AFD Thermosensory Neurons Mediate Tactile-Dependent Locomotion Modulation in C. elegans

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Rosero and Bai examined how the well-known thermosensory neuron in C. elegans, AFD, regulates context-dependent locomotory behavior based on the tactile experience. Here they show that AFD uses discrete cGMP signalling molecules and independent of its dendritic sensory endings regulates this locomotory behavior. The authors also show here that AFD's connection to one of the hub interneurons, AIB, through gap junction/electrical synapses, is necessary and sufficient for the regulation of this context-dependent locomotion modulation.

Strengths:

This is an interesting paper showcasing how a sensory neuron in C. elegans can employ a distinct set of molecular strategies and different physical parts to regulate a completely distinct set of behaviors, which were not been shown to be regulated by AFD before. The experiments were well performed and the results are clear. However, there are some questions about the mechanism of this regulation. This reviewer thinks that the authors should address these concerns before the final published version of this manuscript.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors argued about the role of prior exposure to different physical contexts which might be responsible for the difference in their locomotory behaviour. However, the worms in the binary chamber (with both non-uniformly sized and spaced pillars) experienced both sets of pillars for one hour prior to the assay and they were also free to move between two sets of environments during the assay. So, this is not completely a switch between two different types of tactile barriers (or not completely restricted to prior experience), but rather a difference between experiencing a more complex environment vs a simple uniform environment. They should rephrase their findings. To strictly argue about the prior experience, the authors need to somehow restrict the worms from entering the uniform assay zone during the 1hr training period.

(2) The authors here argued that the sensory endings of AFD are not required for this novel role of AFD in context-dependent locomotion modulation. However, gcy-18 has been shown to be exclusively localized to the ciliated sensory endings of AFD and even misexpression of GCY-18 in other sensory neurons also leads to localizations in sensory endings (Nguyen et. al., 2014 and Takeishi et. al., 2016). They should check whether gcy-18 or tax-2 gets mislocalized in kcc-3 or tax-1 mutants.

(3) MEC-10 was shown to be required for physical space preference through its action in FLP and not the TRNs (PMID: 28349862). Since FLP is involved in harsh touch sensation while TRNs are involved in gentle touch sensation, which are the neuron types responsible for tactile sensation in the assay arena? Does mec-10 rescue in TRNs rescue the phenotype in the current paper?

(4) The authors mention that the most direct link between TRNs and AFD is through AIB, but as far as I understand, there are no reports to suggest synapses between TRNs and AIB. However, FLP and AIB are connected through both chemical and electrical synapses, which would make more sense as per their mec-10 data. (the authors mentioned about the FLP-AIB-AFD circuit in their discussion but talked about TRNs as the sensory modality). mec-10 rescue experiment in TRNs would clarify this ambiguity.

(5) Do inx-7 or inx-10 rescue in AFD and AIB using cell-specific promoters rescue the behaviour?

(6) How Guanylyl cyclase gcy-18 function is related to the electrical synapse activity between AFD and AIB? Is AFD downstream or upstream of AIB in this context?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The goal of the study was to uncover the mechanisms mediating tactile-context-dependent locomotion modulation in C. elegans, which represents an interesting model of behavioral plasticity. Starting from a candidate genetic screen focusing on guanylate cyclase (GCY) mutants, the authors identified the AFD-specific gcy-18 gene as essential for tactile-context-dependent locomotion modulation. AFD is primarily characterized as a thermo-sensory neuron. However, key thermosensory transduction genes and the sensory ending structure of AFD were shown here to be dispensable for tactile-context locomotion modulation. AFD actuates tactile-context locomotion modulation via the cell-autonomous actions of GCY-18 and the CNG-3 cyclic nucleotide-gated channel, and via AFD's connection with AIB interneurons through electrical synapses. This represents a potentially relevant synaptic connection linking AFD to the mechanosensory-behavior circuit.

Strengths:

(1) The fact that AFD mediates tactile-context locomotion modulation is new, rather surprising, and interesting.

(2) The authors have combined a very clever microfluidic-based behavioral assay with a large set of genetic manipulations to dissect the molecular and cellular pathways involved. Rescue experiments with single-copy transgenes are very convincing.

