Striatal cholinergic interneuron pause response requires Kv1 channels, is absent in dyskinetic mice, and is restored by dopamine D5 receptor inverse agonism

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Tubert C. et al. investigated the role of dopamine D5 receptors (D5R) and their downstream potassium channel, Kv1, in the striatal cholinergic neuron pause response induced by thalamic excitatory input. Using slice electrophysiological analysis combined with pharmacological approaches, the authors tested which receptors and channels contribute to the cholinergic interneuron pause response in both control and dyskinetic mice (in the L-DOPA off state). They found that activation of Kv1 was necessary for the pause response, while activation of D5R blocked the pause response in control mice. Furthermore, in the L-DOPA off state of dyskinetic mice, the absence of the pause response was restored by the application of clozapine. The authors claimed that 1) the D5R-Kv1 pathway contributes to the cholinergic interneuron pause response in a phasic dopamine concentration-dependent manner, and 2) clozapine inhibits D5R in the L-DOPA off state, which restores the pause response.

Strengths

The electrophysiological and pharmacological approaches used in this study are powerful tools for testing channel properties and functions. The authors' group has well-established these methodologies and analysis pipelines. Indeed, the data presented were robust and reliable.

Weaknesses:

Although the paper has strengths in its methodological approaches, there is a significant gap between the presented data and the authors' claims.

The authors answered the most of concerns I raised. However, the critical issue remains unresolved.

I am still not convinced by the results presented in Fig. 6 and their interpretation. Since Clozapine acts as an agonist in the absence of an endogenous agonist, it may stimulate the D5R-cAMP-Kv1 pathway. Stimulation of this pathway should abolish the pause response mediated by thalamic stimulation in SCINs, rather than restoring the pause response. Clarification is needed regarding how Clozapine reduces D5R-ligand-independent activity in the absence of dopamine (the endogenous agonist). In addition, the author's argued that D5R antagonist does not work in the absence of dopamine, therefore solely D5R antagonist didn't restore the pause response. However, if D5R-cAMP-Kv1 pathway is already active in L-DOPA off state, why D5R antagonist didn't contribute to inhibition of D5R pathway?
Since Clozapine is not D5 specific and Clozapine experiments were not concrete, I recommend testing whether other receptors, such as the D2 receptor, contribute to the Clozapine-induced pause response in the L-DOPA-off state.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Tubert et al. presents the role of D5 receptors (D5R) in regulating the striatal cholinergic interneuron (CIN) pause response through D5R-cAMP-Kv1 inhibitory signaling. Their findings provide a compelling model explaining the "on/off" switch of the CIN pause, driven by the distinct dopamine affinities of D2R and D5R. This mechanism, coupled with varying dopamine states, is likely critical for modulating synaptic plasticity in cortico-striatal circuits during motor learning and execution. Furthermore, the study bridges their previous finding of CIN hyperexcitability (Paz et al., Movement Disorder 2022) with the loss of the pause response in LID mice and demonstrates the restore of the pause through D1/D5 inverse agonism.

Strengths:

The study presents solid findings, and the writing is logically structured and easy to follow. The experiments are well-designed, properly combining ex vivo electrophysiology recording, optogenetics, and pharmacological treatment to dissect / rule out most, if not all, alternative mechanisms in their model.

Weaknesses:

While the manuscript is overall satisfying, one conceptual gap needs to be further addressed or discussed: the potential "imbalance" between D2R and D5R signaling due to the ligand-independent activity of D5R in LID. Given that D2R and D5R oppositely regulate CIN pause responses through cAMP signaling, investigating the role of D2R under LID off L-DOPA (e.g., by applying D2 agonists or antagonists, even together with intracellular cAMP analogs or inhibitors) could provide critical insights. Addressing this aspect would strengthen the manuscript in understanding CIN pause loss under pathological conditions.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Tubert et al. investigate the mechanisms underlying the pause response in striatal cholinergic interneurons (SCINs). The authors demonstrate that optogenetic activation of thalamic axons in the striatum induces burst activity in SCINs, followed by a brief pause in firing. They show that the duration of this pause correlates with the number of elicited action potentials, suggesting a burst-dependent pause mechanism. The authors demonstrated this burst-dependent pause relied on Kv1 channels. The pause is blocked by a SKF81297 and partially by sulpiride and mecamylamine, implicating D1/D5 receptor involvement. The study also shows that the ZD7288 does not reduce the duration of the pause, and that lesioning dopamine neurons abolishes this response, which can be restored by clozapine.

