Subregional activity in the dentate gyrus is amplified during elevated cognitive demands

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This manuscript investigates how dentate gyrus (DG) granule cell subregions, specifically suprapyramidal (SB) and infrapyramidal (IB) blades, are differentially recruited during a high cognitive demand pattern separation task. The authors combine TRAP2 activity labeling, touchscreen-based TUNL behavior, and chemogenetic inhibition of adult-born dentate granule cells (abDGCs) or mature granule cells (mGCs) to dissect circuit contributions.

This manuscript presents an interesting and well-designed investigation into DG activity patterns under varying cognitive demands and the role of abDGCs in shaping mGC activity. The integration of TRAP2-based activity labeling, chemogenetic manipulation, and behavioral assays provides valuable insight into DG subregional organization and functional recruitment. However, several methodological and quantitative issues limit the interpretability of the findings. Addressing the concerns below will greatly strengthen the rigor and clarity of the study.

Major points:

(1) Quantification methods for TRAP+ cells are not applied consistently across panels in Figure 1, making interpretation difficult. Specifically, Figure 1F reports TRAP+ mGCs as density, whereas Figure 1G reports TRAP+ abDGCs as a percentage, hindering direct comparison. Additionally, Figure 1H presents reactivation analysis only for mGCs; a parallel analysis for abDGCs is needed for comparison across cell types.

(2) The anatomical distribution of TRAP+ cells is different between low- and high-cognitive demand conditions (Figure 2). Are these sections from dorsal or ventral DG? Is this specific to dorsal DG, as itis preferentially involved in cognitive function? What happens in ventral DG?

(3) The activity manipulation using chemogenetic inhibition of abDGCs in AsclCreER; hM4 mice was performed; however, because tamoxifen chow was administered for 4 or 7 weeks, the labeled abDGC population was not properly birth-dated. Instead, it consisted of a heterogeneous cohort of cells ranging from 0 to 5-7 weeks old. Thus, caution should be taken when interpreting these results, and the limitations of this approach should be acknowledged.

(4) There is a major issue related to the quantification of the DREADD experiments in Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7. The hM4 mouse line used in this study should be quantified using HA, rather than mCitrine, to reliably identify cells derived from the Ascl lineage. mCitrine expression in this mouse line is not specific to adult-born neurons (off-targets), and its expression does not accurately reflect hM4 expression.

(5) Key markers needed to assess the maturation state of abDGCs are missing from the quantification. Incorporating DCX and NeuN into the analysis would provide essential information about the developmental stage of these cells.

Minor points:

(1) The labeling (Distance from the hilus) in Figure 2B is misleading. Is that the same location as the subgranular zone (SGZ)? If so, it's better to use the term SGZ to avoid confusion.

(2) Cell number information is missing from Figures 2B and 2C; please include this data.

(3) Sample DG images should clearly delineate the borders between the dentate gyrus and the hilus. In several images, this boundary is difficult to discern.

(4) In Figure 6, it is not clear how tamoxifen was administered to selectively inhibit the more mature 6-7-week-old abDGC population, nor how this paradigm differs from the chow-based approach. Please clarify the tamoxifen administration protocol and the rationale for its specificity.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary

In this manuscript, the authors combine an automated touchscreen-based trial-unique nonmatching-to-location (TUNL) task with activity-dependent labeling (TRAP/c-Fos) and birth-dating of adult-born dentate granule cells (abDGCs) to examine how cognitive demand modulates dentate gyrus (DG) activity patterns. By varying spatial separation between sample and choice locations, the authors operationally increase task difficulty and show that higher demand is associated with increased mature granule cell (mGC) activity and an amplified suprapyramidal (SB) versus infrapyramidal (IB) blade bias. Using chemogenetic inhibition, they further demonstrate dissociable contributions of abDGCs and mGCs to task performance and DG activation patterns.

