HI-FISH: Whole brain in situ mapping of neuronal activation in Drosophila during social behaviors and optogenetic stimulation

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
The authors have nicely demonstrated the efficiency of the HCR v.3.0 using hr38 mRNA expression as a marker of neuronal activity. This is very important in the Drosophila neuroscience field as in situ hybridization in adult Drosophila brains has been so far very challenging to do and replicate. However, this method has been described before [Choi et al., (2018)] and, if I understand correctly, is now the property of the non-profit organization molecular Technologies, who are the ones responsible for designing the probes (the sequences are not provided). Here the authors present their work as a description of a new method, called HI-FISH. However, I do not consider this as a new method but rather an application, a "proof of principle" that HCR v.3.0 can be done even on challenging tissues such as the adult Drosophila brain. Hence, if HCR v3.0 is sensitive enough and powerful enough to be used as a marker of neuronal activity, we can use it, for other neurobiological purposes, using other gene probes.
To demonstrate the efficiency of HI-FISH, the authors have addressed two biological questions. The first one addressed whether specific groups of neurons, known to trigger specific behaviours (here courtship and/or aggression) are indeed activated by the behavioural context they can promote. In other words: is the behavioural output of these neurons also a trigger for their activation? The second question addressed whether this method is powerful enough to distinguish two subgroups of a class of neurons called P1 known to be involved in the two behaviours considered. In other words, are the same P1 neurons that promote aggression and courtship?

Strengths: The demonstration of the efficiency of the method is very convincing and well-performed. It gives the will for the reader to apply the method to their own subject.

Weakness: The pictures provided for HI-FISH and catFISH do not corroborate with the quantification and therefore I am not convinced about the author's biological interpretation of their data. See below for details.

Previously, using a split-gal4 line to restrict the Gal4 expression to a subset of P1 neurons, the authors have shown that these particular neurons when activated can trigger both aggressivity and courtship behaviour [Hoopfer et al., 2015]. The P1 neurons are composed of about 20 FruM neurons/hemibrain but are part of a bigger group that comprises about the same number of Fru- neurons that seem to be exclusively aggression-promoting neurons [Koganezawa et al., 2016]. Hence, this group of 40 neurons (pC1 neurons) contains aggressive-promoting neurons, courtship-promoting neurons, and perhaps neurons that can do both. Therefore, to address the first question, the authors compared hr38 expression in different groups of neurons, with a focus on subgroups, under different social contexts. While there is no ambiguity concerning the function of the Tk neurons as being exclusively aggressive-promoting neurons [Asahina et al., 2014], it is less clear when we look at the pC1 neurons. This is particularly evident for the P1a neurons which have been shown to be ambiguous as they can promote both aggression and courtship. For example, while optogenetic activation of these neurons promotes hr38 expression (Fig. 3D and fig sup. 4), it is less clear in the pictures to determine whether these specific P1a neurons labeled by the split-gal4 line are specifically activated by an aggressive behavioural context or a courtship behavioural context (Fig1, supp. 2 and fig. 4). Furthermore, the pictures chosen do not reflect the reality of the quantification (Fig. 2 B-D compared to sup. 2 or fig. 4C compared to fig. 4D) and therefore the authors conclusion. Because the drivers used are only expressed by a small subset of a larger population, I believe it would be more informative to separate in the quantification between the Gal4-expressing neurons and the non-expressing ones. Notably, based on the pictures provided, it looks like more P1 neurons (or rather pC1 neurons) are activated by a male-male encounter than by a male-female encounter. On the other hand, the splitGal4+ P1a seem to be more responsive to a courtship behavioural context (2/6 P1a neurons express hr38 in a courtship behavioural context while 0/9 _if we mentally abstract the increase of the background signal compared to the control picture_ seem to express hr38 in an aggression behavioural context). Hence, while activation of this P1asplit-Gal4 can promote both aggressive behaviour and courtship behaviour [Hoopfer et al., 2015], the authors didn't provide clear evidence (pictures not corroborating the quantification) that these specific small subpopulation of neurons are activated by one or the other or both behavioural conditions. Therefore my suggestion of differentiating in the quantification between the Gal4+ neurons from the others in the same local area.

