Tonotopy is not preserved in a descending stage of auditory cortex

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, Gu et al. employed novel viral strategies, combined with in vivo two-photon imaging, to map the tone response properties of two groups of cortical neurons in A1. The thalamocortical recipient (TR neurons) and the corticothalamic (CT neurons). They observed a clear tonotopic gradient among TR neurons but not in CT neurons. Moreover, CT neurons exhibited high heterogeneity of their frequency tuning and broader bandwidth, suggesting increased synaptic integration in these neurons. By parsing out different projecting-specific neurons within A1, this study provides insight into how neurons with different connectivity can exhibit different frequency response-related topographic organization.

Strengths:

This study reveals the importance of studying neurons with projection specificity rather than layer specificity since neurons within the same layer have very diverse molecular, morphological, physiological, and connectional features. By utilizing a newly developed rabies virus CSN-N2c GCaMP-expressing vector, the authors can label and image specifically the neurons (CT neurons) in A1 that project to the MGB. To compare, they used an anterograde trans-synaptic tracing strategy to label and image neurons in A1 that receive input from MGB (TR neurons).

Weaknesses:

- Perhaps as cited in the introduction, it is well known that tonotopic gradient is well preserved across all layers within A1, but I feel if the authors want to highlight the specificity of their virus tracing strategy and the populations that they imaged in L2/3 (TR neurons) and L6 (CT neurons), they should perform control groups where they image general excitatory neurons in the two depths and compare to TR and CT neurons, respectively. This will show that it's not their imaging/analysis or behavioral paradigms that are different from other labs.

- Figures 1D and G, the y-axis is Distance from pia (%). I'm not exactly sure what this means. How does % translate to real cortical thickness?

- For Figure 2G and H, is each circle a neuron or an animal? Why are they staggered on top of each other on the x-axis? If the x-axis is the distance from caudal to rostral, each neuron should have a different distance? Also, it seems like it's because Figure 2H has more circles, which is why it has more variation, thus not significant (for example, at 600 or 900um, 2G seems to have fewer circles than 2H).

- Similarly, in Figures 2J and L, why are the circles staggered on the y-axis now? And is each circle now a neuron or a trial? It seems they have many more circles than Figure 2G and 2H. Also, I don't think doing a correlation is the proper stats for this type of plot (this point applies to Figures 3H and 3J).

• What does the inter-quartile range of BF (IQRBF, in octaves) imply? What's the interpretation of this analysis? I am confused as to why TR neurons show high IQR in HF areas compared to LF areas, which means homogeneity among TR neurons (lines 213 - 216). On the same note, how is this different from the BF variability? Isn't higher IQR equal to higher variability?

- Figure 4A-B, there are no clear criteria on how the authors categorize V, I, and O shapes. The descriptions in the Methods (lines 721 - 725) are also very vague.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Gu and Liang et. al investigated how auditory information is mapped and transformed as it enters and exits an auditory cortex. They use anterograde transsynaptic tracers to label and perform calcium imaging of thalamorecipient neurons in A1 and retrograde tracers to label and perform calcium imaging of corticothalamic output neurons. They demonstrate a degradation of tonotopic organization from the input to output neurons.

Strengths:

The experiments appear well executed, well described, and analyzed.

Weaknesses:

(1) Given that the CT and TR neurons were imaged at different depths, the question as to whether or not these differences could otherwise be explained by layer-specific differences is still not 100% resolved. Control measurements would be needed either by recording (1) CT neurons in upper layers, (2) TR in deeper layers, (3) non-CT in deeper layers and/or (4) non-TR in upper layers.

(2) What percent of the neurons at the depths are CT neurons? Similar questions for TR neurons?

(3) V-shaped, I-shaped, or O-shaped is not an intuitively understood nomenclature, consider changing. Further, the x/y axis for Figure 4a is not labeled, so it's not clear what the heat maps are supposed to represent.

(4) Many references about projection neurons and cortical circuits are based on studies from visual or somatosensory cortex. Auditory cortex organization is not necessarily the same as other sensory areas. Auditory cortex references should be used specifically, and not sources reporting on S1, and V1.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors performed wide-field and 2-photon imaging in vivo in awake head-fixed mice, to compare receptive fields and tonotopic organization in thalamocortical recipient (TR) neurons vs corticothalamic (CT) neurons of mouse auditory cortex. TR neurons were found in all cortical layers while CT neurons were restricted to layer 6. The TR neurons at nominal depths of 200-400 microns have a remarkable degree of tonotopy (as good if not better than tonotopic maps reported by multiunit recordings). In contrast, CT neurons were very heterogenous in terms of their best frequency (BF), even when focusing on the low vs high-frequency regions of the primary auditory cortex. CT neurons also had wider tuning.

Strengths:

This is a thorough examination using modern methods, helping to resolve a question in the field with projection-specific mapping.

Weaknesses:

There are some limitations due to the methods, and it's unclear what the importance of these responses are outside of behavioral context or measured at single timepoints given the plasticity, context-dependence, and receptive field 'drift' that can occur in the cortex.

(1) Probably the biggest conceptual difficulty I have with the paper is comparing these results to past studies mapping auditory cortex topography, mainly due to differences in methods. Conventionally, the tonotopic organization is observed for characteristic frequency maps (not best frequency maps), as tuning precision degrades and the best frequency can shift as sound intensity increases. The authors used six attenuation levels (30-80 dB SPL) and reported that the background noise of the 2-photon scope is <30 dB SPL, which seems very quiet. The authors should at least describe the sound-proofing they used to get the noise level that low, and some sense of noise across the 2-40 kHz frequency range would be nice as a supplementary figure. It also remains unclear just what the 2-photon dF/F response represents in terms of spikes. Classic mapping using single-unit or multi-unit electrodes might be sensitive to single spikes (as might be emitted at characteristic frequency), but this might not be as obvious for Ca2+ imaging. This isn't a concern for the internal comparison here between TR and CT cells as conditions are similar, but is a concern for relating the tonotopy or lack thereof reported here to other studies.

(2) It seems a bit peculiar that while 2721 CT neurons (N=10 mice) were imaged, less than half as many TR cells were imaged (n=1041 cells from N=5 mice). I would have expected there to be many more TR neurons even mouse for mouse (normalizing by number of neurons per mouse), but perhaps the authors were just interested in a comparison data set and not being as thorough or complete with the TR imaging?

(3) The authors' definitions of neuronal response type in the methods need more quantitative detail. The authors state: ""Irregular" neurons exhibited spontaneous activity with highly variable responses to sound stimulation. "Tuned" neurons were responsive neurons that demonstrated significant selectivity for certain stimuli. "Silent" neurons were defined as those that remained completely inactive during our recording period (> 30 min). For tuned neurons, the best frequency (BF) was defined as the sound frequency associated with the highest response averaged across all sound levels.". The authors need to define what their thresholds are for 'highly variable', 'significant', and 'completely inactive'. Is best frequency the most significant response, the global max (even if another stimulus evokes a very close amplitude response), etc.