The combination of behavioral manipulation, spatially resolved activity tagging, and temporally defined abDGC perturbations is a strength of the study and provides a novel circuit-level perspective on how adult neurogenesis modulates DG function. In particular, the comparison across different abDGC maturation windows is well designed and narrows the functionally relevant population to neurons within the critical period (~4-7 weeks). The finding that overall mGC activity levels, in addition to spatially biased activation patterns, are required for successful performance under high cognitive demand is intriguing.

Major Comments

(1) Individual variability and the relationship between performance and DG activation.

The manuscript reports substantial inter-animal variability in the number of days required to reach the criterion, particularly during large-separation training. Given this variability, it would be informative to examine whether individual differences in performance correlate with TRAP+ or c-Fos+ density and/or spatial bias metrics. While the authors report no correlation between success and TRAP+ density in some analyses, a more systematic correlation across learning rate, final performance, and DG activation patterns (mGC vs abDGC, SB vs IB) could strengthen the interpretation that DG activity reflects task engagement rather than performance only.

(2) Operational definition of "cognitive demand".

The distinction between low (large separation) and high (small separation) cognitive demand is central to the manuscript, yet the definition remains somewhat broad. Reduced spatial separation likely alters multiple behavioral variables beyond cognitive load, including reward expectation, attentional demands, confidence, engagement, and potentially motivation. The authors should more explicitly acknowledge these alternative interpretations and clarify whether "cognitive demand" is intended as a composite construct rather than a strictly defined cognitive operation.

(3) Potential effects of task engagement on neurogenesis.

Given the extensive behavioral training and known effects of experience on adult neurogenesis, it remains unclear whether the task itself alters the size or maturation state of the abDGC population. Although the focus is on activity and function rather than cell number, it would be useful to clarify whether neurogenesis rates were assessed or controlled for, or to explicitly state this as a limitation.

(4) Temporal resolution of activity tagging.

TRAP and c-Fos labeling provide a snapshot of neural activity integrated over a temporal window, making it difficult to determine which task epochs or trial types drive the observed activation patterns. This limitation is partially acknowledged, but the conclusions occasionally imply trial-specific or demand-specific encoding. The authors should more clearly distinguish between sustained task engagement and moment-to-moment trial processing, and temper interpretations accordingly. While beyond the scope of the current study, this also motivates future experiments using in vivo recording approaches.

(5) Interpretation of altered spatial patterns following abDGC inhibition.

In the abDGC inhibition experiments, Cre+ DCZ animals show delayed learning relative to controls. As a result, when animals are sacrificed, they may be at an intermediate learning stage rather than at an equivalent behavioral endpoint. This raises the possibility that altered DG activation patterns reflect the learning stage rather than a direct circuit effect of abDGC inhibition. Additional clarification or analysis controlling for the learning stage would strengthen the causal interpretation.

(6) Relationship between c-Fos density and behavioral performance.

The study reports that abDGC inhibition increases c-Fos density while impairing performance, whereas mGC inhibition decreases c-Fos density and also impairs performance. This raises an important conceptual question regarding the relationship between overall activity levels and task success. The authors suggest that both sufficient activity and appropriate spatial patterning are required, but the manuscript would benefit from a more explicit discussion of how different perturbations may shift the identity, composition, or coordination of the active neuronal ensemble rather than simply altering total activity levels.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors used genetic models and immunohistochemistry to identify how training in a spatial discrimination working memory task influences activity in the dentate gyrus subregion of the hippocampus. Finding that more cognitively challenging variants of the task evoked more and distinct patterns of activity, they then investigated whether newborn neurons in particular were important for learning this task and regulating the spatial activity patterns.

Strengths:

The focus on precise anatomical locations of activity is relatively novel and potentially important, given that little is known about how DG subregions contribute to behavior. The authors also use a task that is known to depend on this memory-related part of the brain.

Weaknesses:

Statistical rigor is insufficient. Many statistical results are not stated, inappropriate tests are used, and sample sizes differ across experiments (which appear to potentially underlie null results). The chemogenetic approach to inhibit adult-born neurons also does not appear to be targeting these neurons, as judged by their location in the DG.