Nitric oxide modulates contrast suppression in a subset of mouse retinal ganglion cells

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Nitric oxide (NO) has been implicated as a neuromodulator in the retina. Specific types of amacrine cells (ACs) produce and release NO in a light-dependent manner. NO diffuses freely through the retina and can modulate intracellular levels of cGMP, or directly modify and modulate proteins via S-nitrosylation, leading to changes in gap-junction coupling, synaptic gain, and adaptation. Although these system-wide effects have been documented, it is not well understood how the physiological function of specific neuronal types is affected by NO. This study aims to address this gap in our knowledge.

Strengths:

NO was expected to produce small effects, and considerable effort was expended in validating the system to ensure that any effects of NO would not be confounded by changes in the state of the preparation. The authors used a paired stimulus protocol to control for changes in the sensitivity of the retina during the extended recording periods. The approach potentially increases the sensitivity of the measurements and allows more subtle effects to be observed.

Neural activity was initially measured by Ca-imaging. Responsive ganglion cells were grouped into 32 types using a clustering analysis. Initial control experiments demonstrated that the cell-types revealed here largely recapitulate those from their earlier landmark study using the same approach (Fig. 2).

Application of NO to the retina strongly modulated responses of a single cluster of cells, labeled G32, while having little effect on the remaining 31 clusters. This result is evident in Fig. 3e.

Separate experiments measured ganglion cell spiking activity on a multi-electrode array (MEA). Clustering analysis of the peri-stimulus spike-time histograms (PSTHs) obtained from the MEA data also revealed 32 clusters. The PSTHs for each cluster were aligned to the Ca-imaging data using a convolution approach. The higher temporal resolution of the MEA recordings indicated that NO increased the speed of sub-cluster 2 responses but had no effect on receptive field size. The physiological significance of the small change in kinetics remains unclear.

Weaknesses:

The G32 cluster was further divided into three sub-types using Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) based on the temporal properties of the Ca-responses. This sub-clustering result seems questionable due to the small difference in the BIC parameter between 2 and 3 clusters. Three sub-clusters of the G32 cluster were also revealed for the PSTH data, however, the BIC analysis was not applied to further validate this result.

The alignment of sub-clusters 1, 2, and 3 identified in the Ca-imaging and the MEA recordings seemed questionable, because the temporal properties of clusters did not align well, nor did the effects of NO.

The title of the paper indicates that nitric oxide modulates contrast suppression in a subset of mouse retinal ganglion cells, however, this result appears to be inferred from previous results showing that G32 is identified as a "suppressed-by-contrast" cell. The present study does not explicitly evaluate the amount of contrast-suppression in G32 cells.

In its current form, the work is likely to have limited impact, since the morphological and functional properties of the affected sub-cluster remain unknown. The finding that there can be cell-specific adaptation effects during experiments on in vitro retina is important new information for the field.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Neuromodulators are important for circuit function, but their roles in the retinal circuitry are poorly understood. This study by Gonschorek and colleagues aims to determine the modulatory effect of nitric oxide on the response properties of retinal ganglion cells. The authors used two photon calcium imaging and multi-electrode arrays to classify and compare cell responses before and after applying a NO donor DETA-NO. The authors found that DETA-NO selectively increases activity in a subset of contrast-suppressed RGC types. In addition, the authors found cell-type specific changes in light response in the absence of pharmacological manipulation in their calcium imaging paradigm. While this study focuses on an important question and the results are interesting, the following issues need further clarification for better interpretation of the data.

(1) Design of the calcium imaging experiments: the control-control pair has a different time course from the control-drug pair (Fig 1e). First, the control-control pair has a 10 minute interval while the control-drug pair has a 25 minute interval. Second, Control 1 Field 2 was imaged 10 min later than Control 1 Field 1 since the start of the calcium imaging paradigm.

