Physiological roles of endocytosis and presynaptic scaffold in vesicle replenishment at fast and slow central synapses

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
The study examines the role of release site clearance in synaptic transmission during repetitive activity under physiological conditions in two types of central synapses, calyx of Held and hippocampal CA1 synapses. After the acute block of endocytosis by pharmacology, deeper synaptic depression or less facilitation was observed in two types of synapses. Acute block of CDC42 and actin polymerization, which possibly inhibits the activity of Intersectin, affected synaptic depression at the calyx synapse, but not at CA1 synapses. The data suggest an unexpected, fast role of the site clearance in counteracting synaptic depression.

Strengths:
The study uses an acute block of the molecular targets with pharmacology together with precise electrophysiology. The experimental results are clear-cut and convincing. The study also examines the physiological roles of the site clearance using action potential-evoked transmission at physiological Ca and physiological temperature at mature animals. This condition has not been examined.

Weaknesses:
Pharmacology may have some off-target effects, though acute manipulation should be appreciated. Although this is a hard question and difficult to address experimentally, reagents may affect synaptic vesicle mobilization to the release sites directly in addition to blocking endocytosis.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
In this manuscript, Mahapatra and Takahashi report on the physiological consequences of pharmacologically blocking either clathrin and dynamin function during compensatory endocytosis or of the cortical actin scaffold both in the calyx of Held synapse and hippocampal boutons in acute slice preparations

Strengths:
Although many aspects of these pharmacological interventions have been studied in detail during the past decades, this is a nice comprehensive and comparative study, which reveals some interesting differences between a fast synapse (Calyx of Held) tuned to reliably transmit at several 100 Hz and a more slow hippocampal CA1 synapse. In particular, the authors find that acute disturbance of the synaptic actin network leads to a marked frequency-dependent enhancement of synaptic depression in the Calyx, but not in the hippocampal synapse. This striking difference between both preparations is the most interesting and novel finding.

Weaknesses:
Unfortunately, however, these findings concerning the different consequences of actin depolymerization are not sufficiently discussed in comparison to the literature. My only criticism concerns the interpretation of the ML 141 and Lat B data. With respect to the Calyx data, I am missing a detailed discussion of the effects observed here in light of the different RRP subpools SRP and FRP. This is very important since Lee et al. (2012, PNAS 109 (13) E765-E774) showed earlier that disruption of actin inhibits the rapid transition of SRP SVs to the FRP at the AZ. The whole literature on this important concept is missing. Likewise, the role of actin for the replacement pool at a cerebellar synapse (Miki et al., 2016) is only mentioned in half a sentence. There is quite some evidence that actin is important both at the AZ (SRP to FRP transition, activation of replacement pool) and at the peri-active zone for compensatory endocytosis and release site clearance. Both possible underlying mechanisms (SRP to FRP transition or release site clearance) should be better dissected.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

General comments:

(1) While Dynasore and Pitstop-2 may impede release site clearance due to an arrest of membrane retrieval, neither Latrunculin-B nor ML-141 specifically acts on AZ scaffold proteins. Interference with actin polymerization may have a number of consequences many of which may be unrelated to release site clearance. Therefore, neither Latrunculin-B nor ML-141 can be considered suitable tools for specifically identifying the role of AZ scaffold proteins (i.e. ELKS family proteins, Piccolo, Bassoon, α-liprin, Unc13, RIM, RBP, etc) in release site clearance which was defined as one of the principal aims of this study.

(2) Initial EPSC amplitudes more than doubled in the presence of Dynasor at hippocampal SC->CA1 synapses (Figure S2). This unexpected result raises doubts about the specificity of Dynasor as a tool to selectively block SV endocytosis.

(3) In this study, the application of Dynasore and Pitstop-2 strongly decreases 100 Hz steady-state release at calyx synapses while - quite unexpectedly - strongly accelerates recovery from depression. A previous study found that genetic ablation of dynamin-1 actually enhanced 300 Hz steady-state release while only little affecting recovery from depression (Mahapatra et al., 2016). A similar scenario holds for the Latrunculin-B effects: In this study, Latrunculin-B strongly increased steady-state depression while in Babu et al. (2020), Latrunculin-B did not affect steady-state depression. In Mahapatra et al. (2016), Latrunculin-B marginally enhanced steady-state depression. The authors need to make a serious attempt to explain all these seemingly contradicting results.

