Individual differences in fear memory expression engage distinct functional brain networks

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This work provides a comprehensive analysis of how adult zebrafish show fear responses to conspecific alarm substances (CAS) and retain their associative memory. It shows that freezing is a more reliable measure of fear response and memory compared to evasive swimming, and that the reactivity and the type of responses depend on the zebrafish strain. It further suggests neuronal substrates of different fear responses based on c-Fos mapping.

Strengths:

The behavioral part is the most comprehensive and detailed yet in the zebrafish field, providing strong support for the authors' claim. The flow from Figure 1 to Figure 4 is very smooth. They provide extremely detailed, yet complementary and necessary, analyses of how different categories of behavior emerge over time during the CAS exposure and memory retrieval. I'm convinced that neuro researchers who study fear/stress responses will always refer to this paper to plan and interpret their future experiments.

Weaknesses:

The neural analysis part is very comprehensive. Figure 5 and Figure 6 are independent but complement each other very well. They together support that the cerebellar system is the key brain component for a freezing response. Their extreme focus on high-level analyses, however, came at the expense of biological intuitions. I suggest adding some figure panels and result/discussion paragraphs to help with that aspect.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this study, Fontana et al. develop a paradigm for associative conditioning by pairing exposure to an alarm substance with a novel tank. Exposure to conspecific alarm substance (CAS) in the novel tank triggers freezing and what they characterize as evasive swimming behaviour, which is subsequently seen in a re-exposure to the novel tank without the CAS present. Importantly, these states are identified via automated processes, including postural tracking and a random forest classification process, which could be very useful tools for subsequent studies.

In their experiments, they focus on the differences in behaviour among strains of zebrafish (both males and females), and among individual zebrafish. For males and females of different strains, they find some differences, though the clearest message seems to be that the most robust measure of the behaviour in response to both the CAS and in the memory trials is the freezing behaviour, while evasive behaviour is more variable. and not always seen. This may relate to their observation of significant "evasiveness" in vehicle control experiments (discussed further below).

Moving on to individual variation from within this multi-strain male/female dataset, they first examine transition matrices between states and find tthat his is not dramatically altered by stimulus exposure. They then use clustering to identify 4 different "classes" of zebrafish that differ in their expression (or not) of two types of behaviour: freezing and/or evasive behaviour. They show that over the three exposure epochs of the experiment, this classification is somewhat stable in an individual fish, though many fish change their behaviour - e.g., evading + freezing -> only freezing.

In the final set of experiments, the authors move beyond behavioural analyses and perform whole-brain cFos mapping of these individual zebrafish. They perform analyses aimed at identifying correlations between individual behavioural expression and the number of cFos-positive cells in different brain regions. Using partial least squares analysis, they find areas associated with two types of behavioural contrasts, which differ in their weighting of different behavioural expression during the Memory trials. Covariation and network structure analysis within different classes of larvae also find some differences in covariation among brain areas, providing hypotheses as to underlying network effects that may govern the expression of freezing and/or evasive behavior in the memory trial phases.

Overall, I find this to be an interesting study that employs state of the are methods of behavioural analyses and whole-brain cFos analyses, but I am left a little bit confused as to what the take home message is and what can be concluded from this complex study that mixes in analyses of strain, sex, and individuality within a quite complex assay with multiple behavioural parameters.

My suggestions are as follows:

(1) My first concern relates to the claim in the abstract that "We found that fear memory behavior fell into four distinct groups: non-reactive, evaders, evading freezers, and freezers".

In my opinion, the "freezing" aspect is well supported as being both triggered by the CAS and for memory effect upon re-exposure to the tank, but I am less convinced about the "evasive" behaviour. In Figure 2, it appears that "evasiveness" is generally not increased in both the Exposure or Memory phases for many groups, and in Figure 5, it appears that "evasiveness" is expressed by nearly 50% of the fish in the pre-exposure condition before CAS addition and in all phases in the vehicle condition. Therefore, it appears that most of the expression of this behaviour is independent of any memory-based effect.

(2) My second concern relates to the claim in the abstract that "background strain and sex influenced how fish respond to CAS, with males more likely to increase evasive behaviors than females and the TU strain more likely to be non-reactive."

