Several of the study's conclusions are quite general and have already been made for vestibular nuclei, including the suggestions in the Abstract, Results, and Discussion that PCs selectively influence brainstem subregions and that PCs target cell types with specific behavioral roles.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

While it is often assumed that the cerebellar cortex connects, via its sole output neuron, the Purkinje cell, exclusively to the cerebellar nuclei, axonal projections of the Purkinje cells to dorsal brainstem regions have been well documented. This paper provides comprehensive mapping and quantification of such extracerebellar projections of the Purkinje cells, most of which are confirmed with electrophysiology in slice preparation. A notable methodological strength of this work is the use of highly Purkinje cell-specific transgenic strategies, enabling selective and unbiased visualization of Purkinje terminals in the brainstem. By utilizing these selective mouse lines, the study offers compelling evidence challenging the general assumption that Purkinje cell targets are limited to the cerebellar nuclei. While the individual connections presented are not entirely novel, this paper provides a thorough and unambiguous demonstration of their collective significance. Regarding another major claim of this paper, "characterization of direct Purkinje cell outputs (Title)", however, the depth of electrophysiological analysis is limited to the presence/absence of physiological Purkinje input to postsynaptic brainstem neurons whose known cell types are mostly blinded. Overall, conceptual advance is largely limited to confirmatory or incremental, although it would be useful for the field to have the comprehensive landscape presented.

Strengths:

(1) Unsupervised comprehensive mapping and quantification of the Purkinje terminals in the dorsal brainstem are enabled, for the first time, by using the current state-of-the-art mouse lines, BAC-Pcp2-Cre and synaptophysin-tdTomato reporter (Ai34).

(2) Combinatorial quantification with vGAT puncta and synaptophysin-tdTomato labeled Purkinje terminals clarifies the anatomical significance of the Purkinje terminals as an inhibitory source in each dorsal brainstem region.

(3) Electrophysiological confirmation of the presence of physiological Purkinje synaptic input to 7 out of 9 dorsal brainstem regions identified.

(4) Pan-Purkinje ChR2 reporter provides solid electrophysiological evidence to help understand the possible influence of the Purkinje cells onto LC.

Weaknesses:

(1) The present paper is largely confirmatory of what is presented in a previous paper published by the author's group (Chen et al., 2023, Nat Neurosci). In this preceding paper, the author's group used AAV1-mediated anterograde transsynaptic strategy to identify postsynaptic neurons of the Purkinje cells. The experiments performed in the present paper are, by nature, complementary to the AAV1 tracing which can also infect retrogradely and thus is not able to demonstrate the direction of synaptic connections between reciprocally connected regions. Anatomical findings are all consistent with the preceding paper. The likely absence of robust physiological connections from the Purkinje to LC has also been evidenced in the preceding paper by examining c-Fos response to Purkinje terminal photoinhibition at the PBN/LC region.

(2) Although the authors appear to assume uniform cell type and postsynaptic response in each of the dorsal brainstem nuclei (as noted in the Discussion, "PCs likely function similarly to their inputs to the cerebellar nuclei, where a very brief pause in firing can lead to large and rapid elevations in target cell firing"), we know that the responses to the Purkinje cell input are cell type dependent, which vary in neurotransmitter, output targets, somata size, and distribution, in the cerebellar and vestibular nuclei (Shin et al., 2011, J Neurosci; Najac and Raman, 2015, J Neurosci; Özcan et al., 2020, J Neurosci). This consideration impacts the interpretation of two key findings: (a) "Large ... PC-IPSCs are preferentially observed in subregions with the highest densities of PC synapses (Abstract)". For example, we know that the terminal sparse regions reported in the present paper do contain Floccular Targeted Neurons that are sparse yet have dense somatic terminals with profound postinhibitory rebound (Shin et al.). Despite their sparsity, these postsynaptic neurons play a distinct and critical role in proper vestibuloocular reflex. Therefore, associating broad synaptic density with "PC preferential" targets, as written in the Abstract, may not fully capture the behavioral significance of Purkinje extracerebellar projections. (b) "We conclude ... only a small fraction of cell. This suggests that PCs target cell types with specific behavioral roles (Abstract, the last sentence)". Prior research has already established that "PCs target cell types with specific behavioral roles in brainstem regions". Also, whether 23 % (for PCG), for example, is "a small fraction" would be subjective: it might represent a numerically small but functionally important cell type population. The physiological characterization provided in the present cell type-blind analysis could, from a functional perspective, even be decremental when compared to existing cell type-specific analyses of the Purkinje cell inputs in the literature.

