Complex opioid driven modulation of glutamatergic and cholinergic neurotransmission in a GABAergic brain nucleus associated with emotion, reward and addiction

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors demonstrate for the first time that opioid signaling has opposing effects on the same target neuron depending on the source of the input. Further, the authors provide evidence to support the role of potassium channels in regulating a brake on glutamatergic and cholinergic signaling, with the latter finding being developmentally regulated and responsive to opioid treatment. This evidence solves a conundrum regarding cholinergic signaling in the interpeduncular nucleus that evaded elucidation for many years.

Strengths:

This manuscript provides 3 novel and important findings that significantly advance our understanding of the medial habenula-interpeduncular circuitry:

(1) Mu opioid receptor activation (mOR) reduces postsynaptic glutamatergic currents elicited from substance P neurons while simultaneously enhancing postsynaptic glutamatergic currents from cholinergic neurons, with the latter being developmentally regulated.

(2) Substance P neurons from the Mhb provide functional input to the rostral nucleus of the IPN, in addition to the previously characterized lateral nuclei.

(3) Potassium channels (Kv1.2) provide a break in neurotransmission in the IPN.

Weaknesses:

Overall I find the data presented compelling, but I feel that the number of observations is quite low (typically n=3-7 neurons, typically one per animal). While I understand that only a few slices can be obtained for the IPN from each animal, the strength of the novel findings would be more convincing with more frequent observations (larger n, more than one per animal). The findings here suggest that the authors have identified a novel mechanism for the normal function of neurotransmission in the IPN, so it would be expected to be observable in almost any animal. Thus it is not clear to me why the authors investigated so few neurons per slice and chose to combine different treatments into one group (e.g. Figure 2f), even if the treatments have the same expected effect.

There are also significant sex differences in nAChR expression in the IPN that might not be functionally apparent using the low n presented here. It would be helpful to know which of the recorded neurons came from each sex, rather than presenting only the pooled data.

There are also some particularly novel observations that are presented but not followed up on, and this creates a somewhat disjointed story. For example, in Figure 2, the authors identify neurons in which no response is elicited by light stimulation of ChAT-neurons, but the application of DAMGO (mOR agonist) un-silences these neurons. Are there baseline differences in the electrophysiological or morphological properties of these "silent" neurons compared to the responsive neurons?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, Chittajallu and colleagues present compelling evidence that mu opioid receptor (MOR) activation can potentiate synaptic neurotransmission in a medial habenula to interpeduncular nucleus (mHb-IPN) subcircuit. While, projections from mHb tachykinin 1 (Tac1) neurons onto lateral IPN neurons show a canonical opioid-induced synaptic depression in glutamate release, excitatory neurotransmission in mHb choline acetyltransferase (ChAT) projections to the rostral IPN is potentiated by opioids. This process may require the inhibition of voltage-gated potassium channels (Kv1.2) and results in an augmented co-release of glutamate and acetylcholine. This function emerges around age P27 in mice, when MOR expression in the IPN peaks.

Strengths:

Carefully executed electrophysiological experiments with appropriate controls. Interesting description of a neurodevelopmental change in the effects of opioids on mHb-IPN signaling.

Weaknesses:

The genetic strategy used to target the mHb-IPN pathway (constitutive expression in all ChAT+ and Tac1+ neurons) is not specific to this projection. In addition, a braking mechanism involving Kv1.2 has not been identified.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Here the authors describe the role of mORs in synaptic glutamate release from substance P and cholinergic neurons in the medial habenula to the interpeduncular nucleus (IPN) circuit in adult mice. They show that mOR activation reduces evoked glutamate release from substance P neurons yet increases evoked glutamate release and Ach release from cholinergic neurons. Unlike glutamate release, Ach release is only detected when potassium channels are blocked with 4-AP or dendrotoxin, implicating Kv1.2. The authors also report a previously unidentified glutamatergic input to IPR mediated from SP neurons and describe the developmental timing of mOR-facilitation in adolescent mice.

Strengths:

(1) The experiments provide new insight into the role of mORs in controlling evoked glutamate release in a circuit with high levels of mORs and established roles in relevant behaviors.

(2) The experimental design is generally rigorous, and the results are clear-cut. The conclusions are largely supported by the data.

(3) The findings will be of interest to those working in the field.

Weaknesses:

(1) The mechanistic underpinnings of the most interesting results are not pursued. For example, the experiments do not provide new insight into the differential effects of evoked and spontaneous glutamate/Ach release by Gi/o coupled mORs, nor the differential threshold for glutamate versus Ach release.

(2) The significance of the ratio of AMPA versus nACh EPSCs shown in Figure 6 is unclear since nAChR EPSCs measured in the K+ channel blockers are compared to AMPA EPSCs in control (presumably 4-AP would also increase AMPA EPSCs).

(3) The authors note that blocking Kv1 channels typically enhances transmitter release by slowing action potential repolarization. The idea that Kv1 channels serve as a brake for Ach release in this system would be strengthened by showing that these channels are the target of neuromodulators or that they contribute to activity-dependent regulation that allows the brake to be released.