Fred Rieke

Lois Smith

eLife assessment
This paper shows that it is possible to optogenetically activate single retinal ganglion cells in vivo in monkeys. This is an important step towards causal tests of the role of specific ganglion cell types in visual perception. Yet the description of many of the details of how this methodological advance was achieved is incomplete in the current version of the paper. The paper would benefit from a more detailed description of the results and limitations of the approach.

anonymous

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Summary 
This manuscript reports preliminary evidence of successful optogenetic activation of single retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) through the eye of a living monkey using adaptive optics (AO).
Strengths 
The eventual goals of this line of research have enormous potential impact in that they will probe the perceptual impact of activating single RGCs. While I think more data should be included, the four examples shown look quite convincing.
Weaknesses 
While this is undoubtedly a technical achievement and an important step along this group's stated goal to measure the perceptual consequences of single-RGC activations, the presentation lacks the rigor that I would expect from what is really a methods paper. In my view, it is perfectly reasonable to publish the details of a method before it has yielded any new biological insights, but in those publications, there is a higher burden to report the methodological details, full data sets, calibrations, and limitations of the method. There is considerable room for improvement in reporting those aspects. Specifically, more raw data should be shown for activations of neighboring RGCs to pinpoint the actual resolution of the technique, and more than two cells (one from each field of view) should be tested. Some information about the density of labeled RGCs in these animals would also be helpful to provide context for how many well-isolated target cells exist per animal.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
This proof-of-principle study lays important groundwork for future studies. Murphy et al. expressed ChrimsonR and GCaMP6s in retinal ganglion cells of a living macaque. They recorded calcium responses and stimulated individual cells, optically. Neurons targeted for stimulation were activated strongly whereas neighboring neurons were not.
The ability to record from neuronal populations while simultaneously stimulating a subset in a controlled way is a high priority for systems neuroscience, and this has been particularly challenging in primates. This study marks an important milestone in the journey towards this goal.
The ability to detect stimulation of single RGCs was presumably due to the smallness of the light spot and the sparsity of transduction. Can the authors comment on the importance of the latter factor for their results? Is it possible that the stimulation protocol activated neurons nearby the targeted neuron that did not express GCaMP? Is it possible that off-target neurons near the targeted neuron expressed GCaMP, and were activated, but too weakly to produce a detectable GCaMP signal? In general, simply knowing that off-target signals were undetectable is not enough; knowing something about the threshold for the detection of off-target signals under the conditions of this experiment is critical.
Minor comments: 
Did the lights used to stimulate and record from the retina excite RGCs via the normal light-sensing pathway? Were any such responses recorded? What was their magnitude?
The data presented attest to a lack of crosstalk between targeted and neighboring cells. It is therefore surprising that lines 69-72 are dedicated to methods for "reducing the crosstalk problem". More information should be provided regarding the magnitude of this problem under the current protocol/instrumentation and the techniques that were used to circumvent it to obtain the data presented.
Optical crosstalk could be spatial or spectral. Laying out this distinction plainly could help the reader understand the issues quickly. The Methods indicate that cells were chosen on the basis that they were &gt; 20 µm from their nearest (well-labeled) neighbor to mitigate optical crosstalk, but the following sentence is about spectral overlap.
Figure 2 legend: "...even the nearby cell somas do not show significantly elevated response (p &gt;&gt; 0.05, unpaired t-test) than other cells at more distant locations." This sentence does not indicate how some cells were classified as "nearby" whereas others were classified as being "at more distant locations". Perhaps a linear regression would be more appropriate than an unpaired t-test here.
Line 56: "These recordings were... acquired earlier in the session where no stimulus was present." More information should be provided regarding the conditions under which this baseline was obtained. I assume that the ChrimsonR-activating light was off and the 488 nm-GCaMP excitation light was on, but this was not stated explicitly. Were any other lights on (e.g. room lights or cone-imaging lights)? If there was no spatial component to the baseline measurement, "where" should be "when".
Please add a scalebar to Figure 1a to facilitate comparison with Figure 2.
Lines 165-173: Was the 488 nm light static or 10 Hz-modulated? The text indicates that GCaMP was excited with a 488 nm light and data were acquired using a scanning light ophthalmoscope, but line 198 says that "the 488 nm imaging light provides a static stimulus".
A potential application of this technology is for the study of visually guided behavior in awake macaques. This is an exciting prospect. With that in mind, a useful contribution of this report would be a frank discussion of the hurdles that remain for such application (in addition to eye movements, which are already discussed).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
This paper reports a considerable technical achievement: the optogenetic activation of single retinal ganglion cells in vivo in monkeys. As clearly specified in the paper, this is an important step towards causal tests of the role of specific ganglion cell types in visual perception. Yet this methodological advance is not described currently in sufficient detail to replicate or evaluate. The paper could be improved substantially by including additional methodological details. Some specific suggestions follow.
The start of the results needs a paragraph or more to outline how you got to Figure 1. Figure 1 itself lacks scale bars, and it is unclear, for example, that the ganglion cells targeted are in the foveal slope.
The text mentions the potential difficulties targeting ganglion cells at larger eccentricities where the soma density increases. If this is something that you have tried it would be nice to include some of that data (whether or not selective activation was possible). Related to this point, it would be helpful to include a summary of the ganglion cell density in monkey retina.
Related to the point in the previous paragraph - do you have any experiments in which you systematically moved the stimulation spot away from the target ganglion cell to directly test the dependence of stimulation on distance? This would be a valuable addition to the paper.
The activity in Figure 1 recovers from activation very slowly - much more slowly than the light response of these cells, and much more slowly than the activity elicited in most optogenetic studies. Can you quantify this time course and comment on why it might be so slow?
Traces from non-targeted cells should be shown in Figure 1 along with those of targeted cells.

Optogenetic Stimulation of Single Ganglion Cells in the Living Primate Fovea

Figures and data

Be the first to read new articles from eLife