(3) The quantification analyses used to draw conclusions about
(a) the significance of PC terminals among all GABAergic terminals and
(b) the fractions of electrophysiologically responsive postsynaptic brainstem neurons may have potential sampling considerations:.
(b.i) this study appears to have selected subregions from each brainstem nucleus for quantification (Figure 2). However, the criteria for selecting these subregions are not explicitly detailed, which could affect the interpretation of the results.
(b.ii) the mapping of recorded cells (Figure 3) seems to show a higher concentration in terminal-rich regions of the vestibular nuclei.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Chen and colleagues explores the connections from cerebellar Purkinje cells to various brainstem nuclei. They combine two methods - presynaptic puncta labeling as putative presynaptic markers, and optogenetics, to test the anatomical projections and functional connectivity from Purkinje cells onto a variety of brainstem nuclei. Overall, their study provides an atlas of sorts of Purkinje cell connectivity to the brainstem, which includes a critical analysis of some of their own data from another publication. Overall, the value of this work is to both provide neural substrates by which Purkinje cells may influence the brainstem and subsequent brain regions independent of the deep cerebellar nuclei and also, to provide a critical analysis of viral-based methods to explore neuronal connectivity.

Strengths:

The strengths lie in the simplicity of the study, the number of cells patched, and the relationship between the presence of putative presynaptic puncta and electrophysiological results. This type of study is important and should provide a foundation for future work exploring cerebellar inputs and outputs. Overall, I think that the critique of viral-based methods to define connectivity, and a more holistic assessment of what connectivity is and how it should be defined is timely and warranted, as I think this is under-appreciated by many groups and overall, there is a good deal of research being published that do not properly consider the issues that this manuscript raises about what viral-based connectivity maps do and do not tell us.

Weaknesses:

While I overall liked the manuscript, I do have a few concerns that relate to interpretation of results, and discussion of technological limitations. The main concerns I have relate to the techniques that the authors use, and an insufficient discussion of their limitations. The authors use a Cre-dependent mouse line that expresses a synaptophysin-tomato marker, which the authors confidently state is a marker of synapses. This is misleading. Synaptophysin is a vesicle marker, and as such, labels axons, where vesicles are present in transit, and likely cell bodies where the protein is being produced. As such, the presence of tdtomato should not be interpreted definitively as the presence of a synapse. The use of vGAT as a marker, while this helps to constrain the selection of putative pre-synaptic sites, is also a vesicle marker and will likely suffer the same limitations (though in this case, the expression is endogenous and not driven by the ROSA locus). A more conservative interpretation of the data would be that the authors are assessing putative pre-synaptic sites with their analysis. This interpretation is wholly consistent with their findings showing the presence of tdtomato in some regions but only sparse connectivity - this would be expected in the event that axons are passing through. If the authors wish to strongly assert that they are specifically assessing synapses, a marker better restricted to synapses and not vesicles may be more appropriate.

Similarly, while optogenetics/slice electrophysiology remains the state of the art for assessing connectivity between cell populations, it is not without limitations. For example, connections that are not contained within the thickness of the slice (here, 200 um, which is not particularly thick for slice ephys preps) will not be detected. As such, the absence of connections is harder to interpret than the presence of connections. Slices were only made in the coronal plane, which means that if there is a particular topology to certain connections that is orthogonal to that plane, those connections may be under-represented. As such, all connectivity analyses likely are under-representations of the actual connectivity that exists in the intact brain. Therefore, perhaps the authors should consider revising their assessments of connections, or lack thereof, of Purkinje cells to e.g., LC cells. While their data do make a compelling case that the connections between Purkinje cells and LC cells are not particularly strong or numerous, especially compared to other nearby brainstem nuclei, their analyses do indicate that at least some such connections do exist. Thus, rather than saying that the viral methods such as rabies virus are not accurate reflections of connectivity - perhaps a more circumspect argument would be that the quantitative connectivity maps reported by other groups using rabies virus do not always reflect connectivity defined by other means e.g., functional connections with optogenetics. In some cases, the authors do suggest this (e.g."Together, these findings indicate that reliance on anatomical tracing experiments alone is insufficient to establish the presence and importance of a synaptic connection"), but in other cases, they are more dismissive of viral tracing results (e.g. "it further suggests that these neurons project to the cerebellum and were not retrogradely labeled"). Furthermore, some statements are a bit misleading e.g., mentioning that rabies methods are critically dependent on starter cell identity immediately following the citation of studies mapping inputs onto LC cells. While in general, this claim has merit, the studies cited (19-21) use Dbh-Cre to define LC-NE cells which does have good fidelity to the cells of interest in the LC. Therefore, rewording this section in order to raise these issues generally without proximity to the citations in the previous sentence may maintain the authors' intention without suggesting that perhaps the rabies studies from LC-NE cells that identified inputs from Purkinje cells were inaccurate due to poor fidelity of the Cre line. Overall, this manuscript would certainly not be the first report indicating that the rabies virus does not provide a quantitative map of input connections. In my opinion, this is still under-appreciated by the broad community and should be explicitly discussed. Thus, an acknowledgment of previous literature on this topic and how their work contributes to that argument is warranted.