Correlated signatures of social behavior in cerebellum and anterior cingulate cortex

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors describe an improved miniscope they name "E-scope", combining in vivo calcium imaging with electrophysiological recording. They use it to examine neural correlates of social interactions with respect to cerebellar and cortical circuits. Through correlations between electrophysiological single units of Purkinje cells and dentate nucleus neurons as well as with calcium signals imaging of neurons from the anterior cingulate cortex, the authors provide correlative data supporting the view that intracerebellar circuits and cerebello-cortical communications take part in the modulation of social behavior. In particular, the electrophysiological dataset reflects the PC-DN connection and strongly suggests its involvement in social interactions. Cross-correlations analyses between PC / DN single units and ACC calcium signals suggest that the recorded cerebellar and cortical structures both take part in the brain networks at play in social behavior.

Strengths:
- This is a timely and important study with solid evidence for correlative conclusions that are not overstated in the manuscript, which is commendable.
- Despite the technical challenge, the experiments presented in this study seem well performed and the quality of the dataset is appropriate.

Weaknesses:
- While the novelty of the device is strongly emphasized, I find that its value is somewhat diminished by the wire-free device developed by the same group as it should thus be possible to perform calcium imaging wire-free and electrophysiological recording via a single conventional cable (or also via wireless headstages).
- The role of the identified network activations in social interactions is not touched upon.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This report by Hur et al. examines simultaneous activity in the cerebellum and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) to determine how activity in these regions is coordinated during social behavior. To accomplish this, the authors developed a recording device named the E-scope, which combines a head-mounted mini-scope for in vivo Ca2+ imaging with an extracellular recording probe (in the manuscript they use a 32-channel silicon probe). Using the E-scope, the authors find subpopulations of cerebellar neurons with social-interaction-related activity changes. The activity pattern is predominantly decreased firing in PCs and increases in DNs, which is the expected reciprocal relationship between these populations. They also find social-interaction-related activity in the ACC. The authors nicely show the absence of locomotion onset and offset activity in PCs and DNs ruling out that is movement driven. Analysis showed high correlations between cerebellar and ACC populations (namely, Soc+ACC and Soc+DN cells). The finding of correlated activity is interesting because non-motor functions of the cerebellum are relatively little explored. However, the causal relationship is far from established with the methods used, leaving it unclear if these two brain regions are similarly engaged by the behavior or if they form a pathway/loop. Overall, the data are presented clearly, and the manuscript is well written, however, the biological insight gained is rather limited.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Complex behavior requires complex neural control involving multiple brain regions. The currently available tools to measure neural activity in multiple brain regions in small animals are limited and often involve obligatory head-fixation. The latter, obviously, impacts the behaviors under study. Hur and colleagues present a novel recording device, the E-Scope, that combines optical imaging of fluorescent calcium imaging in one brain region with high-density electrodes in another. Importantly, the E-Scope can be implanted and is, therefore, compatible with usage in freely moving mice. The authors used their new E-Scope to study neural activity during social interactions in mice. They demonstrate the presence of neural correlates of social interaction that happen simultaneously in the cerebellum and the anterior cingulate cortex.

The major accomplishment of this study is the development and introduction of the E-Scope. The evaluation of this part can be short: it works, so the authors succeeded.

The authors managed to reduce the weight of the implant to 4.5 g, which is - given all functionality - quite an accomplishment in my view. However, a mouse weighs between 20 and 40 g, so that an implant of 4.5 g is still quite considerable. It can be expected that this has an impact on the behavior and, possibly, the well-being of the animals. Whether this is the case or not, is not really addressed in this study. The authors suffice with the statement that "Recorded animals made more contact with the other mouse than with the object (Figure 2A), suggesting a normal preference for social contact with the E-Scope attached."

Overall, the description of animal behavior is rather sparse. The methods state only that stranger age-matched mice were used, but do not state their gender. The nature of the social interactions was not described? Was their aggressive behavior, sexual approach and/or intercourse? Did the stranger mice attack/damage the E-Scope? Were the interactions comparable (using which parameters?) with and without E-Scope attached? It is not even described what the authors define as an "interaction bout" (Figure 2A). The number of interaction bouts is counted per 7 minutes, I presume? This is not specified explicitly.

