Realistic mossy fiber input patterns to unipolar brush cells evoke a continuum of temporal responses comprised of components mediated by different glutamate receptors

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this manuscript, the authors recorded cerebellar unipolar brush cells (UBCs) in acute brain slices. They confirmed that mossy fiber (MF) inputs generate a continuum of UBC responses. Using systematic and physiological trains of MF electrical stimulation, they demonstrated that MF inputs either increased or decreased UBC firing rates (UBC ON vs. OFF) or induced complex, long-lasting modulation of their discharges. The MF influence on UBC firing was directly associated with a specific combination of metabotropic glutamate receptors, mGluR2/3 (inhibitory) and mGluR1 (excitatory). Ultimately, the amount and ratio of these two receptors controlled the time course of the effect, yielding specific temporal transformations such as phase shifts.

Overall, the topic is compelling, as it broadens our understanding of temporal processing in the cerebellar cortex. The experiments are well-executed and properly analyzed.

Strengths:

(1) A wide range of MF stimulation patterns was explored, including burst duration and frequency dependency, which could serve as a valuable foundation for explicit modeling of temporal transformations in the granule cell layer.

(2) The pharmacological blockade of mGluR2/3, mGluR1, AMPA, and NMDA receptors helped identify the specific roles of these glutamate receptors.

(3) The experiments convincingly demonstrate the key role of mGluR1 receptors in temporal information processing by UBCs.

Weaknesses:

(1) This study is largely descriptive and represents only a modest incremental advance from the previous work (Guo et al., Nat. Commun., 2021).

(2) The MF activity used to mimic natural stimulation was previously collected in primates, while the recordings were conducted in mice.

(3) Inhibition was blocked throughout the study, reducing its physiological relevance.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study addresses the question of how UBCs transform synaptic input patterns into spiking output patterns and how different glutamate receptors contribute to their transformations. The first figure utilizes recorded patterns of mossy fiber firing during eye movements in the flocculus of rhesus monkeys obtained from another laboratory. In the first figure, these patterns are used to stimulate mossy fibers in the mouse cerebellum during extracellular recordings of UBCs in acute mouse brain slices. The remaining experiments stimulate mossy fiber inputs at different rates or burst durations, which is described as 'mossy-fiber like', although they are quite simpler than those recorded in vivo. As expected from previous work, AMPA mediates the fast responses, and mGluR1 and mGluR2/3 mediate the majority of longer-duration and delayed responses. The manuscript is well organized and the discussion contextualizes the results effectively.

The authors use extracellular recordings because the washout of intracellular molecules necessary for metabotropic signaling may occur during whole-cell recordings. These cell-attached recordings do not allow one to confirm that electrical stimulation produces a postsynaptic current on every stimulus. Moreover, it is not clear that the synaptic input is monosynaptic, as UBCs synapse on one another. This leaves open the possibility that delays in firing could be due to disynaptic stimulation. Additionally, the result that AMPA-mediated responses were surprisingly small in many UBCs, despite apparent mRNA expression, suggests the possibility that spillover from other nearby synapses activated the higher affinity extrasynaptic mGluRs and that that main mossy fiber input to the UBC was not being stimulated. For these reasons, some whole-cell recordings (or perforated patch) would show that when stimulation is confirmed to be monosynaptic and reliable it can produce the same range of spiking responses seen extracellularly and that AMPA receptor-mediated currents are indeed small or absent in some UBCs.

A discussion of whether the tested glutamate receptors affected the spontaneous firing rates of these cells would be informative as standing currents have been reported in UBCs. It is unclear whether the firing rate was normalized for each stimulation, each drug application, or each cell. It would also be informative to report whether UBCs characterized as responding with Fast, Mid-range, Slow, and OFF responses have different spontaneous firing rates or spontaneous firing patterns (regular vs irregular).

Figure 1 shows examples of how Fast, Mid-range, Slow, and OFF UBCs respond to in vivo MF firing patterns, but lacks a summary of how the input is transformed across a population of UBCs. In panel d, it looks as if the phase of firing becomes more delayed across the examples from Fast to OFF UBCs. Quantifying this input/output relationship more thoroughly would strengthen these results.

Inhibition was pharmacologically blocked in these studies. Golgi cells and other inhibitory interneurons likely contribute to how UBCs transform input signals. Speculation of how GABAergic and glycinergic synaptic inhibition may contribute additional context to help readers understand how a circuit with intact inhibition may behave.