Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, and public reviews.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorMoriel ZelikowskyUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, United States of America
- Senior EditorLaura ColginUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, United States of America
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
Here, the authors examine how CRH neurons in the PVN track social behaviours. They use fiber photometry to record the bulk activity of PVN CRH neurons during the resident-intruder test. They find that PVN CRH activity increases when the intruder enters, and also when mice make movements to approach the intruder. They further show that the magnitude of this response differs depending on the familiarity of the mouse. Specifically, if the intruding mouse is unfamiliar, there is a greater PVN CRH response relative to a familiar mouse. The authors argue that this is specific to social familiarity, as they do not see the same differentiation in the PVN CRH response when mice approach a familiar or unfamiliar object. Finally, the authors conduct optogenetic experiments and show that inhibition of PVN CRH neurons reduces social investigative behaviour. The authors then conclude that PVN CRH neurons are a part of a decision-making circuit to influence behaviour in ambiguous settings, specifically that they are a "key component of the neural circuitry underlying rapid social appraisal, linking endocrine regulation to real-time behavioural decision making".
The data are interesting and novel. They help us understand the dynamics and range of situations in which PVN CRH neurons are activated. There is some overinterpretation of the data and restriction of what this signal means (i.e., specifically driven by unfamiliar social situations), which doesn't seem to be supported by the data. Indeed, PVN CRH neurons are robustly activated by scenarios outside unfamiliar social ones.
Strengths:
The experiments are run and presented very beautifully in a sophisticated way. The data are novel and interesting. They help us understand the time course of PVN CRH responding in social and object settings, and how this differs with the familiarity of a social stimulus.
The optogenetic manipulation is also very nice. The authors optically inhibit during just the first 20 seconds of the resident-intruder test. They find that this inhibition results in a long-term reduction in social behaviours. To me, this supports an idea that the PVN CRH signal triggers a cascade of behaviours, but is not necessarily driving these behaviours per se.
Weaknesses:
It would be great to see more sophisticated analysis of the fiber photometry data, which may reveal interesting effects that are currently being occluded by static AUC analysis. One pipeline that is freely available that could be used is found in Jean-Richard-dit-Bressel, Clifford, and McNally (2020) Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience. Referred to as waveform analysis, this would allow the authors to examine the significance of their data across time. There are multiple points at which this would be interesting. For example, in Figure 3F, it is possible that differences between the familiar and unfamiliar objects emerge. Also, there seems to be one outlier in this figure in the familiar object group. What happens if it is removed (Figure 3H)?
Similarly, what do these signals look like when aligned with making contact with the social or object stimuli? It is possible that the objects do not elicit a difference depending on familiarity when approaching because: (1) they are not moving, and (2) it is unclear whether they are familiar or not until contact is made, consistent with the object recognition literature. What would inhibition of the PVN CRH signal do to investigative behaviours directed towards objects?
Finally, given the robust nature of the response to the approach to the objects and familiar mouse, why is this signal being argued to predominantly act in unfamiliar social settings? The lack of difference between the familiar and unfamiliar objects doesn't negate the importance of this signal. To me, this is the most interesting finding: PVN CRH neurons that are usually activated in stressful situations can also be robustly activated by familiar objects. Relatedly, while the authors argue that inhibition of PVN CRH neurons only reduces social behaviours in the unfamiliar case, there is likely a floor effect in the behaviours that they are looking at, which occludes observation of a reduction via optical inhibition.
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
The authors investigated the role of hypothalamic CRH neurons in social behavior. They performed fiber photometry recordings in mice from CRH neurons and showed that novel conspecifics trigger stronger and more prolonged responses compared to familiar conspecifics and objects. The activity of CRH neurons appears to be related to risk assessment, as interactions with juvenile unfamiliar mice (lower-risk conspecifics) trigger responses similar to those of familiar adult mice. Behaviorally, CRH neurons were linked to increased anogenital investigation of unfamiliar compared to familiar mice. Optogenetic suppression of CRH neurons decreased anogenital sniffing of unfamiliar conspecifics.
Strengths:
The manuscript is elegant, and the results are compelling. The approaches are well justified, and the methods are validated (eg: Arch inhibition).
The findings substantiate the role of CRH neurons in responses to stress and uncover the involvement of these neurons in the assessment of social risk.
Weaknesses:
These are not weaknesses, just some observations: It is somewhat surprising that CRH neurons respond similarly to familiar and unfamiliar objects; it would be good to have more insights into that aspect.
Similarly, the novel context by itself is expected to lead to increased activity of CRH neurons (based on data from the last author's lab as well as other labs in the field). It is somewhat surprising (and interesting) that the novel environment did not affect the magnitude of CRH responses to unfamiliar conspecifics.