Weaknesses:

While this study presents an interesting mechanism for SCIN pausing after burst activity, there are several major concerns that should be addressed:

(1) Scope of the Mechanism: It is important to clarify that the proposed mechanism may apply specifically to the pause in SCINs following burst activity. The manuscript does not provide clear evidence that this mechanism contributes to the pause response observed in behavioral animals. While the thalamus is crucial for SCIN pauses in behavioral contexts, the exact mechanism remains unclear. Activating thalamic input triggers burst activity in SCINs, leading to a subsequent pause, but this mechanism may not be generalizable across different scenarios. For instance, approximately half of TANs do not exhibit initial excitation but still pause during behavior, suggesting that the burst-dependent pause mechanism is unlikely to explain this phenomenon. Furthermore, in behavioral animals, the duration of the pause seems consistent, whereas the proposed mechanism suggests it depends on the prior burst, which is not aligned with in vivo observations. Additionally, many in vivo recordings show that the pause response is a reduction in firing rate, not complete silence, which the mechanism described here does not explain. Please address these in the manuscript.

(2) Terminology: The use of "pause response" throughout the manuscript is misleading. The pause induced by thalamic input in brain slices is distinct from the pause observed in behavioral animals. Given the lack of a clear link between these two phenomena in the manuscript, it is essential to use more precise terminology throughout, including in the title, bullet points, and body of the manuscript.

(3) Kv1 Blocker Specificity: It is unclear how the authors ruled out the possibility that the Kv1 blocker did not act directly on SCINs. Could there be an indirect effect contributing to the burst-dependent pause? Clarification on this point would strengthen the interpretation of the results.

(4) Role of D1 Receptors: While it is well-established that activating thalamic input to SCINs triggers dopamine release, contributing to SCIN pausing (as shown in Figure 3), it would be helpful to assess the extent to which D1 receptors contribute to this burst-dependent pause. This could be achieved by applying the D1 agonist SKF81297 after blocking nAChRs and D2 receptors.

(5) Clozapine's Mechanism of Action: The restoration of the burst-dependent pause by clozapine following dopamine neuron lesioning is interesting, but clozapine acts on multiple receptors beyond D1 and D5. Although it may be challenging to find a specific D5 antagonist or inverse agonist, it would be more accurate to state that clozapine restores the burst-dependent pause without conclusively attributing this effect to D5 receptors.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed many of my concerns. However, I remain unconvinced that adding an 'ex vivo' experiment fully resolves the fundamental differences between the burst-dependent pause observed in slices - defined by the duration of a single AHP - and the pause response in CHINs observed in vivo, which may involve contributions from more than one prolonged AHP. In vivo, neurons can still fire action potentials during the pause, albeit at a lower frequency. Moreover, in behaving animals, pause duration does not vary with or without initial excitation. The mechanism proposed demonstrates that the pause duration, defined by the length of a single AHP, is positively correlated with preceding burst activity.

To improve clarity, I recommend using the term 'SCIN pause' to describe the ex vivo findings, distinguishing them more explicitly from the 'pause response' observed in behaving animals. This distinction would help contextualize the ex vivo findings as potentially contributing to, but not fully representing, the pause response in vivo.

