Olfactory combinatorial coding supports risk-reward decision making in C. elegans

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors investigated the response of worms to the odorant 1-octanol (1-oct) using a combination of microfluidics-based behavioral analysis and whole-network calcium imaging. They hypothesized that 1-oct may be encoded through two simultaneous, opposing afferent pathways: a repulsive pathway driven by ASH, and an attractive pathway driven by AWC. And the ultimate chemotactic outcome is likely determined by the balance between these two pathways.

It is not surprising that 1-octanol is encoded as attractive at low concentrations and repulsive at higher concentrations. However, the novel aspect of this study is the discovery of the combinatorial coding of 1-oct in the periphery, where it serves as both an attractant and a repellent. Furthermore, the study uses this dual encoding as a model to explore the neural basis of sensory-driven behaviors at a whole-network scale in this organism. The basic conclusions of this study are well supported by the behavioral and imaging experiments, though there are certain aspects of the manuscript that would benefit from further clarification.

A key issue is that several previous studies have demonstrated a combinatorial and concentration-dependent coding of odorant sensing in the nematode peripheral nervous system. Specifically, ASH and AWC are the primary receptors for repellent and attractive responses, respectively. However, other neurons such as AWB, AWA, and ADL are also involved in the coding process. These neurons likely communicate with different interneurons to contribute to 1-oct-induced outputs. The authors' conclusion that loss of tax-4 reduces attractive responses and that osm-9 mutants reduce repulsive responses is not entirely convincing. TAX-4 is required for both AWC (an attractive neuron) and AWB (a repulsive neuron), and osm-9 is essential for ASH, ADL, and AWA (attraction-associated). Therefore, the observed effects on the attractive and repulsive responses could be more complex. Additionally, the interpretation of results involving the use of IAA to reduce the contribution of AWC at lower concentrations lacks clarity. A more effective approach might involve using transgenically expressed miniSOG or histamine (HisCl1) to specifically inhibit AWC neurons.

The authors did not observe any increased correlation between motor command interneurons and sensory neurons, which is consistent with the absence of a consistent relationship between state transitions and 1-oct application. Furthermore, they did not observe significant entrainment of AIB activity with the 2.2 mM 1-oct application. This might be due to the animals being anesthetized with 1 mM tetramisole hydrochloride, which could affect neural activity and/or feedback from locomotion. It is unclear whether subtracting AVA activity from AIB activity provides a valid measure. Similarly, it is unclear how the behavioral data from freely moving worms compares to the whole-network calcium imaging results obtained from immobilized worms.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors used whole-network imaging to identify sensory neurons that responded to the repellant 1-octanol. While several olfactory neurons responded to the initial onset of odor pulses, two neurons consistently responded to all the pulses, ASH and AWC. ASH typically activates in response to repellants, and AWC typically activates in response to the removal of attractants. However, in this case, AWC activated in response to the removal of 1-octanol, which was unexpected because 1-octanol is a harmful repellant to the worm. The authors further investigated this phenomenon by testing different concentrations of 1-octanol in a chemotaxis assay and found that at lower (less harmful) concentrations the odor is actually an attractant, but becomes repulsive at higher concentrations. The amplitude of the ASH response appeared to be modulated by concentration, but this was not true for AWC. The authors propose a model where the behavioral response of the worm is the result of integrating these two opposing drives, where repulsion is a result of the increased ASH activity overriding the positive drive from AWC. The authors further tested this theory by testing mutants that ablated the AWC response (tax-4) or ASH response (osm-9), which produced results consistent with their hypothesis. While the interneuron(s) that integrate these signals to influence behavior were not identified, the authors did find that increasing concentrations of 1-octanol did increase the likelihood of AVA activity, a neuron that drives reversals (and hence, behavioral repulsion).

Strengths:

This was simple and elegant work that identified specific neurons of interest which generated a hypothesis, which was further tested with mutants that altered neuronal activity. The authors performed both neuronal imaging and behavioral experiments to verify their claims.

Weaknesses:

tax-4, but not osm-9 mutants were used in chemotaxis and imaging assays. It would have been nice to have osm-9 results as well for these assays. The mutants are not specific to AWC and ASH. Cell-specific rescue of these neurons would have strengthened the proposed model.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This work describes how two chemosensory neurons in C. elegans drive opposite behaviors in response to a volatile cue. Because they have different concentration dependencies, this leads to different behavioral responses (attraction at low concentration and repulsion at high concentration). It has been known that many odorants that are attractive at low concentrations are aversive at high concentrations, and the implicated neurons (at least AWC for attraction and ASH for repulsion) have been well established. Nonetheless, studying behavior and neural responses in a common context (odor pulses, as opposed to gradients) provides a clear picture of how these sensory neurons may guide the dose-dependent response by separately modulating odor entry and odor exit behaviors.

Strengths:

(1) There is good evidence that worms are attracted to low concentrations and repelled by high concentrations of 1-oct. Calcium imaging also makes it clear that dose dependence is stronger for ASH than AWC.

(2) There is good evidence for conc. dependent responses via ASH (Figure 4E) and attractive inhibition via tonic IAA (Figure 7A).

(3) This work presents calcium imaging and behavior with the same stimulus (sudden pulses in volatile odor concentration), while previous studies often focus on using neuronal responses to pulses to understand the navigation of gentle gradients.

Weaknesses:

(1) It is not clear precisely how important AWC is (compared to other cells) for the attractive response, though the presence of odor-off behavior implicates it. This could be resolved by looking at additional mutants (tax-4 is broad).

(2) Relatedly, dose-dependent chemotaxis data (Figure 4C, D) should be provided for osm-9 animals to get a sense of the degree to which dose-dependence is explained by ASH.

(3) Figure 4A, B should include average traces with errors, as there are several ways the responses can vary across conditions.

(4) The data in Figure 6G does not appear to have error bars. Also, it would help to include a more conventional demonstration of AIB responding to stimuli (e.g. averaging stimulus-aligned responses as a percent of the fluorescence value at stimulus onset to perform the desired subtraction). Subtracted calcium traces are harder to interpret. As it stands, the evidence that sensory signals are persisting in AIB and not being shunted by proprioceptive feedback in microfluidic devices is not strong.

Author response:

We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments on our submitted manuscript.

The major point from all three reviewers was that the sensory inputs may be more complex than simply ASH and AWC, since mutations in osm-9 and tax-4 will affect many more sensory neurons. We fully agree. The differential effects of osm-9 and _ta_x-4 allowed us to recognize that there were two distinct afferent pathways operating simultaneously, mediating repulsion and attraction separately. However, it remains to be determined which sensory neurons are contributing to each pathway. We have planned a full analysis of the sensory inputs, not limited to just ASH and AWC, using neuron-specific rescue and neuron-specific chemogenetic inactivation (using HisCl1). While this analysis falls outside the scope of the present study, we will perform the inactivations of ASH and AWC and include the data for the revised version of this study. We expect to demonstrate whether ASH and AWC inputs are sufficient or whether other sensory neurons make significant contributions. Additionally, we will include chemotaxis dose-response data for osm-9 mutants as part of this analysis and make the minor corrections in data presentation requested.