Elevated pyramidal cell firing orchestrates arteriolar vasoconstriction through COX-2-derived prostaglandin E2 signaling

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Neuronal activity spatiotemporal fine-tuning of cerebral blood flow balances metabolic demands of changing neuronal activity with blood supply. Several 'feed-forward' mechanisms have been described that contribute to activity-dependent vasodilation as well as vasoconstriction leading to a reduction in perfusion. Involved messengers are ionic (K+), gaseous (NO), peptides (e.g., NPY, VIP), and other messengers (PGE2, GABA, glutamate, norepinephrine) that target endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells, or pericytes. Contributions of the respective signaling pathways likely vary across brain regions or even within specific brain regions (e.g., across the cortex) and are likely influenced by the brain's physiological state (resting, active, sleeping) or pathological departures from normal physiology.

The manuscript "Elevated pyramidal cell firing orchestrates arteriolar vasoconstriction through COX-2-derived prostaglandin E2 signaling" by B. Le Gac, et al. investigates mechanisms leading to activity-dependent arteriole constriction. Here, mainly working in brain slices from mice expressing channelrhodopsin 2 (ChR2) in all excitatory neurons (Emx1-Cre; Ai32 mice), the authors show that strong optogenetic stimulation of cortical pyramidal neurons leads to constriction that is mediated through the cyclooxygenase-2 / prostaglandin E2 / EP1 and EP3 receptor pathway with contribution of NPY-releasing interneurons and astrocytes releasing 20-HETE. Specifically, using a patch clamp, the authors show that 10-s optogenetic stimulation at 10 and 20 Hz leads to vasoconstriction (Figure 1), in line with a stimulation frequency-dependent increase in somatic calcium (Figure 2). The vascular effects were abolished in the presence of TTX and significantly reduced in the presence of glutamate receptor antagonists (Figure 3). The authors further show with RT-PCR on RNA isolated from patched cells that ~50% of analyzed cells express COX-1 or -2 and other enzymes required to produce PGE2 or PGF2a (Figure 4). Further, blockade of COX-1 and -2 (indomethacin), or COX-2 (NS-398) abolishes constriction. In animals with chronic cranial windows that were anesthetized with ketamine and medetomidine, 10-s long optogenetic stimulation at 10 Hz leads to considerable constriction, which is reduced in the presence of indomethacin. Blockade of EP1 and EP3 receptors leads to a significant reduction of the constriction in slices (Figure 5). Finally, the authors show that blockade of 20-HETE synthesis caused moderate and NPY Y1 receptor blockade a complete reduction of constriction.

The mechanistic analysis of neurovascular coupling mechanisms as exemplified here will guide further in-vivo studies and has important implications for human neuroimaging in health and disease. Most of the data in this manuscript uses brain slices as an experimental model which contrasts with neurovascular imaging studies performed in awake (headfixed) animals. However, the slice preparation allows for patch clamp as well as easy drug application and removal. Further, the authors discuss their results in view of differences between brain slices and in vivo observations experiments, including the absence of vascular tone as well as blood perfusion required for metabolite (e.g., PGE2) removal, and the presence of network effects in the intact brain. The manuscript and figures present the data clearly; regarding the presented mechanism, the data supports the authors' conclusions. Some of the data was generated in vivo in head-fixed animals under anesthesia; in this regard, the authors should revise the introduction and discussion to include the important distinction between studies performed in slices, or in acute or chronic in-vivo preparations under anesthesia (reduced network activity and reduced or blockade of neuromodulation, or in awake animals (virtually undisturbed network and neuromodulatory activity). Further, while discussed to some extent, the authors could improve their manuscript by more clearly stating if they expect the described mechanism to contribute to CBF regulation under 'resting state conditions' (i.e., in the absence of any stimulus), during short or sustained (e.g., visual, tactile) stimulation, or if this mechanism is mainly relevant under pathological conditions; especially in the context of the optogenetic stimulation paradigm being used (10-s long stimulation of many pyramidal neurons at moderate-high frequencies) and the fact that constriction leading to undersupply in response to strongly increased neuronal activity seems counterintuitive?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The present study by Le Gac et al. investigates the vasoconstriction of cerebral arteries during neurovascular coupling. It proposes that pyramidal neurons firing at high frequency lead to prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) release and activation of arteriolar EP1 and EP3 receptors, causing smooth muscle cell contraction. The authors further claim that interneurons and astrocytes also contribute to vasoconstriction via neuropeptide Y (NPY) and 20-hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acid (20-HETE) release, respectively. The study mainly uses brain slices and pharmacological tools in combination with Emx1-Cre; Ai32 transgenic mice expressing the H134R variant of channelrhodopsin-2 (ChR2) in the cortical glutamatergic neurons for precise photoactivation. Stimulation with 470 nm light using 10-second trains of 5-ms pulses at frequencies from 1-20 Hz revealed small constrictions at 10 Hz and robust constrictions at 20 Hz, which were abolished by TTX and partially inhibited by a cocktail of glutamate receptor antagonists. Inhibition of cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) or -2 (COX-2) by indomethacin blocked the constriction both ex vivo (slices) and in vivo (pial artery), and inhibition of EP1 and EP3 showed the same effect ex vivo. Single-cell RT-PCR from patched neurons confirmed the presence of the PGE2 synthesis pathway.

While the data are convincing, the overall experimental setting presents some limitations. How is the activation protocol comparable to physiological firing frequency? The delay (minutes) between the stimulation and the constriction appears contradictory to the proposed pathway, which would be expected to occur rapidly. The experiments are conducted in the absence of vascular "tone," which further questions the significance of the findings. Some of the targets investigated are expressed by multiple cell types, which makes the interpretation difficult; for example, cyclooxygenases are also expressed by endothelial cells. Finally, how is the complete inhibition of the constriction by the NPY Y1 receptor antagonist BIBP3226 consistent with a direct effect of PGE2 and 20-HETE in arterioles? Overall, the manuscript is well-written with clear data, but the interpretation and physiological relevance have some limitations. However, vasoconstriction is a rather understudied phenomenon in neurovascular coupling, and the present findings may be of significance in the context of pathological brain hypoperfusion.