Fear conditioning biases olfactory stem cell receptor fate

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
The study by Liff et al significantly advances our understanding of transgenerational olfactory changes resulting from fear conditioning, particularly in revealing elevated odor-encoding neurons in both conditioned mice (F0) and their progeny (F1). The authors attribute F0 increases to biased stem cell receptor selection, building upon the seminal work of Dias and Ressler (2014). While the dedication and use of novel histological techniques add strength to the study, there are notable weaknesses, including the need for clarification on discrepancies with previous findings, the decision to modify paradigms, and the presentation of behavioral data in supplementary materials.

Overall, the manuscript has strong potential but would benefit from addressing these weaknesses and minor recommendations to enhance its quality and contribution to the field.

Strengths:
- Significant contribution to understanding transgenerational olfactory changes induced by fear conditioning.
- Use of novel histological techniques and exploration of stem cell involvement adds depth to the study.

Weaknesses:
Discrepancies with previous findings need clarification, especially regarding the absence of similar behavioral effects in F1. Lack of discussion on the decision to modify paradigms instead of using the same model. Presentation of behavioral data in supplementary materials, with a recommendation to include behavioral quantification in main figures. Absence of quantification for freezing behavior, a crucial measure in fear conditioning.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
The authors examined inherited changes to the olfactory epithelium produced by odor-shock pairings. The manuscript demonstrates that odor fear-conditioning biases olfactory bulb neurogenesis toward more production of the olfactory sensory neurons engaged by the odor-shock paring. Further, the manuscript reveals that this bias remains in first-generation male and female progeny produced by trained parents. Surprisingly, there was a disconnect between the increased morphology of the olfactory epithelium for the conditioned odor and the response to odor presentation. The expectation based on previous literature and the morphological results was that F1 progeny would also show an aversion to the odor stimulus. However, the authors found that F1 progeny were not more sensitive to the odor compared to littermate controls.

Strengths:
The manuscript includes conceptual innovation and some technical innovation. The results validate previous findings that were deemed controversial in the field, which is a major strength of the work. Moreover, these studies were conducted using a combination of genetically modified animals and state-of-the-art imaging techniques, highlighting the rigorous nature of the research. Lastly, the authors provide novel mechanistic details regarding the remodeling of the olfactory epithelium, demonstrating that biased neurogenesis, as opposed to changes in survival rates, account for the increase in odorant receptors after training.

Weaknesses:
The main weakness is the disconnect between the morphological changes reported and the lack of change in aversion to the odorant in F1 progeny. The authors also do not address the mechanisms underlying the inheritance of the phenotype, which may lie outside of the scope of the present study.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In their paper entitled "Fear conditioning biases olfactory stem cell receptor fate" Liff et al. address the still enigmatic (and quite fascinating) phenomenon of intergenerationally inherited changes in the olfactory system in response to odor-dependent fear conditioning.

In the abstract / summary, the authors raise expectations that are not supported by the data. For example, it is claimed that "increases in F0 were due to biased stem cell receptor choice." While an active field of study that has seen remarkable progress in the past decade, olfactory receptor gene choice and its relevant timing in particular is still unresolved. Here, Liff et al., do not pinpoint at what stage during differentiation the "biased choice" is made.

Similarly, the concluding statement that the study provides "insight into the heritability of acquired phenotypes" is somewhat misleading. The experiments do not address the mechanisms underlying heritability.

The statement that "the percentage of newborn M71 cells is 4-5 times that of MOR23 may simply reflect differences in the birth rates of the two cell populations" should, if true, result in similar differences in the occurrence of mature OSNs with either receptor identity. According to Fig. 1H & J, however, this is not the case.

An important result is that Liff et al., in contrast to results from other studies, "do not observe the inheritance of odor-evoked aversion to the conditioned odor in the F1 generation." This discrepancy needs to be discussed.

The authors speculate that "the increase in neurons responsive to the conditioned odor could enhance the sensitivity to, or the discrimination of, the paired odor in F0 and F1. This would enable the F1 population to learn that odor predicts shock with fewer training cycles or less odorant when trained with the conditioned odor." This is a fascinating idea that, in fact, could have been readily tested by Liff and coworkers. If this hypothesis were found true, this would substantially enhance the impact of the study for the field.