Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript by Kleinman & Foster investigates the dependence of hippocampal replay on VTA activity. They recorded neural activity from the dorsal CA1 region of the hippocampus while chemogenetically silencing VTA dopamine neurons as rats completed laps on a linear track with reward delivery at each end. Reward amount changed across task epochs within a session on one end of the track. The authors report that VTA activity is necessary for an increase in sharp-wave rate to remain localized to the feeder that undergoes a change in reward magnitude, an effect that was especially pronounced in a novel environment. They follow up on this result with a second experiment in which reward magnitude varies unpredictably at one end of the linear track and report that changes in sharp-wave rate at the variable location reflect both the amount of reward rats just received there, in addition to a smaller modulation that is reminiscent of reward prediction error coding, in which the previous reward rats received at the variable location affects the magnitude of the subsequent change in sharp-wave rate that occurs on the present visit.

This work is technically innovative, combining neural recordings with chemogenetic inactivation. The question of how VTA activity affects replay in the hippocampus is interesting and important given that much of the work implicating hippocampal replay in memory consolidation and planning comes from reward-motivated behavioral tasks. Enthusiasm for the manuscript is dampened by some technical considerations about the chemogenetic portion of the experiments. Additionally, there are some interpretational issues related to whether changes in reward magnitude affected sharp-wave rate directly, or whether the reported changes in sharp-wave rate alter behavior and these behavioral changes affect sharp-wave rate.

Major issues:

Chemogenetics validation

Little validation is provided for the chemogenetic manipulations. The authors report that animals were excluded due to lack of expression but do not quantify/document the extent of expression in the animals that were included in the study. There's no independent verification that VTA was actually inhibited by the chemogenetic manipulation besides the experimental effects of interest.

The authors report a range of CNO doses. What determined the dose that each rat received? Was it constant for an individual rat? If not, how was the dose determined? The authors may wish to examine whether any of their CNO effects were dependent on dose.

The authors tested the same animal multiple times per day with relatively little time between recording sessions. Can they be certain that the effect of CNO wore off between sessions? Might successive CNO injections in the same day have impacted neural activity in the VTA differently? Could the chemogenetic manipulation have grown stronger with each successive injection (or maybe weaker due to something like receptor desensitization)? The authors could test statistically whether the effects of CNO that they report do not depend on the number of CNO injections a rat received over a short period of time.

Motivational considerations

In a similar vein, running multiple sessions per day raises the possibility that rats' motivation was not constant across all data collection time points. The authors could test whether any measures of motivation (laps completed, running speed) changed across the sessions conducted within the same day. This is a particularly tricky issue, because my read of the methods is that saline sessions were only conducted as the first session of any recording day, which means there's a session order/time of day and potential motivational confound in comparing saline to CNO sessions.

Statistics, statistical power, and effect sizes

Throughout the manuscript, the authors employ a mixture of t-tests, ANOVAs, and mixed-effects models. Only the mixed effects models appropriately account for the fact that all of this data involves repeated measurements from the same subject. The t-tests are frequently doubly inappropriate because they both treat repeated measures as independent and are not corrected for multiple comparisons.

The number of animals in these studies is on the lower end for this sort of work, raising questions about whether all of these results are statistically reliable and likely to generalize. This is particularly pronounced in the reward volatility experiment, where the number of rats in the experimental group is halved to just two. The results of this experiment are potentially very exciting, but the sample size makes this feel more like pilot data than a finished product.

The effect sizes of the various manipulations appear to be relatively modest, and I wonder if the authors could help readers by contextualizing the magnitude of these results further. For instance, when VTA inactivation increases mis-localization of SWRs to the unchanged end of the track, roughly how many misplaced sharp-waves are occurring within a session, and what would their consequence be? On this particular behavioral task, it's not clear that the animals are doing worse in any way despite the mislocalization of sharp-waves. And it seems like the absolute number of extra sharp-waves that occur in some of these conditions would be quite small over the course of a session, so it would be helpful if the authors could speculate on how these differences might translate to meaningful changes in processes like consolidation, for instance.