In Figure 1 D-G, the authors present raw data from the neurophysiological recordings. In panel D, we see events with vastly different amplitudes. It would be very insightful if the authors would describe which events they considered to be action potentials, and which not. Similarly, the raw traces of Figure 1E are declared to be single-unit recordings of Purkinje cells. Partially due to the small size of the traces (invisible in print and pixelated in the digital version), I have a hard time recognizing complex spikes and simple spikes in these traces. This is a bit worrisome, as the authors declare the typical duration of the pause in simple spike firing after a complex spike to be 20-100 ms. In my experience, such long pauses are rare in this region, and definitely not typical. In the right panel of Figure 1A, an example of a complex spike-induced pause is shown. This pause is around 15 ms, so not typical according to the text, and starts only around 4 ms after the complex spike, which should not be the case and suggests either a misalignment of the figure or the detection of complex spike spikelets as simple spikes, while the abnormally long pause suggests that the authors fail to detect a lot of simple spikes. The authors could provide more confidence in their data by including more raw data, making explicit how they analyzed the signals, and by reporting basic statistics of firing properties (like rate, cv or cv2, pause duration). In this respect, Figure 2 - figure supplement 3 shows quite a large percentage of cells to have either a very low or a very high firing rate.

The number of Purkinje cells recorded during social interactions is quite low: only 11 cells showed a modulation in their spiking activity (unclear whether in complex spikes, simple spikes or both. During object interaction, only 4 cells showed a significant modulation. Unclear is whether the latter 4 are a subset of the former 11, or whether "social cells" and "object cells" are different categories. Having so few cells, and with these having different types of modulation, the group of cells for each type of modulation is really small, going down to 2 cells/group. It is doubtful whether meaningful interpretation is possible here.

This brings us to the next point: neural correlates of social interaction are notoriously difficult to interpret. Social behavior is complex, and involves the processing of sensory cues (olfaction, touch (whiskers), visual and auditory), the production of ultrasonic vocalizations (in specific contexts), movements, and emotional behavior (fear, pleasure, sexual interest). In other words, neural activity patterns observed during social interaction do not necessarily relate specifically to social interaction, but can also occur in a non-social context. The authors control this by comparing social interactions with object interactions, but I miss a direct comparison between the two conditions, both in terms of behavior (now only the number of interactions is counted, not their duration or intensity), and in terms of neural activity. There is some analysis done on the interaction between movement and cerebellar activity (Figure 2 - figure supplement 4), but it is unclear to what extent social interactions and movements are separated here. It would already help to indicate in the plots with trajectories (e.g., Fig. 2H) indicate the social interactions (e.g., social interaction-related movements in red, the rest of the trajectories in black).

The neuron count in the anterior cingulate cortex is much higher than for the cerebellum, but also here it is not so clear what is "social" and what is "non-social". In Figure 3G-H, the authors indicate a near-perfect separation between cells active during social encounters and those active during object encounters. This could indicate that there is here indeed a social aspect, but as we do not know to what extent the sensory and motor aspects differ between social and non-social interactions, this is still hard to interpret.

Finally, the authors show that there are correlations between the modulation in neurons of the anterior cingulate cortex and cerebellar neurons related to bouts of social activity. Here, it could be interesting to see whether there are differences in latency between the two brain areas.

In conclusion, the authors present a novel method to record neural activity with single cell-resolution in two brain regions in freely moving mice. Given the challenges associated with understanding of complex behaviors, this approach can be useful for many neuroscientists. The authors demonstrate the potential of their approach by studying social interactions in mice. Clearly, there are correlations in the activity of neurons in the anterior cingulate cortex and the cerebellum related to social interactions. To bring our understanding of these patterns to a higher level, more detailed analyses (and probably also larger group sizes of cerebellar neurons) are required, though.