Endopiriform neurons projecting to ventral CA1 are a critical node for recognition memory

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The anatomical connectivity of the claustrum and the role of its output projections has, thus far, not been studied in detail. The aim of this study was to map the outputs of the endopiriform (EN) region of the claustrum complex, and understand their functional role. Here the authors have combined sophisticated intersectional viral tracing techniques, and ex vivo electrophysiology to map the neural circuitry of EN outputs to vCA1, and shown that optogenetic inhibition of the EN→vCA1 projection impairs both social and object recognition memory. Interestingly the authors find that the EN neurons target inhibitory interneurons providing a mechanism for feedforward inhibition of vCA1.

Strengths:

The strength of this study was the application of a multilevel analysis approach combining a number of state-of-the-art techniques to dissect the contribution of the EN→vCA1 to memory function.

Weaknesses:

Some authors would disagree that the vCA1 represents a 'node for recognition of familiarity' especially for object recognition although that is not to say that it might play some role in discrimination, as shown by the authors. I note however that the references provided in the Introduction, concerning the role of vCA1in memory refer to anxiety, social memory, temporal order memory, and not novel object recognition memory. Given the additional projections to the piriform cortex shown in the results, I wonder to what extent the observations may be explained by odour recognition effects. In addition, I wondered whether the impairments in discrimination following Chemo-genetic inhibition of the EN→vCA1 were due to the subject treating the novel and familiar stimuli as either both novel- which might be observed as an increase in exploration, or both stimuli as familiar, with a decrease in overall exploration.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Yamawaki et al., conducted a series of neuroanatomical tracing and whole-cell recording experiments to elucidate and characterise a relatively unknown pathway between the endopiriform (EN) and CA1 of the ventral hippocampus (vCA1) and to assess its functional role in social and object recognition using fibre photometry and dual vector chemogenetics. The main findings were that the EN sends robust projections to the vCA1 that colateralise to the prefrontal cortex, lateral entorhinal cortex, and piriform cortex, and these EN projection neurons terminate in the stratum lacunosum-moleculare (SLM) layer of distal vCA1, synapsing onto GABAergic neurons that span across the Pyramidal-Stratum Radiatum (SR) and SR-SML borders. It was also demonstrated that EN input disynaptically inhibits vCA1 pyramidal neurons. vCA1 projecting EN neurons receive afferent input from the piriform cortex, and from within EN. Finally, fibre photometry experiments revealed that vCA1 projecting EN neurons are most active when mice explore novel objects or conspecifics, and pathway-specific chemogenetic inhibition led to an impairment in the ability to discriminate between novel vs. familiar objects and conspecifics.

This is an interesting mechanistic study that provides valuable insights into the function and connectivity patterns of afferent input from the endopiriform to the CA1 subfield of the ventral hippocampus. The authors propose that the EN input to the vCA1 interneurons provides a feedforward inhibition mechanism by which novelty detection could be promoted. The experiments appear to be carefully conducted, and the methodological approaches used are sound. The conclusions of the paper are supported by the data presented on the whole.

However, some aspects of methodology and data interpretation will need to be clarified and further evidence provided to enhance the utility of the data to the rest of the field.

The authors used dual retrograde tracing and observed that the highest percentage (~30%) of vCA1 projecting EN cells also projected to the PFC. They then employed an intersectional approach to show the presence of collaterals in other cortical areas such as the entorhinal cortex and piriform cortex in addition to the PFC. However, they state that 'Projection to prefrontal cortex was sparse relative to other areas, as expected based on the retrograde labeling data' (referring to Figure 2K) and subsequently appear to dismiss the initial data set indicating strong axonal projections to the PFC.

Since this is a relatively unknown connection, it would be helpful if some evidence/discussion is provided for whether the EN projects to other subfields (CA3, DG) of the ventral hippocampus. This is important, as the retrograde tracer injections depicted in Figure 1B clearly show a spread of the tracer to vCA3 and potentially vDG and it is not possible to ascertain the regional specificity of the pathway.

The vCA1 projecting EN cells appear to originate from an extensive range along the AP axis. Is there a topographical organization of these neurons within the vCA1? A detailed mapping of this kind would be valuable.

Given this extensive range in the location of vCA1 EN originating cells, how were the targets (along the AP axis) in EP selected for the calcium imaging?

The vCA1 has extensive reciprocal connections with the piriform cortex as well, which is in close proximity to the EN. How certain are the authors that the chemogenetic targeting was specific to the EN-vCA1 connection?

Raw data for the sociability and discrimination indices should be provided so that the readers can gain further insight into the nature of the impairment.

Line 222: It is unclear how locomotor activity informs anxiety in the behavioral tests.

Figure 7 title; It is stated that activity of EN neurons 'predict' social/object discrimination performance. However, caution must be exercised with this interpretation as the correlational data are underpowered (n=5-8). Furthermore, the results show a significant correlation between calcium event ratios and the discrimination index in the social discrimination test but not the object discrimination test.

While both male and female mice were included in the anatomical tracing and recording experiments, only male mice were used for behavioral tests.