Synaptic interactions between stellate cells and parvalbumin interneurons in layer 2 of the medial entorhinal cortex are organized at the scale of grid cell clusters

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
The circuit mechanism underlying the formation of grid cell activity and the organization of grid cells in the medial entorhinal cortex (MEC) is still unclear. To understand the mechanism, the current study investigated synaptic interactions between stellate cells (SC) and PV+ interneurons (IN) in layer 2 of the MEC by combing optogenetic activations and paired patch-clamp recordings. The results convincingly demonstrated highly structured interactions between these neurons: specific and direct excitatory-inhibitory interactions existed at the scale of grid cell phase clusters, and indirect interactions occurred at the scale of grid modules.

Strengths:
Overall, the manuscript is very well written, the approaches used are clever, and the data were thoroughly analyzed. The study conveyed important information for understanding the circuit mechanism that shapes grid cell activity. It is important not only for the field of MEC and grid cells, but also for broader fields of continuous attractor networks and neural circuits.

Weaknesses:
(1) The study largely relies on the fact that ramp-like wide-field optogenetic stimulation and focal optogenetic activation both drove asynchronous action potentials in SCs, and therefore, if a pair of PV+ INs exhibited correlated activity, they should receive common inputs. However, it is unclear what criteria/thresholds were used to determine the level of activity asynchronization, and under these criteria, what percentage of cells actually showed synchronized or less asynchronized activity. A notable percentage of synchronized or less asynchronized SCs could complicate the results, i.e., PV+ INs with correlated activity could receive inputs from different SCs (different inputs), which had synchronized activity. More detailed information/statistics about the asynchronization of SC activity is necessary for interpreting the results.

(2) The hypothesis about the "direct excitatory-inhibitory" synaptic interactions is made based on the GABAzine experiments in Figure 4. In the Figure 8 diagram, the direct interaction is illustrated between PV+ INs and SCs. However, the evidence supporting this "direct interaction" between these two cell types is missing. Is it possible that pyramidal cells are also involved in this interaction? Some pieces of evidence or discussions are necessary to further support the "direction interaction".

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
In this study, Huang et al. employed optogenetic stimulation alongside paired whole-cell recordings in genetically defined neuron populations of the medial entorhinal cortex to examine the spatial distribution of synaptic inputs and the functional-anatomical structure of the MEC. They specifically studied the spatial distribution of synaptic inputs from parvalbumin-expressing interneurons to pairs of excitatory stellate cells. Additionally, they explored the spatial distribution of synaptic inputs to pairs of PV INs. Their results indicate that both pairs of SCs and PV INs generally receive common input when their relative somata are within 200-300 ums of each other. The research is intriguing, with controlled and systematic methodologies. There are interesting takeaways based on the implications of this work to grid cell network organization in MEC.

Major concerns

1. Results indicate that in brain slices, nearby cells typically share a higher degree of common input. However, some proximate cells lack this shared input. The authors interpret these findings as: "Many cells in close proximity don't seem to share common input, as illustrated in Figures 3, 5, and 7. This implies that these cells might belong to separate networks or exist in distinct regions of the connectivity space within the same network.".

Every slice orientation could have potentially shared inputs from an orthogonal direction that are unavoidably eliminated. For instance, in a horizontal section, shared inputs to two SCs might be situated either dorsally or ventrally from the horizontal cut, and thus removed during slicing. Given the synaptic connection distributions observed within each intact orientation, and considering these distributions appear symmetrically in both horizontal and sagittal sections, the authors should be equipped to estimate the potential number of inputs absent due to sectioning in the orthogonal direction. How might this estimate influence the findings, especially those indicating that many close neurons don't have shared inputs?

1. The study examines correlations during various light-intensity phases of the ramp stimuli. One wonders if the spatial distribution of shared (or correlated) versus independent inputs differs when juxtaposing the initial light stimulation phase, which begins to trigger spiking, against subsequent phases. This differentiation might be particularly pertinent to the PV to SC measurements. Here, the initial phase of stimulation, as depicted in Figure 7, reveals a relatively sparse temporal frequency of IPSCs. This might not represent the physiological conditions under which high-firing INs function.

While the authors seem to have addressed parts of this concern in their focal stim experiments by examining correlations during both high and low light intensities, they could potentially extract this metric from data acquired in their ramp conditions. This would be especially valuable for PV to SC measurements, given the absence of corresponding focal stimulation experiments.

1. Re results from Figure 2: Please fully describe the model in the methods section. Generally, I like using a modeling approach to explore the impact of convergent synaptic input to PVs from SCs that could effectively validate the experimental approach and enhance the interpretability of the experimental stim/recording outcomes. However, as currently detailed in the manuscript, the model description is inadequate for assessing the robustness of the simulation outcomes. If the IN model is simply integrate-and-fire with minimal biophysical attributes, then the findings in Fig 2F results shown in Fig 2F might be trivial. Conversely, if the model offers a more biophysically accurate representation (e.g., with conductance-based synaptic inputs, synapses appropriately dispersed across the model IN dendritic tree, and standard PV IN voltage-gated membrane conductances), then the model's results could serve as a meaningful method to both validate and interpret the experiments.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
This paper presents convincing data from technically demanding dual whole-cell patch recordings of stellate cells in medial entorhinal cortex slice preparations during optogenetic stimulation of PV+ interneurons. The authors show that the patterns of postsynaptic activation are consistent with dual recorded cells close to each other receiving shared inhibitory input and sending excitatory connections back to the same PV neurons, supporting a circuitry in which clusters of stellate cells and PV+IN interact with each other with much weaker interactions between clusters. These data are important to our understanding of the dynamics of functional cell responses in the entorhinal cortex. The experiments and analysis are quite complex and would benefit from some revisions to enhance clarity.

Strengths:
These are technically demanding experiments, but the authors show quite convincing differences in the correlated response of cell pairs that are close to each other in contrast to an absence of correlation in other cell pairs at a range of relative distances. This supports their main point of demonstrating anatomical clusters of cells receiving shared inhibitory input.

Weaknesses:
The overall technique is complex and the presentation could be more clear about the techniques and analysis. In addition, due to this being a slice preparation they cannot directly relate the inhibitory interactions to the functional properties of grid cells which was possible in the 2-photon in vivo imaging experiment by Heys and Dombeck, 2014.