Again, it would be helpful to present raw data for pause durations rather than relying solely on ratios. This approach would provide the audience with a clearer understanding of the absolute duration of the burst-dependent pause and allow for better comparison to the ~200 ms pause observed in behaving animals.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Tubert C. et al. investigated the role of dopamine D5 receptors (D5R) and their downstream potassium channel, Kv1, in the striatal cholinergic neuron pause response induced by thalamic excitatory input. Using slice electrophysiological analysis combined with pharmacological approaches, the authors tested which receptors and channels contribute to the cholinergic interneuron pause response in both control and dyskinetic mice (in the LDOPA off state). They found that activation of Kv1 was necessary for the pause response, while activation of D5R blocked the pause response in control mice. Furthermore, in the LDOPA off-state of dyskinetic mice, the absence of the pause response was restored by the application of clozapine. The authors claimed that (1) the D5R-Kv1 pathway contributes to the cholinergic interneuron pause response in a phasic dopamine concentration-dependent manner, and (2) clozapine inhibits D5R in the L-DOPA off state, which restores the pause response.

Strengths:

The electrophysiological and pharmacological approaches used in this study are powerful tools for testing channel properties and functions. The authors' group has well-established these methodologies and analysis pipelines. Indeed, the data presented were robust and reliable.

Thank you for your comments.

Weaknesses:

Although the paper has strengths in its methodological approaches, there is a significant gap between the presented data and the authors' claims.

There was no direct demonstration that the D5R-Kv1 pathway is dominant when dopamine levels are high. The term 'high' is ambiguous, and it raises the question of whether the authors believe that dopamine levels do not reach the threshold required to activate D5R under physiological conditions.

We acknowledge that further work is necessary to clarify the role of the D5R in physiological conditions. While we haven’t found effects of the D1/D5 receptor antagonist SCH23390 on the pause response in control animals (Fig. 3), it is still possible that dopamine levels reach the threshold to stimulate D5R when burst firing of dopaminergic neurons contributes to dopamine release. We believe the pause response depends, among other factors, on the relative stimulation levels of SCIN D2 and D5 receptors, which is likely not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. To reduce ambiguity, we have eliminated the labels referring to dopamine levels in Figure 6F.

Furthermore, the data presented in Figure 6 are confusing. If clozapine inhibits active D5R and restores the pause response, the D5R antagonist SCH23390 should have the same effect. The data suggest that clozapine-induced restoration of the pause response might be mediated by other receptors, rather than D5R alone.

Thank you for letting us clarify this issue. Please note that the levels of endogenous dopamine 24 h after the last L-DOPA challenge in severe parkinsonian mice are expected to be very low. In the absence of an agonist, a pure D1/D5 antagonist would not exert an effect, as demonstrated with SCH23390 alone, which did not have an impact on the SCIN response to thalamic stimulation (Fig. 6). While clozapine can also act as a D1/D5 receptor antagonist, its D1/D5 effects in absence of an agonist are attributed to its inverse agonist properties (PMID: 24931197). Notably, SCH23390 prevented the effect of clozapine, allowing us to conclude that ligand-independent D1/D5 receptor-mediated mechanisms are involved in suppressing the pause response in dyskinetic mice. We now made it clearer in the third paragraph of the Discussion.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Tubert et al presents the role of the D5 receptor in modulating the striatal cholinergic interneuron (CIN) pause response through D5R-cAMP-Kv1 inhibitory signaling. Their model elucidates the on / off switch of CIN pause, likely due to the different DA affinity between D2R and D5R. This machinery may be crucial in modulating synaptic plasticity in cortical-striatal circuits during motor learning and execution. Furthermore, the study bridges their previous finding of CIN hyperexcitability (Paz et al., Movement Disorder 2022) with the loss of pause response in LID mice.

Strengths:

The study had solid findings, and the writing was logically structured and easy to follow. The experiments are well-designed, and they properly combined electrophysiology recording, optogenetics, and pharmacological treatment to dissect/rule out most, if not all, possible mechanisms in their model.

Thank you for your comments.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript is overall satisfying with only some minor concerns that need to be addressed. Manipulation of intracellular cAMP (e.g. using pharmacological analogs or inhibitors) can add additional evidence to strengthen the conclusion.