(4) The experimental conditions need to be better specified. It is not clear which recordings were obtained in 1.3 mM and which (if any?) in 2 mM external Ca. It is also unclear whether 'pooled data' are presented (obtained from control recordings and from separate recordings after pre-incubation with the respective drugs), or whether the data actually represent 'before'/'after' comparisons obtained from the same synapses after washing in the respective drugs. The exact protocol of drug application (duration of application/pre-incubation?, measurements after wash-out or in the continuous presence of the drugs?) needs to be clearly described in the methods and needs to be briefly mentioned in Results and/or Figure legends.

(5) The authors compare results obtained in calyx with those obtained in SC->CA1 synapses which they considered examples for 'fast' and 'slow' synapses, respectively. There is little information given to help readers understand why these two synapse types were chosen, what the attributes 'fast' and 'slow' refer to, and how that may matter for the questions studied here. I assume the authors refer to the maximum frequency these two synapse types are able to transmit rather than to EPSC kinetics?

(6) Strong presynaptic stimuli such as those illustrated in Figures 1B and C induce massive exocytosis. The illustrated Cm increase of 2 to 2.5 pF represents a fusion of 25,000 to 30,000 SVs (assuming a single SV capacitance of 80 aF) corresponding to a 12 to 15% increase in whole terminal membrane surface (assuming a mean terminal capacitance of ~16 pF). Capacitance measurements can only be considered reliable in the absence of marked changes in series and membrane conductance. Since the data shown in Figs. 1 and 3 are central to the argumentation, illustration of the corresponding conductance traces is mandatory. Merely mentioning that the first 450 ms after stimulation were skipped during analysis is insufficient.

(7) It is essential for this study to preclude a contamination of the results with postsynaptic effects (AMPAR saturation and desensitization). AMPAR saturation limits the amplitudes of initial responses in EPSC trains and hastens the recovery from depression due to a 'ceiling effect'. AMPAR desensitization occludes paired-pulse facilitation and reduces steady-state responses during EPSC trains while accelerating the initial recovery from depression. The use of, for example, 1 mM kynurenic acid in the bath is a well-established strategy to attenuate postsynaptic effects at calyx synapses. All calyx EPSC recordings should have been performed under such conditions. Otherwise, recovery time courses and STP parameters are likely contaminated by postsynaptic effects. Since the effects of AMPAR saturation on EPSC_1 and desensitization on EPSC_ss may partially cancel each other, an unchanged relative STD in the presence of kynurenic acid is not necessarily a reliable indicator for the absence of postsynaptic effects. The use of kynurenic acid in the bath would have had the beneficial side effect of massively improving voltage-clamp conditions. For the typical values given in this MS (10 nA EPSC, 3 MOhm Rs) the expected voltage escape is ~30 mV corresponding to a change in driving force of 30 mV/80 mV=38%, i.e. initial EPSCs in trains are likely underestimated by 38%. Such large voltage escape usually results in unclamped INa(V) which was suppressed in this study by routinely including 2 mM QX-314 in the pipette solution. That approach does, however, not reduce the voltage escape.

(8) In the Results section (pages 7 and 8), the authors analyze the time course into STD during 100 Hz trains in the absence and presence of drugs. In the presence of drugs, an additional fast component is observed which is absent from control recordings. Based on this observation, the authors conclude that '... the mechanisms operate predominantly at the beginning of synaptic depression'. However, the consequences of blocking or slowing site clearing are expected to be strongly release-dependent. Assuming a probability of <20% that a fusion event occurs at a given release site, >80% of the sites cannot be affected at the arrival of the second AP even by a total arrest of site clearance simply because no fusion has yet occurred. That number decreases during a train according to (1-0.2)^n, where n is the number of the AP, such that after 10 APs, ~90% of the sites have been used and may potentially be unavailable for new rounds of release after slowing site clearance. Perhaps, the faster time course into STD in the presence of the drugs isn't related to site clearance?

(9) In the Discussion (page 10), the authors present a calculation that is supposed to explain the reduced size of the second calyx EPSC in a 100 Hz train in the presence of Dynasore or Pitstop-2. Does this calculation assume that all endocytosed SVs are immediately available for release within 10 ms? Please elaborate.

(10) It is not clear, why the bafilomycin/folimycin data is presented in Fig. S5. The data is also not mentioned in the Discussion. Either explain the purpose of these experiments or remove the data.

(11) The scheme in Figure 7 is not very helpful.