Acquisition phase-specific contribution of climbing fiber transmission to cerebellum-dependent motor memory

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The study by Seo et al highlights knowledge gaps regarding the role of cerebellar complex spike (CS) activity during different phases of learning related to optokinetic reflex (OKR) in mice. The novelty of the approach is twofold: first, specifically perturbing the activity of climbing fibers (CFs) in the flocculus (as opposed to disrupting communication between the inferior olive (IO) and its cerebellar targets globally); and second, examining whether disruption of the CS activity during the putative "consolidation phase" following training affects OKR performance.

The first part of the results provides adequate evidence supporting the notion that optogenetic disruption of normal CF-Purkinje neuron (PN) signaling results in the degradation of OKR performance. As no effects are seen in OKR performance in animals subjected to optogenetic irradiation during the memory consolidation or retrieval phases, the authors conclude that CF function is not essential beyond memory acquisition. However, the manuscript does not provide a sufficiently solid demonstration that their long-term activity manipulation of CF activity is effective, thus undermining the confidence of the conclusions.

Strengths:

The main strength of the work is the aim to examine the specific involvement of the CF activity in the flocculus during distinct phases of learning. This is a challenging goal, due to the technical challenges related to the anatomical location of the flocculus as well as the IO. These obstacles are counterbalanced by the use of a well-established and easy-to-analyse behavioral model (OKR), that can lead to fundamental insights regarding the long-term cerebellar learning process.

Weaknesses:

The impact of the work is diminshed by several methodological shortcomings.

Most importantly, the key finding that prolonged optogenetic inhibition of CFs (for 30 min to 6 hours after the training period) must be complemented by the demonstration that the manipulation maintains its efficacy. In its current form, the authors only show inhibition by short-term optogenetic irradiation in the context of electrical-stimulation-evoked CSs in an ex vivo preparation. As the inhibitory effect of even the eNpHR3.0 is greatly diminished during seconds-long stimulations (especially when using the yellow laser as is done in this work (see Zhang, Chuanqiang, et al. "Optimized photo-stimulation of halorhodopsin for long-term neuronal inhibition." BMC biology 17.1 (2019): 1-17. ), we remain skeptical of the extent of inhibition during the long manipulations. In short, without a demonstration of effective inhibition throughout the putative consolidation phase (for example by showing a significant decrease in CS frequency throughout the irradiation period), the main claim of the manuscript of phase-specific involvement of CF activity in OKR learning can not be considered to be based on evidence.

Second, the choice of viral targeting strategy leaves gaps in the argument for CF-specific mechanisms. CaMKII promoters are not selective for the IO neurons, and even the most precise viral injections always lead to the transfection of neurons in the surrounding brainstem, many of which project to the cerebellar cortex in the form of mossy fibers (MF). Figure 1Bii shows sparsely-labelled CFs in the flocculus, but possibly also MFs. While obtaining homogenous and strong labeling in all floccular CFs might be impossible, at the very least the authors should demonstrate that their optogenetic manipulation does not affect simple spiking in PNs.

Finally, while the paper explicitly focuses on the effects of CF-evoked complex spikes in the PNs and not, for example, on those mediated by molecular layer interneurons or via direct interaction of the CF with vestibular nuclear neurons, it would be best if these other dimensions of CF involvement in cerebellar learning were candidly discussed.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to explore the role of climbing fibers (CFs) in cerebellar learning, with a focus on optokinetic reflex (OKR) adaptation. Their goal was to understand how CF activity influences memory acquisition, memory consolidation, and memory retrieval by optogenetically suppressing CF inputs at various stages of the learning process.

Strengths:

The study addresses a significant question in the cerebellar field by focusing on the specific role of CFs in adaptive learning. The authors use optogenetic tools to manipulate CF activity. This provides a direct method to test the causal relationship between CF activity and learning outcomes.

