Hypothalamic representation of the imminence of predator threat detected by the vomeronasal organ in mice

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
Animals in natural environments need to identify predator-associated cues and respond with the appropriate behavioral response to survive. In rodents, some chemical cues produced by predators (e.g., cat saliva) are detected by chemosensory neurons in the vomeronasal organ (VNO). The VNO transmits predator-associated information to the accessory olfactory bulb, which in turn projects to the medial amygdala and the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, two regions implicated in the initiation of antipredator defensive behaviors. A downstream area to these two regions is the ventromedial hypothalamus (VMH), which has been shown to control both active (i.e., flight) and passive (i.e, freezing) antipredator defensive responses via distinct efferent projections to the anterior hypothalamic nucleus or the periaqueductal gray, respectively. However, whether differences in predator-associated sensory information initially processed in the VNO and further conveyed to the VMH can trigger different types of behavioral responses remained unexplored. To address this question, here the authors investigated the behavioral responses of mice exposed to either fresh or old cat saliva, and further compared the underlying neural circuits that are activated by cat saliva with different freshness.

The scientific question of the study is valid, the experiments were well-performed, and the statistical analyses are appropriate. However, there are some concerns that may directly affect the main interpretation of the results.

Major Concerns:
1. An important point that the authors should clarify in this study is whether mice are detecting qualitative or quantitative differences between fresh and old cat saliva. Do the environmental conditions in which the old saliva was maintained cause degradation of Fel d 4, the main protein known for inducing a defensive response in rodents? (see Papes et al, 2010 again). If that is the case, one would expect that a lower concentration of Fel d 4 in the old saliva after protein degradation would result in reduced antipredator responses. Alternatively, if the authors believe that different proteins that are absent in the old saliva are contributing to the increased defensive responses observed with the fresh saliva, further protein quantification experiments should be performed. An important experiment to differentiate qualitative versus quantitative differences between the two types of saliva would be diluting the fresh saliva to verify if the amount of protein, rather than the type of protein, is the main factor regulating the behavioral differences.

2. The authors claim that fresh saliva is recognized as an immediate danger by rodents, whereas old saliva is recognized as a trace of danger. However, the study lacks empirical tests to support this interpretation. With the current experimental tests, the behavioral differences between animals exposed to fresh vs. old saliva could be uniquely due to the reduced amount of the exact same protein (e.g., Fel d 4) in the two samples of saliva.

3. In Figure 4H, the authors state that there were no significant differences in the number of cFos-positive cells between the two saliva-exposed groups. However, this result disagrees with the next result section showing that fresh and old saliva differentially activate the VMH. It is unclear why cFos quantification and behavioral correlations were not performed in other upstream areas that connect the VNO to the VMH (e.g., BNST, MeA, and PMCo). That would provide a better understanding of how brain activity correlates with the different types of behaviors reported with the fresh vs. old saliva.

4. The interpretation that fresh and old saliva activates different subpopulations of neurons in the VMH based on the observation that cFos positively correlates with freezing responses only with the fresh saliva lacks empirical evidence. To address this question, the authors should use two neuronal activity markers to track the response of the same population of VHM cells within the same animals during exposure to fresh vs. old saliva. Alternatively, they could use single-cell electrophysiology or imaging tools to demonstrate that cat saliva of distinct freshness activates different subpopulations of cells in the VMH. Any interpretation without a direct within-subject comparison or the use of cell-type markers would become merely speculative. Furthermore, the authors assume that differential activations of mitral cells between fresh and old saliva result in the differential activation of VMH subpopulations (page 13, line 3). However, there are intermediate structures between the mitral cells and the VMH, which are completely ignored in this study (e.g., BNST, medial amygdala).

5. The authors incorrectly cited the Papes et al., 2010 article on several occasions across the manuscript. In the introduction, the authors cited the Papes et al 2010 study to make reference to the response of rodents to chemical cues, but the Papes et al. study did not use any of the chemical cues listed by the authors (e.g., fox feces, snake skin, cat fur, and cat collars). Instead, the Papes et al. 2010 article used the same chemical cue as the present study: cat saliva. The Papes et al. 2010 article was miscited again in the results section where the authors cited the study to make reference to other sources of cat odor that differ from the cat saliva such as cat fur and cat collars. Because the Papes et al. 2010 article has previously shown the involvement of Trpc2 receptors in the VNO for the detection of cat saliva and the subsequent expression of defensive behaviors by using Trpc2-KO mice, the authors should properly cite this study in the introduction and across the manuscript when making reference to their findings.

