Increased reluctant vesicles underlie synaptic depression by GPR55 in axon terminals of cerebellar Purkinje cells

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this manuscript, the authors report that GPR55 activation in presynaptic terminals of Purkinje cells decrease GABA release at the PC-DCN synapse. The authors use an impressive array of techniques (including highly challenging presynaptic recordings) to show that GPR55 activation reduces the readily releasable pool of vesicle without affecting presynaptic AP waveform and presynaptic Ca2+ influx. This is an interesting study, which is seemingly well-executed and proposes a novel mechanism for the control of neurotransmitter release. However, the authors' main conclusions are heavily, if not solely, based on pharmacological agents that most often than not demonstrate affinity at multiple targets. Below are points that the authors should consider in a revised version.

Major points:

(1) There is no clear evidence that GPR55 is specifically expressed in presynaptic terminals at the PC-DCN synapse. The authors cited Ryberg 2007 and Wu 2013 in the introduction, mentioning that GPR55 is potentially expressed in PCs. Ryberg (2007) offers no such evidence, and the expression in PC suggested by Wu (2013) does not necessarily correlate with presynaptic expression. The authors should perform additional experiments to demonstrate the presynaptic expression of GPR55 at PC-DCN synapse.

(2) The authors' conclusions rest heavily on pharmacological experiments, with compounds that are sometimes not selective for single targets. Genetic deletion of GPR55 would be a more appropriate control. The authors should also expand their experiments with occlusion experiments, showing if the effects of LPI are absent after AM251 or O-1602 treatment. In addition, the authors may want to consider AM281 as a CB1R antagonist without reported effects at GPR55.

(3) It is not clear how long the different drugs were applied, and at what time the recordings were performed during or following drug application. It appears that GPR55 agonists can have transient effects (Sylantyev, 2013; Rosenberg, 2023), possibly due to receptor internalization. The timeline of drug application should be reported, where IPSC amplitude is shown as a function of time and drug application windows are illustrated.

(4) A previous investigation on the role of GPR55 in the control of neurotransmitter release is not cited nor discussed Sylantyev et al., (2013, PNAS, Cannabinoid- and lysophosphatidylinositol-sensitive receptor GPR55 boosts neurotransmitter release at central synapses). Similarities and differences should be discussed.

Minor point:

(1) What is the source of LPI? What isoform was used? The multiple isoforms of LPI have different affinities for GPR55.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper investigates the mode of action of GPR55, a relatively understudied type of cannabinoid receptor, in presynaptic terminals of Purkinje cells. The authors use demanding techniques of patch clamp recording of the terminals, sometimes coupled with another recording of the postsynaptic cell. They find a lower release probability of synaptic vesicles after activation of GPR55 receptors, while presynaptic voltage-dependent calcium currents are unaffected. They propose that the size of a specific pool of synaptic vesicles supplying release sites is decreased upon activation of GPR55 receptors.

Strengths:

The paper uses cutting-edge techniques to shed light on a little-studied, potentially important type of cannabinoid receptor. The results are clearly presented, and the conclusions are for the most part sound.

Weaknesses:

The nature of the vesicular pool that is modified following activation of GPR55 is not definitively characterized.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Inoshita and Kawaguchi investigated the effects of GPR55 activation on synaptic transmission in vitro. To address this question, they performed direct patch-clamp recordings from axon terminals of cerebellar Purkinje cells and fluorescent imaging of vesicular exocytosis utilizing synapto-pHluorin. They found that exogenous activation of GPR55 suppresses GABA release at Purkinje cell to deep cerebellar nuclei (PC-DCN) synapses by reducing the readily releasable pool (RRP) of vesicles. This mechanism may also operate at other synapses.

Strengths:

The main strength of this study lies in combining patch-clamp recordings from axon terminals with imaging of presynaptic vesicular exocytosis to reveal a novel mechanism by which activation of GPR55 suppresses inhibitory synaptic strength. The results strongly suggest that GPR55 activation reduces the RRP size without altering presynaptic calcium influx.

Weaknesses:

The study relies on the exogenous application of GPR55 agonists. It remains unclear whether endogenous ligands released due to physiological or pathological activities would have similar effects. There is no information regarding the time course of the agonist-induced suppression. There is also little evidence that GPR55 is expressed in Purkinje cells. This study would benefit from using GPR55 knockout (KO) mice. The downstream mechanism by which GPR55 mediates the suppression of GABA release remains unknown.

Author response:

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this manuscript, the authors report that GPR55 activation in presynaptic terminals of Purkinje cells decrease GABA release at the PC-DCN synapse. The authors use an impressive array of techniques (including highly challenging presynaptic recordings) to show that GPR55 activation reduces the readily releasable pool of vesicle without affecting presynaptic AP waveform and presynaptic Ca2+ influx. This is an interesting study, which is seemingly well-executed and proposes a novel mechanism for the control of neurotransmitter release. However, the authors' main conclusions are heavily, if not solely, based on pharmacological agents that most often than not demonstrate affinity at multiple targets. Below are points that the authors should consider in a revised version.

We thank the reviewer for the encouraging comments, and will fully address the reviewer’s concerns as detailed below.