Thank you for the suggestion. While we acknowledge that we are not providing direct evidence of the role of cAMP, we chose not to conduct these experiments because cAMP levels influence several intrinsic and synaptic currents beyond Kv1, significantly affecting membrane oscillations and spontaneous firing, as shown in Paz et al. 2021. However, we are modifying the fourth paragraph of the Discussion so there is no misinterpretation about our findings in the current work.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Tubert et al. investigate the mechanisms underlying the pause response in striatal cholinergic interneurons (SCINs). The authors demonstrate that optogenetic activation of thalamic axons in the striatum induces burst activity in SCINs, followed by a brief pause in firing. They show that the duration of this pause correlates with the number of elicited action potentials, suggesting a burst-dependent pause mechanism. The authors demonstrated this burst-dependent pause relied on Kv1 channels. The pause is blocked by an SKF81297 and partially by sulpiride and mecamylamine, implicating D1/D5 receptor involvement. The study also shows that the ZD7288 does not reduce the duration of the pause and that lesioning dopamine neurons abolishes this response, which can be restored by clozapine.

Weaknesses:

While this study presents an interesting mechanism for SCIN pausing after burst activity, there are several major concerns that should be addressed:

(1) Scope of the Mechanism:

It is important to clarify that the proposed mechanism may apply specifically to the pause in SCINs following burst activity. The manuscript does not provide clear evidence that this mechanism contributes to the pause response observed in behavioral animals. While the thalamus is crucial for SCIN pauses in behavioral contexts, the exact mechanism remains unclear. Activating thalamic input triggers burst activity in SCINs, leading to a subsequent pause, but this mechanism may not be generalizable across different scenarios. For instance, approximately half of TANs do not exhibit initial excitation but still pause during behavior, suggesting that the burst-dependent pause mechanism is unlikely to explain this phenomenon. Furthermore, in behavioral animals, the duration of the pause seems consistent, whereas the proposed mechanism suggests it depends on the prior burst, which is not aligned with in vivo observations. Additionally, many in vivo recordings show that the pause response is a reduction in firing rate, not complete silence, which the mechanism described here does not explain. Please address these in the manuscript.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. While the absence of an initial burst in some TANs in vivo may suggest the involvement of alternative or additional mechanisms, this does not exclude a participation of Kv1 currents. We have seen that subthreshold depolarizations induced by thalamic inputs are sufficient to produce an afterhyperpolarization (AHP) mediated by Kv1 channels (see Tubert et al., 2016, PMID: 27568555). Although such subthreshold depolarizations are not captured in current recordings from behaving animals, intracellular in vivo recordings have demonstrated an intrinsically generated AHP after subthreshold depolarization of SCIN caused by stimulation of excitatory afferents (PMID: 15525771). Additionally, when pause duration is plotted against the number of spikes elicited by thalamic input (Fig. 1G), we found that one elicited spike is followed by an interspike interval 1.4 times longer than the average spontaneous interspike interval. We acknowledge the potential involvement of additional factors, including a decrease of excitatory thalamic input coinciding with the pause, followed by a second volley of thalamic inputs (Fig. 1J-K, after observations by Matsumoto et al., 2001- PMID: 11160526), as well as the timing of elicited spikes relative to ongoing spontaneous firing (Fig. 1D-E). Dopaminergic modulation (Fig. 3) and regional differences among striatal regions (PMID: 24559678) may also contribute to the complexity of these dynamics.

(2) Terminology:

The use of "pause response" throughout the manuscript is misleading. The pause induced by thalamic input in brain slices is distinct from the pause observed in behavioral animals. Given the lack of a clear link between these two phenomena in the manuscript, it is essential to use more precise terminology throughout, including in the title, bullet points, and body of the manuscript.