6. In the introduction, the authors hypothesized that the VNO detects predator cues and sends sensory signals to the VMH to trigger defensive behavioral decisions and stated that direct evidence to support this hypothesis is still missing. However, the evidence that cat saliva activates the VMH and that activity in the VMH is necessary for the expression of antipredator defensive response in rodents has been previously demonstrated in a study by Engelke et al., 2021 (PMID: 33947849), which was entirely omitted by the authors.

7. In the discussion, the authors stated that their findings suggest that the induction of robust freezing behavior is mediated by a distinct subpopulation of VMH neurons. The authors should cite the study by Kennedy et al., 2020 (PMID: 32939094) that shows the involvement of VMH in the regulation of persistent internal states of fear, which may provide an alternative explanation for why distinct concentrations of saliva could result in different behavioral outcomes.

8. The anatomical connectivity between the olfactory system and the ventromedial hypothalamus (VMH) in the abstract is unclear. The authors should clarify that the VMH does not receive direct inputs from the vomeronasal organ (VNO) nor the accessory olfactory bulb (AOB) as it seems in the current text.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, Nguyen et al. showed that cat saliva can robustly induce freezing behavior in mice. This effect is mediated through the accessory olfactory system as it requires physical contact and is abolished in Trp2 KO mice. The authors further showed that V2R-A4 cluster is responsive to cat saliva. Lastly, they demonstrated c-Fos induction in AOB and VMHdm/c by the cat saliva. The c-Fos level in the VMHdm/c is correlated with the freezing response.

Strength:
The study opens an interesting direction. It reveals the potential neural circuit for detecting cat saliva and driving defense behavior in mice. The behavior results and the critical role of the accessory olfactory system in detecting cat saliva are clear and convincing.

Weakness:
The findings are relatively preliminary. The identities of the receptor and the ligand in the cat saliva that induces the behavior remain unclear. The identity of VMH cells that are activated by the cat saliva remains unclear. There is a lack of targeted functional manipulation to demonstrate the role of V2R-A4 or VMH cells in the behavioral response to cat saliva.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
Nguyen et al show data indicating that the vomeronasal organ (VNO) and ventromedial hypothalamus (VMH) are part of a circuit that elicits defensive responses induced by predator odors. They also show that using fresh or old predator saliva may be a method to change the perceived imminence of predation. The authors also identify a family of VNO receptors that are activated by cat saliva. Next, the authors show how different components of this defensive circuit are activated by saliva, as measured by fos expression. Though interesting, the findings are not all integrated into a single narrative, and some of the results are only replications of earlier findings using modern methods. Overall, these findings provide incremental advance.

Strengths:
1 Predator saliva is a stimulus of high ethological relevance
2 The authors performed a careful quantification of fos induction across the anterior-posterior axis in Figure 6.

Weaknesses:
1 It is unclear if fresh and old saliva indeed alter the perceived imminence predation, as claimed by the authors. Prior work indicates that lower imminence induces anxiety-related actions, such as re-organization of meal patterns and avoidance of open spaces, while slightly higher imminence produces freezing. Here, the authors show that fresh and old predator saliva only provoke different amounts of freezing, rather than changing the topography of defensive behaviors, as explained above. Another prediction of predatory imminence theory would be that lower imminence induced by old saliva should produce stronger cortical activation, while fresh saliva would activate the amygdala, if these stimuli indeed correspond to significantly different levels of predation imminence.

2 It is known that predator odors activate and require AOB, VNO, and VMH, thus replications of these findings are not novel, decreasing the impact of this work.

3 There is a lack of standard circuit dissection methods, such as characterizing the behavioral effects of increasing and decreasing the neural activity of relevant cell bodies and axonal projections, significantly decreasing the mechanistic insights generated by this work.

4 The correlation shown in Figure 5c may be spurious. It appears that the correlation is primarily driven by a single point (the green square point near the bottom left corner). All correlations should be calculated using Spearman correlation, which is non-parametric and less likely to show a large correlation due to a small number of outliers. Regardless of the correlation method used, there are too few points in Figure 5c to establish a reliable correlation. Please add more points to 5c.

5 Some of the findings are disconnected from the story. For example, the authors show that V2R-A4-expressing cells are activated by predator odors. Are these cells more likely to be connected to the rest of the predatory defense circuit than other VNO cells?

6 Were there other behavioral differences induced by fresh compared to old saliva? Do they provoke differences in stretch-attend risk evaluation postures, number of approaches, the average distance to odor stimulus, the velocity of movements towards and away from the odor stimulus, etc?