Weaknesses:

Despite shedding light on the potential role of CFs in cerebellar learning, the study is hampered by significant methodological issues that question the validity of its conclusions. The absence of detailed evidence on the effectiveness of CF suppression and concerns over tissue damage from optogenetic stimulation weakens the argument that CFs are not essential for memory consolidation. These challenges make it difficult to confirm whether the study's objectives were fully met or if the findings conclusively support the authors' claims. The research commendably attempts to unravel the temporal involvement of CFs in learning but also underscores the difficulties in pinpointing specific neural mechanisms that underlie the phases of learning. Addressing these methodological issues, investigating other signals that might instruct consolidation, and understanding CFs' broader impact on various learning behaviors are crucial steps for future studies.

Author response:

eLife assessment

This study presents potentially valuable insights into the role of climbing fibers in cerebellar learning. The main claim is that climbing fiber activity is necessary for optokinetic reflex adaptation, but is dispensable for its long-term consolidation. There is evidence to support the first part of this claim, though it requires a clearer demonstration of the penetrance and selectivity of the manipulation. However, support for the latter part of the claim is incomplete owing to methodological concerns, including unclear efficacy of longer-duration climbing fiber activity suppression.

We sincerely appreciate the thoughtful feedback provided by the reviewer regarding our study on the role of climbing fibers in cerebellar learning. Each point raised has been carefully considered, and we are committed to addressing them comprehensively. We acknowledge the importance of addressing methodological concerns, particularly regarding the efficacy of long-term suppression of CF activity, as well as ensuring clarity regarding penetrance and selectivity of our manipulation. To this end, we have outlined plans for substantial revisions to the manuscript to adequately address these issues.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The study by Seo et al highlights knowledge gaps regarding the role of cerebellar complex spike (CS) activity during different phases of learning related to optokinetic reflex (OKR) in mice. The novelty of the approach is twofold: first, specifically perturbing the activity of climbing fibers (CFs) in the flocculus (as opposed to disrupting communication between the inferior olive (IO) and its cerebellar targets globally); and second, examining whether disruption of the CS activity during the putative "consolidation phase" following training affects OKR performance.

The first part of the results provides adequate evidence supporting the notion that optogenetic disruption of normal CF-Purkinje neuron (PN) signaling results in the degradation of OKR performance. As no effects are seen in OKR performance in animals subjected to optogenetic irradiation during the memory consolidation or retrieval phases, the authors conclude that CF function is not essential beyond memory acquisition. However, the manuscript does not provide a sufficiently solid demonstration that their long-term activity manipulation of CF activity is effective, thus undermining the confidence of the conclusions.

Strengths:

The main strength of the work is the aim to examine the specific involvement of the CF activity in the flocculus during distinct phases of learning. This is a challenging goal, due to the technical challenges related to the anatomical location of the flocculus as well as the IO. These obstacles are counterbalanced by the use of a well-established and easy-to-analyse behavioral model (OKR), that can lead to fundamental insights regarding the long-term cerebellar learning process.

Weaknesses:

The impact of the work is diminshed by several methodological shortcomings.

Most importantly, the key finding that prolonged optogenetic inhibition of CFs (for 30 min to 6 hours after the training period) must be complemented by the demonstration that the manipulation maintains its efficacy. In its current form, the authors only show inhibition by short-term optogenetic irradiation in the context of electrical-stimulation-evoked CSs in an ex vivo preparation. As the inhibitory effect of even the eNpHR3.0 is greatly diminished during seconds-long stimulations (especially when using the yellow laser as is done in this work (see Zhang, Chuanqiang, et al. "Optimized photo-stimulation of halorhodopsin for long-term neuronal inhibition." BMC biology 17.1 (2019): 1-17. ), we remain skeptical of the extent of inhibition during the long manipulations. In short, without a demonstration of effective inhibition throughout the putative consolidation phase (for example by showing a significant decrease in CS frequency throughout the irradiation period), the main claim of the manuscript of phase-specific involvement of CF activity in OKR learning can not be considered to be based on evidence.