Major points:

(1) There is no clear evidence that GPR55 is specifically expressed in presynaptic terminals at the PC-DCN synapse. The authors cited Ryberg 2007 and Wu 2013 in the introduction, mentioning that GPR55 is potentially expressed in PCs. Ryberg (2007) offers no such evidence, and the expression in PC suggested by Wu (2013) does not necessarily correlate with presynaptic expression. The authors should perform additional experiments to demonstrate the presynaptic expression of GPR55 at PC-DCN synapse.

We agree with the reviewer’s concern that the present manuscript lacks the evidence for localization of GPR55 at PC axon terminals. Honestly, our previous attempt to immune-label GPR55 did not work well. Now, we realize that different antibodies are commercially available, and are going to test them. Hopefully, in the revised manuscript, we will demonstrate immunocytochemical images showing GPR55 at terminals of PCs.

(2) The authors' conclusions rest heavily on pharmacological experiments, with compounds that are sometimes not selective for single targets. Genetic deletion of GPR55 would be a more appropriate control. The authors should also expand their experiments with occlusion experiments, showing if the effects of LPI are absent after AM251 or O-1602 treatment. In addition, the authors may want to consider AM281 as a CB1R antagonist without reported effects at GPR55.

We appreciate the reviewer for pointing out the essential issue regarding the specificity of activation of GPR55 in our study. Regarding the direct manipulation of GPR55, such as genetic deletion, we will try acute knock-down of its expression, considering the possibility of compensation which sometimes occur when the complete knock-out is performed. In addition, according to the reviewer’s suggestion, we will examine whether the effects of LPI and AM251 occlude each other, and also perform control experiments showing the lack of CB1R involvement.

(3) It is not clear how long the different drugs were applied, and at what time the recordings were performed during or following drug application. It appears that GPR55 agonists can have transient effects (Sylantyev, 2013; Rosenberg, 2023), possibly due to receptor internalization. The timeline of drug application should be reported, where IPSC amplitude is shown as a function of time and drug application windows are illustrated.

As suggested, the timing and duration of drug application will be indicated together with the time course of changes of IPSC amplitudes. This change will make things much clearer. Thank you for the suggestion.

(4) A previous investigation on the role of GPR55 in the control of neurotransmitter release is not cited nor discussed Sylantyev et al., (2013, PNAS, Cannabinoid- and lysophosphatidylinositol-sensitive receptor GPR55 boosts neurotransmitter release at central synapses). Similarities and differences should be discussed.

We are really sorry for missing this important study in discussion and citation. In the revised version, of course, we will discuss their findings and our data.

Minor point:

(1) What is the source of LPI? What isoform was used? The multiple isoforms of LPI have different affinities for GPR55.

We are sorry for insufficient explanation about the LPI used in our study. We used LPI derived from soy (Merck, catalog #L7635) that was estimated to contain 58% C16:0 and 42% C18:0 or C18:2 LPI. This information will be added to the Materials and Methods in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper investigates the mode of action of GPR55, a relatively understudied type of cannabinoid receptor, in presynaptic terminals of Purkinje cells. The authors use demanding techniques of patch clamp recording of the terminals, sometimes coupled with another recording of the postsynaptic cell. They find a lower release probability of synaptic vesicles after activation of GPR55 receptors, while presynaptic voltage-dependent calcium currents are unaffected. They propose that the size of a specific pool of synaptic vesicles supplying release sites is decreased upon activation of GPR55 receptors.

Strengths:

The paper uses cutting-edge techniques to shed light on a little-studied, potentially important type of cannabinoid receptor. The results are clearly presented, and the conclusions are for the most part sound.

We are really happy to hear the encouraging comments from the reviewer.

Weaknesses:

The nature of the vesicular pool that is modified following activation of GPR55 is not definitively characterized.

During revision, we will perform further analysis and additional experiments to obtain deeper insights into the vesicle pools affected by GPR55 as much as possible.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Inoshita and Kawaguchi investigated the effects of GPR55 activation on synaptic transmission in vitro. To address this question, they performed direct patch-clamp recordings from axon terminals of cerebellar Purkinje cells and fluorescent imaging of vesicular exocytosis utilizing synapto-pHluorin. They found that exogenous activation of GPR55 suppresses GABA release at Purkinje cell to deep cerebellar nuclei (PC-DCN) synapses by reducing the readily releasable pool (RRP) of vesicles. This mechanism may also operate at other synapses.

Strengths:

The main strength of this study lies in combining patch-clamp recordings from axon terminals with imaging of presynaptic vesicular exocytosis to reveal a novel mechanism by which activation of GPR55 suppresses inhibitory synaptic strength. The results strongly suggest that GPR55 activation reduces the RRP size without altering presynaptic calcium influx.

We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation on our conclusions.

Weaknesses:

The study relies on the exogenous application of GPR55 agonists. It remains unclear whether endogenous ligands released due to physiological or pathological activities would have similar effects. There is no information regarding the time course of the agonist-induced suppression. There is also little evidence that GPR55 is expressed in Purkinje cells. This study would benefit from using GPR55 knockout (KO) mice. The downstream mechanism by which GPR55 mediates the suppression of GABA release remains unknown.

We agree with the reviewer in all respects suggested as weaknesses. Most issues will be made much clearer by the additional experiments and analysis described above to respond to respective issues raised by other reviewers. The situation of endogenous ligands for GPR55 causing the synaptic depression and its downstream mechanism are very important issues, and we are going to discuss these points in the revised manuscript, and like to work on these in the future study.