Fig. 3, suppl. 3: In this section the authors addressed the question of whether the HI-FISH can be used to identify the downstream targets of this subpopulation. As positive controls of known downstream targets, the authors looked at the pCd population which they recently published as being an indirect downstream target of the P1a neurons [Jung et al., Neuron 2020]. They identified the Kenyon cells and a group of dopaminergic neurons, the PAM neurons as being activated by the P1a neurons. To confirm the increase of hr38 expression is indeed the result of a neuronal response of these neurons to the P1a activation, the authors used a different strategy used by them and others before. Using Gcamp signal to monitor the neuronal response of the presumably downstream targets the authors activated the P1a neurons using optogenetic (chrimson). It is important to note that they have previously shown that depending on the frequency of the light pulses activation of the P1a neurons can trigger only aggression, both aggression and wing extension or only wing extension [Hoopfer et al., eLife 2015]. Here the authors use 50Hz which is a frequency that leads to wing extension during the stimulation and aggressive behaviour at the offset of the stimulus [Hoopfer et al., eLife 2015]. Interestingly, the Gcamp experiment shows activation of the Kenyon cells and the PAM neurons but this activity is not maintained when the stimulus is turned off, suggesting that these neurons are activated during a courtship context rather than an aggressive behavioural context. I think it would be nice to see in which behavioural context the Kenyon cells and PAM neurons are activated (hr38 expression in the different behavioural context using the corresponding Gal4).
Fig.4 and supp.4: The demonstration that the catFISH can now be done in Drosophila brain with a new in situ method was nicely performed. Notably, the intronic Hr38 probe appears to be an excellent marker for recent neuronal activation. However, while the optogenetic activation of the P1a neurons used to quantify the time lapse for both probes nicely distinguishes between nuclear and cytoplasmic exonic hr38, it is very difficult to use the localization of this probe in the experimental setup the authors used. Also, With their setup, I would simply use the frequency of intronic hr38 as a marker of recent activation correlating or not with the frequency of exonic hr38 marker (present in both conditions first and second encounter). This is important as this experiment addresses the second biological question. Once again, the pictures chosen absolutely do not corroborate the quantification. For example, the picture of the double encounter with the same gender male-male context clearly shows a higher number of cells that are hr38INT positive (and therefore nuclear) than the picture of the female-female context (Fig. 4C), and thus even if we only considered the P1asplit-Gal4 positive cells. In the male-male picture, 5/6 P1a cells have the Hr38INT marker while the presence of this marker is debatable in the female-female context. Especially, in some of the cells these magenta dots appear to be localized in the cytoplasm, suggesting a non-specific signal. Therefore, I would suggest to quantify the percentage of Hr38INT positive cells as the only marker for recent activation and the relative level of Hr38EXN immunostaining, and this among the P1asplit-Gal4 positive cells and the gal4- ones. A high Hr38EXN level associated with the presence of hr38INT would indicate that the cell has been activated during both encounters, while a lower hr38EXN with no hr38INT would suggest only an activation during the 1st behavioural context. Finally, a lower hr38EXN associated with the presence of hr38INT would suggest the opposite, an activation only during the 2nd behaviour.
Overall, by only looking at the pictures provided, I would conclude that the HCR applied with the hr38 probes seems to efficiently work and is usable to address the question of whether a specific group of neurons are indeed activated by a specific social behavioural context. However, I would also conclude that this technique nicely demonstrated that flies are not robots and that even in a "simple" organism model such as Drosophila melanogaster individual variability is present among a group of neurons. Hence, only the quantification of the gal4-expressing neurons in comparison with their neighbor neurons known to belong to the same functional group, would allow a conclusion toward a specificity of contextual response. Therefore, although activation of a small group of neurons can be enough to trigger a specific behaviour that shouldn't happen under a certain environmental context [Hoopfer et al., eLife 2015], the results presented here suggest that we should, using this method, considering the response of the neighbour cells of the Gal4+ ones. Although currently, the quantification of the author's data does not allow such analysis, to strengthen the author's argumentation, I would distinguish in their quantification between gal4+ from the others (Fig. 2 and 4). Furthermore, I am not certain that the distinction between cytoplasmic and nuclear hr38EXN is 100% feasible (based on the pictures provided). I would instead for the hr38EXN marker only use the relative intensity (Fig. 4D).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
Watanabe et al establish a novel method for the activity-dependent labeling of neural circuits in flies. While activity mapping of neurons that are active during specific behaviors is widespread in rodents, the application of this method to fly circuit neuroscience is limited, mainly due to technological challenges. Thus, the present study addresses a timely problem. To do so, they apply the in situ hybridization amplification method called Hybridization Chain Reaction v. 3.0 (Choi et al. 2018) to the adult fly brain in order to visualize the expression changes of the immediate early gene (IEG) Hr38 under different types of social contexts. The conclusions of this paper are mostly very well supported by data but it would strongly benefit from additional methodological details as well as additional controls, in particular for the HI-catFISH experiments.