Second, the choice of viral targeting strategy leaves gaps in the argument for CF-specific mechanisms. CaMKII promoters are not selective for the IO neurons, and even the most precise viral injections always lead to the transfection of neurons in the surrounding brainstem, many of which project to the cerebellar cortex in the form of mossy fibers (MF). Figure 1Bii shows sparsely-labelled CFs in the flocculus, but possibly also MFs. While obtaining homogenous and strong labeling in all floccular CFs might be impossible, at the very least the authors should demonstrate that their optogenetic manipulation does not affect simple spiking in PNs.

Finally, while the paper explicitly focuses on the effects of CF-evoked complex spikes in the PNs and not, for example, on those mediated by molecular layer interneurons or via direct interaction of the CF with vestibular nuclear neurons, it would be best if these other dimensions of CF involvement in cerebellar learning were candidly discussed.

We appreciate the thorough review and recognize both the strengths and weaknesses highlighted.

We concur with the reviewer’s assessment of the novelty of our approach, particularly in specifically perturbing the activity of CF in the flocculus and examining the effects during different phases of learning. Also the usage of OKR behavior paradigm adds strength to our study by providing a well-established model for investigating cerebellar learning processes.

Regarding concerns about the efficacy of long-term optogenetic inhibition and the specificity of viral targeting, we are committed to addressing these issues through additional experiments. Specifically, we aim to demonstrate sustained inhibition of CF transmission by verifying the maintenance of inhibition throughout the putative consolidation phase. This may involve monitoring CF activity during the irradiation period in vivo. Furthermore, we plan to provide further characterization of viral targeting to ensure specificity of our approach.

Additionally, we recognize the importance of discussing alternative mechanisms of CF involvement in cerebellar learning. Hence, we will expand the manuscript to provide more comprehensive discussion of these dimensions of CF function to provide a clearer understanding of the broader implications of our findings.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to explore the role of climbing fibers (CFs) in cerebellar learning, with a focus on optokinetic reflex (OKR) adaptation. Their goal was to understand how CF activity influences memory acquisition, memory consolidation, and memory retrieval by optogenetically suppressing CF inputs at various stages of the learning process.

Strengths:

The study addresses a significant question in the cerebellar field by focusing on the specific role of CFs in adaptive learning. The authors use optogenetic tools to manipulate CF activity. This provides a direct method to test the causal relationship between CF activity and learning outcomes.

Weaknesses:

Despite shedding light on the potential role of CFs in cerebellar learning, the study is hampered by significant methodological issues that question the validity of its conclusions. The absence of detailed evidence on the effectiveness of CF suppression and concerns over tissue damage from optogenetic stimulation weakens the argument that CFs are not essential for memory consolidation. These challenges make it difficult to confirm whether the study's objectives were fully met or if the findings conclusively support the authors' claims. The research commendably attempts to unravel the temporal involvement of CFs in learning but also underscores the difficulties in pinpointing specific neural mechanisms that underlie the phases of learning. Addressing these methodological issues, investigating other signals that might instruct consolidation, and understanding CFs' broader impact on various learning behaviors are crucial steps for future studies.

We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the significance of our study in addressing the fundamental question of the role of CF in adaptive learning within the cerebellar field. The use of optogenetic tools indeed provides a direct means to investigate the causal relationship between CF activity and learning outcomes.

To address concerns regarding the effectiveness of CF suppression during consolidation, we plan to conduct further in-vivo recordings. These will demonstrate how reliably CF transmission can be suppressed through optogenetic manipulation over an extended period.

In response to the concern about potential tissue damage from laser stimulation, we believe that our optogenetic manipulation was not strong enough to induce significant heat-induced tissue damage in the flocculus. According to Cardin et al. (2010), light applied through an optic fiber may cause critical damage if the intensity exceeds 100 mW, which is eight times stronger than the intensity we used in our OKR experiment. Furthermore, if there had been tissue damage from chronic laser stimulation, we would expect to see impaired long-term memory reflected in abnormal gain retrieval results tested the following day. However, as shown in Figures 2 and 3, there were no significant abnormalities in consolidation percentages even after the optogenetic manipulation.

Finally, we appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the challenges involved in pinpointing specific neural mechanisms. We plan to expand the discussion to address these complexities and outline future research directions.