While we acknowledge that our study does not include in vivo evidence, we believe ex vivo preparations have been instrumental in elucidating the mechanisms underlying the responses observed in vivo. We also agree with previous ex vivo studies in using consistent terminology. However, we will clarify the ex vivo nature of our work in the abstract and bullet points for greater transparency.

(3) Kv1 Blocker Specificity:

It is unclear how the authors ruled out the possibility that the Kv1 blocker did not act directly on SCINs. Could there be an indirect effect contributing to the burst-dependent pause? Clarification on this point would strengthen the interpretation of the results.

Thank you for letting us clarify this issue. In our previous work (Tubert et al., 2016) we showed that the Kv1.3 and Kv1.1 subunits are selectively expressed in SCIN throughout the striatum. Moreover, gabaergic transmission is blocked in our preparations. We are including a phrase to make it clearer in the manuscript (Results section, subheading “The pause response to thalamic stimulation requires activation of Kv1 channels”).

(4) Role of D1 Receptors:

While it is well-established that activating thalamic input to SCINs triggers dopamine release, contributing to SCIN pausing (as shown in Figure 3), it would be helpful to assess the extent to which D1 receptors contribute to this burst-dependent pause. This could be achieved by applying the D1 agonist SKF81297 after blocking nAChRs and D2 receptors.

Thank you for letting us clarify this point. We show that blocking D2R or nAChR reduces the pause only for strong thalamic stimulation eliciting 4 SCIN spikes (Figure 3G), whereas the D1/D5 agonist SKF81297 is able to reduce the pause induced by weaker stimulation as well (Figure 3C). In addition, the D1/D5 receptor antagonist SCH23390 does not modify the pause response (Figure 3C). This may indicate that nAChR-mediated dopamine release induced by thalamic-induced bursts more efficiently activates D2R compared to D5R. We speculate that, in this context, lack of D5R activation may be necessary to keep normal levels of Kv1.3 currents necessary for SCIN pauses.

(5) Clozapine's Mechanism of Action:

The restoration of the burst-dependent pause by clozapine following dopamine neuron lesioning is interesting, but clozapine acts on multiple receptors beyond D1 and D5.

Although it may be challenging to find a specific D5 antagonist or inverse agonist, it would be more accurate to state that clozapine restores the burst-dependent pause without conclusively attributing this effect to D5 receptors.

Thank you for your insightful observation. We acknowledge the difficulty of targeting dopamine receptors pharmacologically due to the lack of highly selective D1/D5 inverse agonists. We used SCH23390, which is a highly selective D1/D5 receptor antagonist devoid of inverse agonist effects, to block clozapine’s ability to restore SCIN pauses (Figure 6C). This indicates that the restoration of SCIN pauses by clozapine depends on D1/D5 receptors. Furthermore, in a previous study, we demonstrated that clozapine’s effect on restoring SCIN excitability in dyskinetic mice (a phenomenon mediated by Kv1 channels in SCIN; Tubert et al., 2016) was not due to its action on serotonin receptors (Paz, Stahl et al., 2022). While our data do not rule out the potential contribution of other receptors, such as muscarinic acetylcholine receptors, we believe they strongly support the role of D1/D5 receptors. To reflect this, we added a statement discussing the potential contribution of receptors beyond D1/D5 in the last paragraph of the Discussion.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The effect of MgTx was not consistent with the previous study (Tubert, 2016). I expected MgTx to increase the basal firing rate of cholinergic interneurons.

Thank you for highlighting this. In our previous study we used ACSF in the recording pipette, instead of the intracellular solution -higher in potassium- used in the present study. This is likely related to the higher spontaneous firing rates of SCIN observed in the present study, which made the SCIN response stand out. In addition, our previous study analyzed the effect of MgTx on spontaneous firing frequency of SCIN isolated from major circuit regulation by adding CNQX and picrotoxin to the bath, while in this study we needed to preserve the thalamic input and only picrotoxin in the bath was used. Given these differences, the two conditions are not strictly comparable but rather give complementary information.