My understanding, based on the introduction and on the methods, is that it is likely important that the CAS be prepared from conspecifics of the same strain and sex, and for this reason, they prepared different CAS specific for each strain and each sex. Therefore, the "CAS" that is applied is necessarily different for each condition, and I am concerned about if the differences observed could relate more to variation in the quality, purity, concentration, etc. of the specific CAS samples for different groups, rather than their reactivity to the substance or their ability to form memories based on such experiences.

(3) My third concern relates to the interpretation of the cFos data.

As I mentioned above, I feel as though the behavioural analysis is perhaps more complex than is warranted via the inclusion of evasiveness, and I wonder if the conclusions from the experiments would be simpler if analyzed only from the perspective of freezing.

But considering the presented analyses: while I dont think there is anything wrong with the partial least squares approach and the network analyses, I am concerned that the simple messaging in the text does not reflect the complexity of this analysis combining different weightings of different behavioural characteristics in a behavioural contrast, or covariations among many regions and what such analyses mean at the level of brain function. For these reasons, I feel like statements along the lines of "Behavioral variation is driven by differences in the activity of brain regions outside the telencephalon, such as the cerebellum, preglomerular nuclei, preoptic area and hypothalamus" are not well supported.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Fontana et al. sets out to fill a critical gap in our understanding of how individuality in fear responses corresponds to changes in brain activity. Previous work has shown in myriad species that fear behaviors are highly variable, and these variabilities correlate with sex and strain, with epigenetic modifications, and neural activity in specific regions of the brain, such as the amygdala. However, a whole-brain functional assessment of whether activity in different regions of the brain is associated with fear behavior has been difficult to assess, in part due to the large size and opacity of the brain. The Kenney group overcomes these limitations using the zebrafish, together with powerful behavioral and brain imaging approaches pioneered by their lab. To overcome the technical obstacles of delivering a reproducible unconditioned stimulus in water and quantifying nuanced behavioral responses, the authors developed a three-day conditioning paradigm in which fish were repeatedly exposed to CAS in one tank context and to control water in another. Leveraging automated cluster analysis across over 300 individuals from four inbred strains, they identified four distinct memory-recall phenotypes - non-reactive, evaders, evading freezers, and freezers - demonstrating both the robustness of their assay and the influence of genetic background and sex on fear learning. Finally, whole-brain imaging using the AZBA atlas (Kenney et al. eLife) and cfos mapping coupled with multivariate analysis revealed that although all fish reengaged telencephalic regions during recall, high-freezing phenotypes uniquely recruited cerebellar, preglomerular, and pretectal nuclei, whereas mixed evasion-freezing fish showed preferential activation of preoptic and hypothalamic areas - a finding that lays the groundwork for dissecting the distributed neural substrates of associative fear in zebrafish.

Strengths:

The strengths of the study lie in the use of zeberarish and the innovative behavioral, modeling, and brain imaging tools applied to address this question. The question of how brain-wide activity correlates with variations in fear behavior is fundamental, and arguably, this system is the only system that could be used to address this. The statistics are appropriate, and the study is well reasoned. Overall, I like this manuscript very much and think it adds invaluable information to the field of fear/anxiety.

Weaknesses:

I have a few questions and suggestions.

(1) The three-day contextual fear paradigm, as implemented - one CAS pairing on day 2 followed by a single recall test on day 3 - inevitably conflates acquisition and long-term memory, making it impossible to know whether strains like TU truly recall the association poorly or simply learn it more slowly. For example, given that TU fish extinguish fear faster than AB or TL strains in extended protocols, they may simply require additional or repeated CAS pairings to achieve the same asymptotic performance. To disentangle learning kinetics from recall strength, the assay could be revised to include multiple acquisition trials (e.g., conditioning on two or more consecutive days) with an immediate post-conditioning probe to assess acquisition independent of consolidation, and continuous measurement of freezing and evasive behaviors across each trial to fit learning curves for each strain. Such refinements - even if on a subset of the strains - would reveal whether "non-reactive" phenotypes reflect genuine recall deficits or merely delayed acquisition.

(2) My second major question is with respect to Figure 3 panel B. This is a complex figure, and I can understand the gist of what the authors are attempting to show, but it is difficult to understand as it is. Can this be represented in a way that is clearer and explained a bit more easily?

(3) The brain mapping is by far one of the most interesting aspects of this study, and the methods that the group used are interesting. The brain mapping, however, relies on generating "contrasting" groups (Figure 6A), and I was not clear as to how these two groups were formed. Could the authors elaborate a bit?