Paraventricular Thalamus Hyperactivity Mediates Stress-Induced Sensitization of Unlearned Fear but Not Stress-Enhanced Fear Learning (SEFL)

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study delineates a highly specific role for the pPVT in unconditioned defensive responses. The authors use a novel, combined SEFL and SEFR paradigm to test both conditioned and unconditioned responses in the same animal. Next, a c-fos mapping experiment showed enhanced PVT activity in the stress group when exposed to the novel tone. No other regions showed differences. Fiber photometry measurements in pPVT showed enhancement in response to the novel tone in the stressed but not non-stressed groups. Importantly, there were also no effects when calcium measurements were taken during conditioning. Using DREADDS to bidirectionally manipulate global pPVT activity, inhibition of the PVT reduced tone freezing in stressed mice while stimulation increased tone freezing in non-stressed mice.

Strengths:

A major strength of this research is the use of a multi-dimensional behavioral assay that delineates behavior related to both learned and non-learned defensive responses. The research also incorporates high-resolution approaches to measure neuronal activity and provide causal evidence for a role for PVT in a very narrow band of defensive behavior. The data are compelling, and the manuscript is well-written overall.

Weaknesses:

Figure 1 shows a small, but looks to be, statistically significant, increase in freezing in response to the novel tone in the no-stress group relative to baseline freezing. This observation was also noticed in Figures 2 and 7. The tone presented is relatively high frequency (9 kHz) and high dB (90), making it a high-intensity stimulus. Is it possible that this stimulus is acting as an unconditioned stimulus? In addition, in the final experiment, the tone intensity was increased to 115 dB, and the freezing % in the non-stressed group was nearly identical (~20%) to the non-stressed groups in Figures 1-2 and Figure 7. It seems this manipulation was meant as a startle assay (Pantoni et al., 2020). Because the auditory perception of mice is better at high frequencies (best at ~16 kHz), would the effect seen be evident at a lower dB (50-55) at 9 kHz? If the tone was indeed perceived as "neutral," there should be no freezing in response to the tone. This complicates the interpretation of the results somewhat because while the authors do admit the stimulus is loud, would a less loud stimulus result in the same effect? Could the interaction observed in this set of studies require not a novel tone, but rather a high-intensity tone that elicits an unconditioned response? Along these same lines, it appears there may be an elevation in c-fos in the PVT in the non-stress tone test group versus the no-stress home cage control, and overall it appears that tone increases c-fos relative to homecage. Could PVT be sensitive to the tone outside of stress? Would there be the same results with a less intense stimulus? I would also be curious to know what mice in the non-stressed group were doing upon presentation of the tone besides freezing. Were any startle or orienting responses noticed?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Nishimura and colleagues present findings of a behavioral and neurobiological dissociation of associative and nonassociative components of Stress Enhanced Fear Responding (SEFR).

Strengths:

This is a strong paper that identifies the PVT as a critical brain region for SEFR responses using a variety of approaches, including immunohistochemistry, fiber photometry, and bidirectional chemogenetics. In addition, there is a great deal of conceptual innovation. The authors identify a dissociable behavior to distinguish the effects of PVT function (among other brain regions).

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors find a lack of difference between the Stress and No Stress groups in pPVT activity during SEFL conditioning with fiber photometry but an increase in freezing with Gq DREADD stimulation. How do authors reconcile this difference in activity vs function?

(2) Because the PVT plays a role in defensive behaviors, it would be beneficial to show fiber photometry data during freezing bouts vs exclusively presented during tone a shock cue presentations.

(3) Similar to the above point, were other defensive behaviors expressed as a result of footshock stress or PVT manipulations?

(4) Tone attenuation in Figure 8 seems to be largely a result of minimal freezing to a 115-dB tone. While not a major point of the paper, a more robust fear response would be convincing.

(5) In the open field test, the authors measure total distance. It would be beneficial to also show defensive behavioral (escape, freezing, etc) bouts expressed.

(6) The authors, along with others, show a behavioral and neural dissociation of footshock stress on nonassociative vs associative components of stress; however, the nonassociative components as a direct consequence of the stress seem to be necessary for enhancement of associative aspects of fear. Can authors elaborate on how these systems converge to enhance or potentiate fear?

(7) In the discussion, authors should elaborate on/clarify the cell population heterogeneity of the PVT since authors later describe PVT neurons as exclusively glutamatergic.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Nishimura et al. examines the behavioural and neural mechanisms of stress-enhanced fear responding (SEFR) and stress-enhanced fear learning (SEFL). Groups of stressed (4 x shock exposure in a context) vs non-stressed (context exposure only) animals are compared for their fear of an unconditioned tone, and context, as well as their learning of new context fear associations. Shock of higher intensity led to higher levels of unlearned stress-enhanced fear expression. Immediate early gene analysis uncovered the PVT as a critical neural locus, and this was confirmed using fiber photometry, with stressed animals showing an elevated neural signal to an unconditioned tone. Using a gain and loss of function DREADDs methodology, the authors provide convincing evidence for a causal role of the PVT in SEFR.

Strengths:

(1) The manuscript uses critical behavioural controls (no stress vs stress) and behavioural parameters (0.25mA, 0.5mA, 1mA shock). Findings are replicated across experiments.

(2) Dissociating the SEFR and SEFL is a critical distinction that has not been made previously. Moreover, this dissociation is essential in understanding the behavioural (and neural) processes that can go awry in fear.

(3) Neural methods use a multifaceted approach to convincingly link the PVT to SEFR: from Fos, fiber photometry, gain and loss of function using DREADDs.

Weaknesses:

No weaknesses were identified by this reviewer; however, I have the following comments:

A closer examination of the Test data across time would help determine if differences may be present early or later in the session that could otherwise be washed out when the data are averaged across time. If none are seen, then it may be worth noting this in the manuscript.

Given the sex/gender differences in PTSD in the human population, having the male and female data points distinguished in the figures would be helpful. I assume sex was run as a variable in the statistics, and nothing came as significant. Noting this would also be of value to other readers who may wonder about the presence of sex differences in the data.