(3) The study is very clearly written, and figures are nicely illustrated with diagrams that effectively convey the authors' interpretation.

Weaknesses:

(1) Whereas GCY-18 in AFD and the AFD-AIB synaptic connection clearly play a role in tactile-context locomotion modulation, whether and how they actually modulate the mechanosensory circuit and/or locomotion circuit remains unclear. The possibility of non-synaptic communication linking mechanosensory neurons and AFD (in either direction) was not explored. Thus, in the end, we have not learned much about what GCY-18 and the AFD-AIB module are doing to actuate tactile context-dependent locomotion modulation.

(2) The authors only focused on speed readout, and we don't know if the many behavioral parameters that are modulated by tactile context are also under the control of AFD-mediated modulation.

(3) The AFD-AIB gap junction reconstruction experiment was conducted in an innexin double mutant background, in which the whole nervous system's functioning might be severely impaired, and its results should be interpreted with this limitation in mind.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Rosero and Bai report an unconventional role of AFD neurons in mediating tactile-dependent locomotion modulation, independent of their well-established thermosensory function. They partially elucidate the signaling mechanisms underlying this AFD-dependent behavioral modulation. The regulation does not require the sensory dendritic endings of AFD but rather the AFD neurons themselves. This process involves a distinct set of cGMP signaling proteins and CNG channel subunits separate from those involved in thermosensation or thermotaxis. Furthermore, the authors demonstrate that AIB interneurons connect AFD to mechanosensory circuits through electrical synapses. They conclude that, beyond its primary function in thermosensation, AFD contributes to context-dependent neuroplasticity and behavioral modulation via broader circuit connectivity.

While the discovery of multifunctionality in AFD is not entirely unexpected, given the limited number of neurons in C. elegans (302 in total), the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying this AFD-dependent behavioral modulation, as revealed in this study, provide valuable insights into the field.

Strengths:

(1) The authors uncover a novel role of AFD neurons in mediating tactile-dependent locomotion modulation, distinct from their well-established thermosensory function.

(2) They provide partial insights into the signaling mechanisms underlying this AFD-dependent behavioral modulation.

(3) The neural behavior assays utilizing two types of microfluidic chambers (uniform and binary chambers) are innovative and well-designed.

(4) By comparing AFD's role in locomotion modulation to its thermosensory function throughout the study, the authors present strong evidence supporting these as two independent functions of AFD.

(5) The finding that AFD contributes to context-dependent behavioral modulation is significant, further reinforcing the growing evidence that individual neurons can serve multiple functions through broader circuit connectivity.

Weaknesses:

(1) Limited Behavioral Assays: The study relies solely on neural behavior assays conducted using two types of microfluidic chambers (uniform and binary chambers) to assess context-dependent locomotion modulation. No additional behavioral assays were performed. To strengthen the conclusions, the authors should validate their findings using an independent method, at the very least by testing AFD-ablated animals and gcy-18 mutants with a second behavioral approach.

(2) Clarity in Behavioral Assay Methodology: The methodology for conducting the behavioral assays is unclear. It appears that worms were free to move between the exploration and assay zones, with no control over the duration each worm spent in either zone. This lack of regulation may introduce variability in tactile experience across individuals, potentially affecting the reproducibility and quantitativeness of the method. The authors should clarify whether and how they accounted for this variability.

(3) Potential Developmental and Behavioral Confounds in Mutant Analysis: Several neuronal mutant strains were used in this study, yet the effects of these mutations on development and general behavior (e.g., movement ability) were not discussed. Although young adult worms were used for behavioral assays, were they at similar biological ages? To rule out confounding factors, locomotion assays assessing movement ability should be conducted (see reference PMID 25561524).

(4) Definition and Baseline Measurements for Locomotion Categories: The finding that tax-4 and kcc-3 contribute to basal locomotion but not to context-dependent locomotion modulation is intriguing. The authors argue that distinct mechanisms regulate these two processes; however, the study does not clearly define the concepts of "basal locomotion" and "context-dependent locomotion," nor does it provide baseline measurements. A clear definition and baseline data are needed to support this conclusion.