Recording γ-secretase activity in living mouse brains

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In their paper, Hou and co-workers explored the use of a FRET sensor for endogenous g-sec activity in vivo in the mouse brain. They used AAV to deliver the sensor to the brain for neuron specific expression and applied NIR in cranial windows to assess FRET activity; optimizing as well an imaging and segmentation protocol. In brief they observe clustered g-sec activity in neighboring cells arguing for a cell non-autonomous regulation of endogenous g-sec activity in vivo.

Weaknesses:

Overall the authors provide a very limited data set and in fact only a proof of concept that their sensor can be applied in vivo. This is not really a research paper, but a technical note. With respect to their observation of clustered activity, the images do not convince me as they show only limited areas of interest: from these examples (for instance fig 5) one sees that merely all neurons in the field show variable activity and a clustering is not really evident from these examples. Even within a cluster, there is variability. With r values between 0.23 to .36, the correlation is not that striking. The authors herein do not control for expression levels of the sensor: for instance, can they show that in all neurons in the field, the sensor is equally expressed, but FRET activity is correlated in sets of neurons? Or are the FRET activities that are measured only in positively transduced neurons, while neighboring neurons are not expressing the sensor? Without such validation, it is difficult to make this conclusion.

Secondly, I am lacking some more physiological relevance for this observation. The experiments are performed in wild-type mice, but it would be more relevant to compare this with a fadPSEN1 KI or a PSEN1cKO model to investigate the contribution of a gain of toxic function or LOF to the claimed cell non-autonomous activations. Or what would be the outcome if the sensor was targeted to glial cells?

For this reviewer it is not clear what resolution they are measuring activity, at cellular or subcellular level? In other words are the intensity spots neuronal cell bodies? Given g-sec activity are in all endosomal compartments and at the cell surface, including in the synapse, does NIR imaging have the resolution to distinguish subcellular or surface localized activities? If cells 'communicate' g-sec activities, I would expect to see hot spots of activity at synapses between neurons: is this possible to assess with the current setup?

Without some more validation and physiological relevant studies, it remains a single observation and rather a technical note paper, instead of a true research paper.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Hou et al is a short technical report which details the potential use of a recently developed FRET based biosensor for gamma-secretase activity (Houser et al 2020) for in vivo imaging in the mouse brain. Gamma-secretase plays a crucial role in Alzheimer disease pathology and therefore developing methodologies for precise in vivo measurements would be highly valuable to better understand AD pathophysiology in animal models.

The current version of the sensor utilizes a pair of far-red fluorescent proteins fused to a substrate of the enzyme. Using live imaging, it was previously demonstrated it is possible to monitor gamma-secretase activity in cultured cells. Notably, this is a variant of a biosensor that was previously described using CFP-YFP variants FRET pair (Maesako et al, iScience. 2020). The main claim and hypothesis for the MS is that IR excitation and emission has considerable advantages in terms of depth of penetration, as well as reduction in autofluorescence. These properties would make this approach potentially suitable to monitor cellular level dynamics of Gama-secretase in vivo.

The authors use confocal microscopy and show it is possible to detect fluorescence from single cortical cells. The paper described in detail technical information regarding imaging and analysis. The data presented in figures 5-8 details analysis of FRET ratio (FR) measurements within populations of cells. The authors claim it is possible to obtain reliable measurements at the level of individual cells. They compare the FR values across cells and mice and find a spatial correlation among neighboring cells. This is compared with data obtained after inhibition of endogenous gamma-secretase activity, which abolishes this correlation.

Strengths:

The authors describe in detail their experimental design and analysis for in vivo imaging of the reporter. The idea of using a far-red FRET sensor for in vivo imaging is novel and potentially useful to circumvent many of the pitfalls associated with intensity-based FRET imaging in complex biological environments (such as autofluorescence and scattering).

Weaknesses:

There are several critical points regarding validation of this approach and concerns with the data presented that must be addressed:

(1) Regarding the variability and spatial correlation- the dynamic range of the sensor previously reported in vitro is in the range of 20-30% change (Houser et al 2020) whereas the range of FR detected in vivo is between cells is significantly larger (Fig. 3). This raises considerable doubts for specific detection of cellular activity (see point 3).
(2) One direct way to test the dynamic range of the sensor in vivo, is to increase or decrease endogenous gamma-secretase activity and to ensure this experimental design allows to accurately monitor gamma-secretase activity. In the previous characterization of the reporter (Hauser et al 2020), DAPT application and inhibition of gamma-secretase activity results in increased FR (Figures 2 and 3 of Houser et al). This is in agreement with the design of the biosensor, since FR should be inversely correlated with enzymatic activity. Here, while the authors repeat the same manipulation and apply DAPT to block gamma-secretase activity, it seems to induce the opposite effect and reduces FR (comparing figures 8 with figures 5,6,7). First, there is no quantification comparing FR with and without DAPT. Moreover, it is possible to conduct this experiment in the same animals, meaning comparing FR before and after DAPT in the same mouse and cell populations. This point is absolutely critical- if indeed FR is reduced following DAPT application, this needs to be explained since this contradicts the basic design and interpretation of the biosensor.
(3) For further validation, I would suggest including in vivo measurements with a sensor version with no biological activity as a negative control, for example, a mutation that prevents enzymatic cleavage and FRET changes. This should be used to showcase instrumental variability and would help to validate the variability of FR is indeed biological in origin. This would significantly strengthen the claims regarding spatial correlation within population of cells.
(4) In general, confocal microcopy is not ideal for in vivo imaging. Although the authors demonstrate data collected using IR imaging increases penetration depth, out of focus fluorescence is still evident (Figure 4). Many previous papers have primarily used FLIM based analysis in combination with 2p microscopy for in vivo FRET imaging (Some examples: Ma et al, Neuron, 2018; Massengil et al, Nature methods, 2022; DIaz-Garcia et al, Cell Metabolism, 2017; Laviv et al, Neuron, 2020). This technique does not rely on absolute photon number and therefore has several advantage sin terms of quantification of FRET signals in vivo.
It is therefore likely that use of previously developed sensors of gamma-secretase with conventional FRET pairs, might be better suited for in vivo imaging. This point should be at least discussed as an alternative.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This paper builds on the authors' original development of a near infrared (NIR) FRET sensor by reporting in vivo real-time measurements for gamma-secretase activity in the mouse cortex. The in vivo application of the sensor using state of the art techniques is supported by a clear description and straightforward data, and the project represents significant progress because so few biosensors work in vivo. Notably, the NIR biosensor is detectable to ~ 100 µm depth in the cortex. A minor limitation is that this sensor has a relatively modest ΔF as reported in Houser et al, which is an additional challenge for its use in vivo. Thus, the data is fully dependent on post-capture processing and computational analyses. This can unintentionally introduce biases but is not an insurmountable issue with the proper controls that the authors have performed here.

The observation of gamma-secretase signaling that spreads across cells is potentially quite interesting, but it can be better supported. An alternative interpretation is that there exist pre-formed and clustered hubs of high gamma-secretase activity, and that DAPT has stochastic or differential accessibility to cells within the cluster. This could be resolved by an experiment of induction, for example, if gamma-secretase activity is induced or activated at a specific locale and there was observed coordinated spreading to neighboring neurons with their sensor.

Furthermore, to rule out the possibility that uneven viral transduction was not simply responsible for the observed clustering, it would be helpful to see an analysis of 670nm fluorescence alone.