How directly is reward affecting sharp-wave rate?

Changes in reward magnitude on the authors' task cause rats to reallocate how much time they spent at each end. Coincident with this behavioral change, the authors identify changes in the sharp-wave rate, and the assumption is that changing reward is altering the sharp-wave rate. But it also seems possible that by inducing longer pauses, increased reward magnitude is affecting the hippocampal network state and creating an occasion for more sharp-waves to occur. It's possible that any manipulation so altering rats' behavior would similarly affect the sharp-wave rate.

For instance, in the volatility experiment, on trials when no reward is given sharp-wave rate looks like it is effectively zero. But this rate is somewhat hard to interpret. If rats hardly stopped moving on trials when no reward was given, and the hippocampus remained in a strong theta network state for the full duration of the rat's visit to the feeder, the lack of sharp-waves might not reflect something about reward processing so much as the fact that the rat's hippocampus didn't have the occasion to emit a sharp-wave. A better way to compute the sharp-wave rate might be to use not the entire visit duration in the denominator, but rather the total amount of time the hippocampus spends in a non-theta state during each visit. Another approach might be to include visit duration as a covariate with reward magnitude in some of the analyses. Increasing reward magnitude seems to increase visit duration, but these probably aren't perfectly correlated, so the authors might gain some leverage by showing that on the rare long visit to a low-reward end sharp-wave rate remains reliably low. This would help exclude the explanation that sharp-wave rate follows increases in reward magnitude simply because longer pauses allow a greater opportunity for the hippocampus to settle into a non-theta state.

The authors seem to acknowledge this issue to some extent, as a few analyses have the moments just after the rat's arrival at a feeder and just before departure trimmed out of consideration. But that assumes these sorts of non-theta states are only occurring at the very beginning and very end of visits when in fact rats might be doing all sorts of other things during visits that could affect the hippocampus network state and the propensity to observe sharp-waves.

Minor issues

The title/abstract should reflect that only male animals were used in this study.

The title refers to hippocampal replay, but for much of the paper the authors are measuring sharp-wave rate and not replay directly, so I would favor a more nuanced title.

Relatedly, the interpretation of the mislocalization of sharp-waves following VTA inactivation suggests that the hippocampus is perhaps representing information inappropriately/incorrectly for consolidation, as the increased rate is observed both for a location that has undergone a change in reward and one that has not. However, the authors are measuring replay rate, not replay content. It's entirely possible that the "mislocalized" replays at the unchanged end are, in fact, replaying information about the changed end of the track. A bit more nuance in the discussion of this effect would be helpful.

The authors use decoding accuracy during movement to determine which sessions should be included for decoding of replay direction. Details on cross-validation are omitted and would be appreciated. Also, the authors assume that sessions failed to meet inclusion criteria because of ensemble size, but this information is not reported anywhere directly. More info on the ensemble size of included/excluded sessions would be helpful.

For most of the paper, the authors detect sharp-waves using ripple power in the LFP, but for the analysis of replay direction, they use a different detection procedure based on the population firing rate of recorded neurons. Was there a reason for this switch? It's somewhat difficult to compare reported sharpwave/replay rates of the analyses given that different approaches were used.

Figures and data

Experimental design and linear track behavior.

Modulation of SWR rate by reward, novelty, and VTA inactivation.

Frequent reward changes modulated SWR rate.

Replay recruitment by reward change in novel sessions requires VTA signaling.

Behavioral effects of novelty and VTA inactivation. Related to Figure 1.

Effect of reward change on running velocity. Related to Figure 1.

Modulation of SWR rate by reward increase. Related to Figure 2.

SWR rate in Epoch 3. Related to Figure 2.

SWR rate at stable end in experimental rats. Related to Figure 3.

SWR rate in all sessions in volatile reward task. Related to Figure 3.

Effect of novelty and VTA inactivation on place cell properties. Related to Figure 4.

Run decoding accuracy in replay analysis sessions. Related to Figure 4.