Given that the control dataset is used to control for time-dependent adaptational changes throughout the experiment, I wonder why the authors did not use the same absolute starting time of imaging and the same interval between the first and second round of imaging for both the control-control and the control-drug pairs. This can be readily done in one of the two ways: 1. In a set of experiment, add DETA/NO between "Control 1 Field 1 and "Control 2 Field 1" in Fig. 1e as the drug group; or 2. Omit DETA/NO in the Fig. 1e protocol as the control group to monitor the time course of adaptational changes.

Related to the concern above, to determine NO-specific effect, the authors used the criterion that "the response changes observed for control (ΔR(Ctrl2−Ctrl1)) and NO (ΔR(NO−Ctrl1)) were significantly different". This criterion assumes that without DETA-NO, imaging data obtained at the time points of "Control 1 Field 2" and "DETA/NO Field 2" would give the same value of ΔR as ΔR(Ctrl2−Ctrl1) for all RGC types. It is not obvious to me why this should be the case, because of the unknown time-dependent trajectory of the adaptational change for each RGC type. For example, a RGC type could show stable response in the first 30 min and then change significantly in the following 30 min. DETA/NO may counteract this adaptational change, leading to the same ΔR as the control condition (false negative). Alternatively, DETA/NO may have no effect, but the nonlinear time-dependent response drift can give false positive results.

I also wonder why washing-out, a standard protocol for pharmacological experiments, was not done for the calcium protocol since it was done in the MEA experiments. A reversible effect by washing in and out DETA/NO in the calcium protocol would provide a much stronger support that the observed NO modulation is due to NO and not to other adaptive changes.

(2) Effects of Strychnine: In lines 215-219, " In the light-adapted retina, On-cone BCs boost light-Off responses in Off-cone BCs through cross-over inhibition (83, 84) and hence, strychnine affects Off-response components in RGCs - in line with our observations (Fig. S2)" However, Fig. S2 doesn't seem to show a difference in the Off-response components. Rather, the On response is enhanced with strychnine. In addition, suppressed-by-contrast cells are known to receive glycinergic inhibition from VGluT3 amacrine cells (Tien et al., 2016). However, the G32 cluster in Fig. S2 doesn't seem to show a change with strychnine. More explanation on these discrepancies will be helpful.

(3) This study uses DETA-NO as an NO donor for enhancing NO release. However, a previous study by Thompson et al., Br J Pharmacol. 2009 reported that DETA-NO can rapidly and reversible induce a cation current independent of NO release at the 100 uM used in the current study, which could potentially cause the observed effect in G32 cluster such as reduced contrast suppression and increased activity. This potential caveat should at least be discussed, and ideally excluded by showing the absence of DETA-NO effects in nNOS knockout mice, and/or by using another pharmacological reagent such as the NO donor SNAP or the nNOS inhibitor l-NAME.

(4) Clarification of methods: In the Methods, lines 1119-1127, the authors describe the detrending, baseline subtraction, and averaging. Then, line 1129, " the mean activity r(t) was computed and then traces were normalized such that: max t(|r(t)|) = 1. How is the normalization done? Is it over the entire recording (control and wash in) for each ROI? Or is it normalized based on the mean trace under each imaging session (i.e. twice for each imaging field)?

As for the clustering of RGC types, I assume that each ROI's cluster identity remains unchanged through the comparison. If so, it may be helpful to emphasize this in the text.

Author response:

We thank the reviewers for appreciating our study and for providing valuable comments and recommendations.

We are convinced that by carefully addressing the reviewers' comments and questions, we will be able to improve the manuscript’s quality.

Specifically, we aim to provide further analysis to validate the subdivision of G32 RGCs into sub-clusters.

In that context, we will improve the alignment of the RGC sub-types between the calcium imaging and MEA datasets.

To give the reader all information about our analysis, we will improve the methods section and explain the normalization of the calcium traces and the clustering in more detail.

Furthermore, we will also address the concerns regarding the design of the calcium imaging experiments, potential false-negative effects, and why we did not include a wash-out condition in our experimental protocol.

Finally, we will revise the discussion about potential NO mechanisms and expand it on how the effects we observed may relate to known or potentially novel mechanisms.

In particular, we will also deepen our discussion and interpretation of the strychnine dataset.

Again, we would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments.