Phasic locus coeruleus activity enhances trace fear conditioning by increasing dopamine release in the hippocampus

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
The authors investigate the role of the noradrenergic nucleus Locus Coeruleus (LC) in hippocampally-dependent learning and memory processes. The two stated aims of these experiments are to distinguish between 'tonic and phasic' activity and release in LC neurons and to determine the relative contribution of noradrenaline and dopamine, released from LC terminals, during learning. To address these questions, the investigators used a trace conditioning protocol (a behavior that is well established to be dependent on the hippocampus), coupled with a genetically based toolbox of sensors allowing measurements and manipulation of cell-type specific populations of neurons.

This includes photometric imaging of neuronal activity within the LC through Calcium signaling (Fig 1B), and in the hippocampal target site (Fig 3F), photostimulation of monoamine-containing neurons in the LC Fig 4B), measuring of extracellular dopamine and noradrenergic in the hippocampus with fluorescent sensors (GRABs) (Fig 5B). The study was complemented by a pharmacological approach to demonstrate that dopamine and not noradrenaline were essential for learning this task.

Results show that the calcium signal in the LC increased in response to tone or footshock in an intensity-dependent manner (Fig 1C,D,E F). LC responses can be conditioned and conditioned responses are of higher amplitude than the responses to the to-be-conditioned stimulus (Fig 2D). These results replicate sparse data gleaned over the past four decades using single and multiple-unit electrophysiological recording in LC in rats and monkeys. Calcium imaging LC axonal projections in the hippocampus showed a small but significant increase in response to tone onset and offset and to shock during conditioning.

Gain of function experiments show that enhancing a weak tone stimulus by phasic activation of LC through photostimulation during conditioning, facilitated subsequent memory performance (Fig 4D).

Fluorescent sensors demonstrated the release of both Noradrenaline and Dopamine in the hippocampus in response to activation of LC.

Using conventional pharmacology the essential role of dopamine was confirmed in the learning of this trace conditioning task, corroborating previous reports of hippocampal dopamine involvement in spatial learning.

Strengths:
The experiments confirm many of the results of the past four decades from unit recordings from the LC in behaving rats and monkeys. The available data are sparse, due to the difficulty of recording from this tiny pontine nucleus; the reports emanate from only a few laboratories. Given the large amount of theorizing based on sparse data, it is important that the observations concerning the environmental contingencies driving the activity of LC be corroborated.

That dopamine is released from LC terminals in the forebrain has been known for 20 years (Devoto 2004), but this was largely ignored until recently when a few laboratories demonstrated the functional importance of this projection in hippocampal-dependent learning. The present corroboration should lend further credence and promote further studies of the factors governing this release of dopamine from LC terminals, into specific forebrain regions.

Weaknesses:
--One criticism the authors have made of previous studies was that they have not distinguished between 'tonic' and 'phasic' LC activity and could not demonstrate 'time-locked phasic firing'. This has not been achieved in the present report, as an examination of Fig 1 C,D and 2 C,D shows. Previous reports in rats and monkeys, using unit recording in rats and monkeys clearly show that the latency of LC 'phasic' responses to salient or behaviorally relevant stimuli are in the range of tens of milliseconds, with a very short duration, often followed by a long-lasting inhibition. This kind of temporal precision concerning the phasic response cannot be gleaned from the time scale shown in the Figures (assuming the time scale is in seconds). We can discern a long-lasting increase in tonic firing level for the more salient stimuli (Fig 1C) (although the authors state in the discussion that "we did not observe obvious changes in tonic LC-HPC activity). This calcium imaging methodology as used in the present experiments can give us a general idea of the temporal relation of LC response to the stimulus, but apparently does not afford the millisecond resolution necessary to capture a phasic response, at least as the data are presented in the Figures.

--Much of the data presented here can be regarded as 'proof of concept' i.e. demonstrating that Photometric imaging of calcium signalling yields similar results concerning LC responses to salient or behaviorally relevant stimuli as has been previously reported using electrophysiological unit recording. The role of dopamine as the principal player in hippocampal-dependent learning also corroborates previous reports.

-- No attempt was made to address the important current question of the modular organisation of Locus Coeruleus, although the authors recognize the importance of this question and propose future experiments using their methodology to record simultaneously in several LC projection sites.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
In this study, Wilmot et al., ran a series of experiments to describe a dopaminergic projection from LC to dHPC, and its functional role in trace fear conditioning (TFC). Using fiber photometry in LC, they show convincingly that the activity of LC TH neurons is increased to both cues and footshock, and that this increases with acquisition or TFC, and decreases during extinction of this association. Projections from LC to dHPC show a similar pattern of activity, and dopamine release (measured by the fluorescent sensor GRAB-DA) is also comparable to calcium activity from LC. While the authors do show that activity at the dopamine D1R/D5R is necessary for TFC, a direct test of the necessity of dopamine release from LC during TFC is not shown.