Strengths:
The major strength of this method is its versatility and sensitivity. It can be applied to a wide variety of biological questions and assess the dynamic transcriptional regulation of an unlimited number of genes with a high signal-to-noise ratio. It will be therefore useful to many research labs working on different biological questions.

Weaknesses:
Although the paper has great strengths in principle, the major weakness is the calibration of the temporal resolution of HI-CatFISH in Figure 4 and Figure Supplement 4. According to Figure Supplement 4C, close to 100% of the Hr38-positive cells are already labeled with the exonic probe 30min post-stimulation, which is not reflected in Figure 4B (there, the expression level of the exonic probe peaks 60min post-induction) and may have profound implications for the interpretation of the results. The present manuscript would strongly benefit from additional controls, such as the quantification of the intronic and exonic Hr38 probes after either only the 1st or 2nd social context but at the same timepoint than if two consecutive social contexts were tested.

Author Response

1. Reviewer 1 raised the concern that the images shown in the figures seem inconsistent with the quantitative data.

Our provisional response: The quantitative data are based on many samples and the photographs are just supposed to show illustrations of example data. Because of the volume containing P1a cells, is impossible to present a single confocal image that covers all P1a neurons and would therefore correspond more closely to the quantitative data. We chose to illustrate the quantitative data using single confocal images which contain both Hr38+/GFP+ and Hr38-/GFP+ neurons, to demonstate that we can distinguish clearly which P1a neurons are positive or negative for for Hr38 expression. This can be clarified in the figure legends. If it is imperative to show images(s) to reflect the statistics, we can do that but will need to present multiple confocal images for each condition, which could be messy and confusing.

1. Reviewer 2 states: "the major weakness is the calibration of the temporal resolution of HI-CatFISH in Figure 4 and Figure Supplement 4. According to Figure Supplement 4C, close to 100% of the Hr38-positive cells are already labeled with the exonic probe 30min post-stimulation, which is not reflected in Figure 4B (there, the expression level of the exonic probe peaks 60min post-induction)”.

The confusion may arise because we drew the illustration diagram (Fig. 4B) based on the quantitative data in Fig.S4B, which plots the intensity of Hr38 exonic ISH signals, while the reviewer may be comparing the illustration to the time course based on Fig.S4C, which shows the % positive cells, a binary measure. In the illustration (fig.4B), we wrote 'Hr38 expression level', not '%Hr38 positive cells.’ We can clarify this in the figure legend. If the reviewers prefer, we can add a threshold line in the diagram corresponding to the % positive cells at maximum.