Bridging the gap between presynaptic hair cell function and neural sound encoding

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
Tobón and Moser reveal a remarkable amount of presynaptic diversity in the fundamental Ca dependent exocytosis of synaptic vesicles at the afferent fiber bouton synapse onto the pilar or mediolar sides of single inner hair cells of mice. These are landmark findings with profound implications for understanding acoustic signal encoding and presynaptic mechanisms of synaptic diversity at inner hair cell ribbon synapses. The paper will have an immediate and long-lasting impact in the field of auditory neuroscience.

Main findings: 1) Synaptic delays and jitter of masker responses are significantly shorter (synaptic delay: 1.19 ms) at high SR fibers (pilar) than at low SR fibers (mediolar; 2.57 ms). 2) Masked evoked EPSC are significantly larger in high SR than in low SR. 3) Quantal content and RRP size are 14 vesicles in both high and low SR fibers. 4) Depression is faster in high SR synapses suggesting they have a higher release probability and tighter Ca nanodomain coupling to docked vesicles. 5) Recovery of master-EPSCs from depletion is similar for high and low SR synapses, although there is a slightly faster rate for low SR synapses that have bigger synaptic ribbons, which is very interesting. 6) High SR synapses had larger and more compact (monophasic) sEPSCs, well suited to trigger rapidly and faithfully spikes. 7) High SR synapses exhibit lower voltage (~sound pressure in vivo) dependent thresholds of exocytosis.

Strengths:
Great care was taken to use physiological external pH buffers and physiological external Ca concentrations. Paired recordings were also performed at higher temperatures with IHCs at physiological resting membrane potentials and in more mature animals than previously done for paired recordings. This is extremely challenging because it becomes increasingly difficult to visualize bouton terminals when myelination becomes more prominent in the cochlear afferents. In addition, perforated patch recordings were used in the IHC to preserve its intracellular milieu intact and thus extend the viability of the IHCs. The experiments are tour-de-force and reveal several novel aspects of IHC ribbon synapses. The data set is rich and extensive. The analysis is detailed and compelling.

Weaknesses:

1. Materials and Methods: Please provide whole-cell Rs (series resistance ) and Cm (membrane capacitance) average +/- S.E.M. (or SD) values for IHC and afferent fiber bouton recordings. The Cm values for afferents have been estimated to be about 0.1 pF (Glowatzki and Fuchs, 2002) and it would be interesting to know if there are differences in these numbers for high and low SR afferents. Is it possible to estimate Cm from the capacitative transient time constant? Minimal electronic filtering would be required for that to work, so I realize the authors may not have this data and I also realize that the long cable of the afferents do not allow accurate Cm measurements, but some first order estimate would be very interesting to report, if possible.

2. Page 20, 26 and Figure 4: With regard to synaptic delays at auditory hair cell synapses: please see extensive studies done in Figure 11 of Chen and von Gersdorff (JNeurosci., 2019); this showed that synaptic delays are 1.26 ms in adult bullfrog auditory hair cells at 31oC, which is very similar to the High SR fibers (1.19 ms; Fig.4B and page 20). During ongoing depolarizations (e.g. during a sustained sine wave) the synaptic delay can be reduced to just 0.72 ms for probe EPSCs, which is a more usual number for mature fast synapses. This paper should, thus, be cited and briefly discussed in the Discussion. So a significant shortening of delay occurs for the probe response and this is also observed in young rat IHC synapses (see Goutman and Glowatzki, 2011).

3. Gaussian-like (and/or multi-peak) EPSC amplitude distributions were obtained in more mature rat IHCs by Grant et al. (see their Figure 4G; JNeurosci. 2010; postnatal day 19-21). The putative single quanta peak was at 50 pA and the main peak was at 375 pA. The large mean suggests a low CV (probably < 0.4). However, Fig. 2F shows a mean of about 100 pA and CV = 0.7 for spontaneous EPSCs. This major difference deserves some more discussion. I suppose that one possible explanation may be that the current paper holds the IHC membrane potential fixed at -58 mV, whereas Grant et al. (2010) did not control the IHC membrane potential and spontaneous fluctuations in the Vm may have depolarized the IHC, thus producing larger evoked EPSCs that are triggered by Ca channel openings. Some discussion that compares these differences and possible explanations would be quite useful for the readers.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary: The study by Jaime-Tobon & Moser is a truly major effort to bridge the gap between classical observations on how auditory neurons respond to sounds and the synaptic basis of these phenomena. The so-called spiral ganglion neurons (SGNs) are the primary auditory neurons connecting the brain with hair cells in the cochlea. They all respond to sounds increasing their firing rates, but also present multiple heterogeneities. For instance, some present a low threshold to sound intensity, whereas others have high threshold. This property inversely correlates with the spontaneous rate, i.e., the rate at which each neuron fires in the absence of any acoustic input. These characteristics, along with others, have been studied by many reports over the years. However, the mechanisms that allow the hair cells-SGN synapses to drive these behaviors are not fully understood.