(2) In the text, the authors claim that "SCINs recorded in the parkinsonian OFF-L-DOPA condition show an increase in membrane excitability that mimics changes acutely induced by SKF81297 in SCINs from control mice." However, the data for SKF81297 do not support this claim.

We modified the text to make it clearer that the cited phrase refers to a previous publication (PMID: 35535012) in which SCIN intrinsic excitability was characterized via analysis of responses to somatic current injection in whole-cell recordings. In the present study Fig. 3D shows SKF81297 effects on interspike intervals during spontaneous activity with a trend towards increased firing, and Fig. 4E a lack of effect on “burst duration” for responses with different numbers of spikes elicited by thalamic afferent stimulation.

(3) I recommend testing whether other receptors, such as D2R, contribute to the clozapineinduced pause response in the L-DOPA off state.

Thank you for your suggestion. We acknowledge that studying the role of D2R is important. However, our preliminary data suggest that a comprehensive follow up study, which is beyond the scope of this manuscript, is necessary to understand their role.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) For Figure 1D-E, I understand that the authors are trying to state that the previous spontaneous spike contributes to a hyperpolarized window that induces a delay in the evoked spikes. However, it is almost impossible to discriminate between spontaneous and evoked spikes in this experiment. Furthermore, considering the tonic firing property, I highly suspect that even a sham control design (no optogenetic light) will give you a similar distribution as in Figure 1E (the longer IN X1, the shorter in X2).

We agree that some spikes following stimulus onset may have occurred independently of the light stimulus, as it is also possible during behavioral tasks. We used the baseline recordings to estimate the effects of a sham stimulus as requested and included the data in Fig. 1E-F. As expected, the sham stimulation data showed a similar inverse relationship with the time elapsed from the preceding spike, but latencies were longer than with the stimulus (except for times close to the average ISI), suggesting that the optical stimulation increased the probability of evoking a spike (Fig. 1F). Remarkably, the pause following this threshold stimulation was significantly longer than the baseline ISI, as reported in the main text (Results section, last sentence of first paragraph).

(2) The authors used optogenetics to induce thalamic inputs to induce the pause after bursts. Considering CINs also receive inputs from different brain regions, e.g. cortex, does this phenomena/pause after bursts also exist following cortical inputs?

We did not study the SCIN response to cortical inputs, but both thalamic and cortical inputs seem to drive SCIN pause-responses as observed by others (PMID: 24553950).

(3) The effect of the D5R inverse agonism, and the further combined with D5R agonist and antagonist, faithfully reveal/confirm the increase of ligand-independent activity of D5R in LID reported previously. It would be ideal to also directly modulate intracellular cAMP (as in the 2022 paper) to confirm the rescue effects on the CIN pause response.

Please, see our response in the public review.

(4) In healthy conditions, the balance between D2R and D5R signaling (shown in Figure 6F left) switches the pause and no pause modes which potentially contributes to cortical-striatal plasticity. How about in LID off L-DOPA condition? Is it possible to rescue/modulate the pause on/off mode by D2R agonism in LID?

We haven’t tested the effect of D2 agonists yet, but this is scheduled for follow up studies.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The authors use the ratio of pause duration to baseline ISI to describe the pause, which is useful for detecting significant differences. However, it would be beneficial to also report the actual duration of the burst-dependent pause to provide readers with a clearer understanding of the variation in pauses.

In all figures we report the average baseline ISI duration for each experiment / experimental condition, allowing readers to estimate actual pause durations. We added in the main text actual average pause durations corresponding to Fig. 1H, which are representative of those observed along the study.

(2) In Figure 3D, a more detailed comparison would be helpful, as there appears to be a significant difference between the SKF81297 group and others.

We acknowledge that there might be a trend towards reduced ISIs, however, it was statistically non-significant (see legend of figure 3). In addition, the effect of SKF81297 seems unrelated to this trend, as its effect is also seen under the effect of ZD7288, which substantially prolongs the baseline ISI (Fig. 4E-F).