Cholinergic input to mouse visual cortex signals a movement state and acutely enhances layer 5 responsiveness

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The paper submitted by Yogesh and Keller explores the role of cholinergic input from the basal forebrain (BF) in the mouse primary visual cortex (V1). The study aims to understand the signals conveyed by BF cholinergic axons in the visual cortex, their impact on neurons in different cortical layers, and their computational significance in cortical visual processing. The authors employed two-photon calcium imaging to directly monitor cholinergic input from BF axons expressing GCaMP6 in mice running through a virtual corridor, revealing a strong correlation between BF axonal activity and locomotion. This persistent activation during locomotion suggests that BF input provides a binary locomotion state signal. To elucidate the impact of cholinergic input on cortical activity, the authors conducted optogenetic and chemogenetic manipulations, with a specific focus on L2/3 and L5 neurons. They found that cholinergic input modulates the responses of L5 neurons to visual stimuli and visuomotor mismatch, while not significantly affecting L2/3 neurons. Moreover, the study demonstrates that BF cholinergic input leads to decorrelation in the activity patterns of L2/3 and L5 neurons.

This topic has garnered significant attention in the field, drawing the interest of many researchers actively investigating the role of BF cholinergic input in cortical activity and sensory processing. The experiments and analyses were thoughtfully designed and conducted with rigorous standards, leading to convincing results which align well with findings in previous studies. In other words, some of the main findings, such as the correlation between cholinergic input and locomotor activity and the effects of cholinergic input on V1 cortical activity, have been previously demonstrated by other labs (Goard and Dan, 2009; Pinto et al., 2013; Reimer et al., 2016). However, the study by Yogesh and Keller stands out by combining cutting-edge calcium imaging and optogenetics to provide compelling evidence of layer-specific differences in the impact of cholinergic input on neuronal responses to bottom-up (visual stimuli) and top-down inputs (visuomotor mismatch).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript investigates the function of basal forebrain cholinergic axons in mouse primary visual cortex (V1) during locomotion using two-photon calcium imaging in head-fixed mice. Cholinergic modulation has previously been proposed to mediate the effects of locomotion on V1 responses. The manuscript concludes that the activity of basal forebrain cholinergic axons in visual cortex provides a signal which is more correlated with binary locomotion state than locomotion velocity of the animal. Cholinergic axons did not seem to respond to grating stimuli or visuomotor prediction error. Optogenetic stimulation of these axons increased the amplitude of responses to visual stimuli and decreased the response latency of layer 5 excitatory neurons, but not layer 2/3 neurons. Moreover, optogenetic or chemogenetic stimulation of cholinergic inputs reduced pairwise correlation of neuronal responses. These results provide insight into the role of cholinergic modulation to visual cortex and demonstrate that it affects different layers of visual cortex in a distinct manner. The experiments are well executed and the data appear to be of high quality. However, further analyses are required to fully support several of the study's conclusions.

1. In experiments analysing the activity of V1 neurons, GCaMP6f was expressed using a ubiquitous Ef1a promoter, which is active in all neuronal cell types as well as potentially non-neuronal cells. The manuscript specifically refers to responses of excitatory neurons but it is unclear how excitatory neuron somata were identified and distinguished from that of inhibitory neurons or other cell types.

2. The manuscript concludes that cholinergic axons convey a binary locomotion signal and are not tuned to running speed. The average running velocity of mice in this study is very slow - slower than 15 cm/s in the example trace in Figure 1D and speeds <6 cm/s were quantified in Figure 2E. However, mice can run at much faster speeds both under head-fixed and freely moving conditions (see e.g. Jordan and Keller, 2020, where example running speeds are ~35 cm/s). Given that the data in the present manuscript cover such a narrow range of running speeds, it is not possible to determine whether cholinergic axons are tuned to running speed or convey a binary locomotion signal.

3. The analyses in Figure 4 only consider the average response to all grating orientations and directions. Without further analysing responses to individual grating directions it is unclear how stimulation of cholinergic inputs affects visual responses. Previous work (e.g. Datarlat and Stryker, 2017) has shown that locomotion can have both additive and multiplicative effects and it would be valuable to determine the type of modulation provided by cholinergic stimulation.

4. The difference between the effects of locomotion and optogenetic stimulation of cholinergic axons in Figure 5 may be confounded by differences in the visual stimulus. These experiments are carried out under open-loop conditions, where mice may adapt their locomotion based on the speed of the visual stimulus. Consequently, locomotion onsets are likely to occur during periods of higher visual flow. Since optogenetic stimulation is presented randomly, it is likely to occur during periods of lower visual flow speed. Consequently, the difference between the effect of locomotion and optogenetic stimulation may be explained by differences in visual flow speed and it is important to exclude this possibility.

5. It is unclear why chemogenetic manipulations of cholinergic inputs had no effect on pairwise correlations of L2/3 neuronal responses while optogenetic stimulation did.

6. The effects of locomotion and optogenetic stimulation on the latency of L5 responses in Figure 7 are very large - ~100 ms. Indeed, typical latencies in mouse V1 measured using electrophysiology are themselves shorter than 100 ms (see e.g. Durand et al., 2016). Visual response latencies in stationary conditions or without optogenetic stimulation appear surprisingly long - much longer than reported in previous studies even under anaesthesia. Such large and surprising results require careful analysis to ensure they are not confounded by artefacts. However, as in Figure 4, this analysis is based only on average responses across all gratings and no individual examples are shown.