Strengths:
The level of experimental complexity described in this manuscript is unparalleled, producing data that is hardly found elsewhere. The authors provide strong proof for heterogeneity in transmitter release thresholds at individual synapses and they do so in extremely complex experimental settings. In addition, the authors found other specific differences such as in synaptic latency and max EPSCs. A reasonable effort is put into bridging these observations with those extensively reported in in vivo SGNs recordings. Similarities are many and differences are not particularly worrying as experimental conditions cannot be perfectly matched, despite the authors' efforts in minimizing them.

Weaknesses:
Some concern surges in relation to mismatches with previous reports of IHC-SGN synapses function. EPSCs at these synapses present a peculiar distribution of amplitudes, shapes, and rates. These characteristics are well-established and some do not seem to be paralleled in this study. Here, amplitude distributions are drastically shifted to smaller values, and rates of events are very low, all compared with previous evidence. The reasons for these discrepancies are unclear. The rate at which spontaneous EPSCs appear is an especially sensitive matter. A great part of the conclusions relies on the definition of which of the SGNs (or should say synapses) belong to the low end and which to the high end in the spectrum of spontaneous rates. The data presented by the authors seem a bit off and the criteria used to classify recordings are not well justified. The authors should clarify the origin of these differences since they do not seem to come from obvious reasons such as animal ages, recording techniques, mouse strain, or even species.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

"Bridging the gap between presynaptic hair cell function and neural sound encoding" by Jaime Tobon and Moser uses patch-clamp electrophysiology in cochlear preparations to probe the pre- and post-synaptic specializations that give rise to the diverse activity of spiral ganglion afferent neurons (SGN). The experiments are quite an achievement! They use paired recordings from pre-synaptic cochlear inner hair cells (IHC) that allow precise control of voltage and therefore calcium influx, with post-synaptic recordings from type I SGN boutons directly opposed to the IHC for both presynaptic control of membrane voltage and post-synaptic measurement of synaptic function with great temporal resolution.

Strengths
Any of these techniques by themselves are challenging, but the authors do them in pairs, at physiological temperatures, and in hearing animals, all of which combined make these experiments a real tour de force. The data is carefully analyzed and presented, and the results are convincing. In particular, the authors demonstrate that post-synaptic features that contribute to the spontaneous rate (SR) of predominantly monophasic post-synaptic currents (PSCs), shorter EPSC latency, and higher PSC rates are directly paired with pre-synaptic features such as a lower IHC voltage activation and tighter calcium channel coupling for release to give a higher probability of release and subsequent increase in synaptic depression. Importantly, IHCs paired with Low and High SR afferent fibers had the same total calcium currents, indicating that the same IHC can connect to both low and high SR fibers. These fibers also followed expected organizational patterns, with high SR fibers primarily contacting the pillar IHC face and low SR fibers primarily contacting the modiolar face. The authors also use in vivo-like stimulation paradigms to show different RRP and release dynamics that are similar to results from SGN in vivo recordings. Overall, this work systematically examines many features giving rise to specializations and diversity of SGN neurons.

Weaknesses / Comments / edits:

1. The careful analysis of calcium coupling and EPSC metrics is especially nice. Can the authors speculate as to why different synapses (likely in the same IHC) would have different calcium cooperativity?

2. On the bottom of page 6 it would be helpful to mention earlier how many pillar vs modiolar fibers were recorded from, otherwise the skewness of SRs (figure 2H could be thought to be due to predominantly recordings from modiolar fibers. As is, it reads a bit like a cliff-hanger.

3. The contrasts for some of the data could be used to point out that while significant differences occur between low and high SR fibers, some of these differences are no longer apparent when comparing modiolar vs pillar fibers (eg by contrasting Figure 2C and 2K). This can indicate that indeed there are differences between the fiber activity, but that the activity likely exists in a gradient across the hair cell faces. Pointing this out at the top of page 10 (end of the first paragraph) would be helpful, it would make the seemingly contradictory voltage-dependence data easier to understand on first read (voltage-dependence of release is significantly different between different SR fibers (figure 3) but is not significantly different between fibers on different HC faces (figure S3).

4. It should be acknowledged that although the use of post-hearing animals here (P14-23) ensures that SGN have begun to develop more mature activity patterns (Grant et al 2010), the features of the synapses and SGN activity may not be completely mature (Wu et al 2016 PMID: 27733610). Could this explain some of the 'challenges' (authors' section title) detailed on page 28, first full paragraph?

5. In the discussion on page 24, the authors compare their recorded SR of EPSCs to measure values in vivo which are higher. Could this indicate that in vivo, the resting membrane potential of IHCs is more depolarized than is currently used for in vitro cochlear experiments?

6. The results showing lower calcium cooperativity of high SR fibers are powerful, but do the authors have an explanation for why the calcium cooperativity of < 2 is different from that (m = 3-4) observed in other manuscripts?