Strengths:
• The authors clearly and effectively show that the LC-dHPC projection is activated by an aversive outcome (i.e. shock), and that activity in this pathway changes in response to learning about a neutral cue that predicts this shock (i.e. TFC). Furthermore, they show that increased dopamine release in dHPC can be observed if LC is chemogenetically activated. A critical role for dopamine receptors (but not β- and ⍺-adrenergic receptors) in TFC was demonstrated, and intra-dHPC injection of a D1R/D5R antagonist blocks this learning. Finally, dopamine release (measured by GRAB-DA) in dHPC was shown to also occur during trace fear conditioning.

• The authors have conclusively shown that activity at the dopamine receptors in the dPHC during trace fear conditioning is of the same pattern as calcium activity recorded both in LC cell bodies, but more importantly in the axonal projections from LC to dHPC. This is very good evidence that this pathway is recruited during TFC.

Weaknesses:
• The claim that dopamine release in dHPC is caused by LC neurons is not directly tested. Unfortunately, the most critical experiment for the claims that dopamine release comes from LC during conditioning is not tested. A lack of dopamine signal in dHPC caused by inhibition of LC during TFC would show this. It is indeed an interesting observation that chemoegenetic activation of LC causes dopamine release in the dHPC. However, in the absence of concurrent VTA inhibition or lesion, it remains a possibility that the dopamine release is mediated through indirect actions on other dopamine-expressing neurons. The authors do a good job of arguing against this interpretation in the discussion, and the literature seems appropriate for this. However, the title is still an overstatement of the data presented in this study.

• The primary alternative interpretations of the phasic activation experiment are whether only stimulation to the cue events (both on and off), or whether only stimulation to the shock. Thus this experiment would benefit from additional data showing either a no shock control, to show that enhanced activity of the LC to the tone is not inherently aversive, or manipulations to the tone but not to the shock.

• Specificity of the GRAB-NE and GRAB-DA sensors should be either justified through additional experiments testing the alternative antagonist (i.e. GRAB-NE CNO+eticloprode / GRAB-DA CNO+yohimbine) or additional citations that have tested this already. It is critical for the claims of the paper to show that these sensors are specific to dopamine or norepinephrine.

• The role of dopamine in prediction error was tested through a series of conditions whereby the shock was presented either signaled (i.e. predicted), or not. However, another way that prediction error is signaled is through the absence of an expected outcome. Admittedly it might not be possible to observe a decrease in dopamine signaling with this methodology.

• The difference between Fig. 6E and 6H needs to be clarified. What is shown in Fig. 6E is that the response to the shock decreases through experience (i.e. by the 10th trial). However in Fig 6H, there is no difference between signaled and signaled shock, but this is during conditioning, and not after learning (based on my understanding of the methods, line 482).

• Unless I missed it, at no point in the manuscript is the number of subjects described. Please add the n per experiment within each section describing each experiment in the methods (Behavioral procedures). Some more details in the photometry statistical analysis would be helpful. For example, what is the n per group for every data set that is presented? How many trials per analysis?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
The manuscript examines an important question, namely how the brain associates events spaced in time. It uses a variety of neural methods including fiber photometry as well as area-specific and pathway-silencing methods with the exquisite dissociation of norepinephrine and dopamine. The data show that neurons in the locus coeruleus (LC) respond to auditory cue onset, offset, and shock. These responses are stronger if the cue is paired with shock in a trace procedure. Optogenetic stimulation similar to the neural response captured by fiber photometry enhances associative learning. LC terminals in the dorsal hippocampus also showed phasic responses during fear conditioning and drove dopamine and norepinephrine responses. Pharmacological methods revealed that dopamine and not norepinephrine is critical for fear learning.

Strengths:
The examination of the neural signal to different tone intensities, different shock intensities, repeated tone presentation (habituation), and conditioning, offers an unprecedented account of the neural signal to non-associative and associative processes. This kind of deconstruction of the elements of conditioning offers a strong account of how the brain processes the stimuli used and their interaction during learning.

Excellent use of data acquired with fiber photometry in the optogenetic interrogation study.

The use of pharmacology to disentangle dopamine and norepinephrine was excellent.

Weaknesses:
While the optogenetic study was lovely, a control using the same stimulation but delivered at different time points would have been a good addition to show how critical the neural signal at tone onset, tone offset, and shock is.

Justification for the focus on D1 receptors was lacking.

The manuscript provides convincing evidence that the neural signal is not an error-correcting one by including a predicted (by a tone) and unpredicted shock. One possibility is that perhaps the unpredicted shock could be predicted by the context. Some clarification on the behavioural procedures would help understand if indeed the unsignaled shock could be predicted by the context or not.