A spatial threshold for astrocyte calcium surge

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Lines et al., provide evidence for a sequence of events in vivo in adult anesthetized mice that begin with a foot-shock driving activation of neural projections into layer 2/3 somatosensory cortex, which in turn triggers a rise in calcium in astrocytes within "domains" of their "arbor". The authors segment the astrocyte morphology based on SR101 signal and show that the timing of "arbor" Ca2+ activation precedes somatic activation and that somatic activation only occurs if at least {greater than or equal to}22.6% of the total segmented astrocyte "arbor" area is active. Thus, the authors frame this {greater than or equal to}22.6% activation as a spatial property (spatial threshold) with certain temporal characteristics - i.e., must occur before soma and global activation. The authors then elaborate on this spatial threshold by providing evidence for its intrinsic nature - is not set by the level of neuronal stimulus and is dependent on whether IP3R2, which drives Ca2+ release from the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) in astrocytes, is expressed. Lastly, the authors suggest a potential physiologic role for this spatial threshold by showing ex vivo how exogenous activation of layer 2/3 astrocytes by ATP application can gate glutamate gliotransmission to layer 2/3 cortical neurons - with a strong correlation between the number of active astrocyte Ca2+ domains and the slow inward current (SIC) frequency recorded from nearby neurons as a readout of glutamatergic gliotransmission. This is interesting and would potentially be of great interest to readers within and outside the glia research community, especially in how the authors have tried to systematically deconstruct some of the steps underlying signal integration and propagation in astrocytes. Many of the conclusions posited by the authors are potentially important but we think their approach needs experimental/analytical refinement and elaboration.

The primary issue for us, and which we would encourage the authors to address, relates to the low spatial-temporal resolution of their approach. This issue does not necessarily compromise the concept of a spatial threshold, but more refined observations and analyses are likely to provide more reliable quantitative parameters and a more comprehensive view of the mode of Ca2+ signal integration in astrocytes. For this reason, and because their observations might be perceived as both a conceptual and numerical standard in the field, we believe that the authors should proceed with both experimental and analytical refinement. Notably, we have difficulty with the reported mean delays of astrocyte Ca2+ elevations upon sensory stimulation. The 11s delay for response onset in "arbor" and 13s in the soma are extremely long, and we do not think they represent a true physiologic latency for astrocyte responses to the sensory activity. Indeed, such delays appear to be slower even than those reported in the initial studies of sensory stimulation in anesthetized mice with limited spatial-temporal resolution (Wang et al. Nat Neurosci., 2006) - not to say of more recent and refined ones in awake mice (Stobart et al. Neuron, 2018) that identified even sub-second astrocyte Ca2+ responses, largely preserved in IP3R2KO mice. Thus, we are inclined to believe that the slowness of responses reported here is an indicator of experimental/analytical issues. There can be several explanations of such slowness that the authors may want to consider for improving their approach: (a) The authors apparently use low zoom imaging for acquiring signals from several astrocytes present in the FOV: do all of these astrocytes respond homogeneously in terms of delay from sensory stimulus? Perhaps some are faster responders than others and only this population is directly activated by the stimulus. Others could be slower in activation because they respond secondarily to stimuli. In this case, the authors could focus their analysis specifically on the "fast-responding population". (b) By focusing on individual astrocytes and using higher zoom, the authors could unmask more subtle Ca2+ elevations that precede those reported in the current manuscript. These signals have been reported to occur mainly in regions of the astrocyte that are GCaMP6-positive but SR101-negative and constitute a large percentage of its volume (Bindocci et al., 2017). By restricting analysis to the SR101-positive part of the astrocyte, the authors might miss the fastest components of the astrocyte Ca2+ response likely representing the primary signals triggered by synaptic activity. It would be important if they could identify such signals in their records, and establish if none/few/many of them propagate to the SR-101-positive part of the astrocyte. In other words, if there is only a single spatial threshold, the one the authors reported, or two or more of them along the path of signal propagation towards the cell soma that leads eventually to the transformation of the signal into a global astrocyte Ca2+ surge. In this context, there is another concept that we encourage the authors to better clarify: whether the spatial threshold that they describe is constituted by the enlargement of a continuous wavefront of Ca2+ elevation, e.g. in a single process, that eventually reaches 22.6% of the segmented astrocyte, or can it also be constituted by several distinct Ca2+ elevations occurring in separate domains of the arbor, but overall totaling 22.6% of the segmented surface? Mechanistically, the latter would suggest the presence of a general excitability threshold of the astrocyte, whereas the former would identify a driving force threshold for the centripetal wavefront. In light of the above points, we think the authors should use caution in presenting and interpreting the experiments in which they use SIC as a readout. Their results might lead some readers to bluntly interpret the 22.6% spatial threshold as the threshold required for the astrocyte to evoke gliotransmitter release. Indeed, SIC are robust signals recorded somatically from a single neuron and likely integrate activation of many synapses all belonging to that neuron. On the other hand, an astrocyte impinges in a myriad of synapses belonging to several distinct neurons. In our opinion, it is quite possible that more local gliotransmission occurs at lower Ca2+ signal thresholds (see above) that may not be efficiently detected by using SIC as a readout; a more sensitive approach, such as the use of a gliotransmitter sensor expressed all along the astrocyte plasma-membrane could be tested to this aim.

Additional considerations are that the authors propose an event sequence as follows: stimulus - synaptic drive to L2/3 - arbor activation - spatial threshold - soma activation - post soma activation - gliotransmission. This seems reminiscent of the sequence underlying neuronal spike propagation - from dendrite to soma to axon, and the resulting vesicular release. However, there is no consensus within the glial field about an analogous framework for astrocytes. Thus, "arbor activation", "soma activation", and "post soma activation" are not established `terms-of-art´. Similarly, the way the authors use the term "domain" contrasts with how others have (Agarwal et al., 2017; Shigetomi et al., 2013; Di Castro et al., 2011; Grosche et al., 1999) and may produce some confusion. The authors could adopt a more flexible nomenclature or clarify that their terms do not have a defined structural-functional basis, being just constructs that they justifiably adapted to deal with the spatial complexity of astrocytes in line with their past studies (Lines et al., 2020; Lines et al., 2021).

Our previous points suggest that the paper would be significantly strengthened by new experimental observations focusing on single astrocytes and using acquisitions at higher spatial and temporal resolution. If the authors will not pursue this option, we encourage them to at least improve their analysis, and at the same time recognize in the text some limitations of their experimental approach as discussed above. We indicate here several levels of possible analytical refinement.

The first relates to the selection of astrocytes being analyzed, and the need to focus on a much narrower subpopulation than (for example) 987 astrocytes used for the core data. This selection would take into greater consideration the aspects of structure and latency. With the structural and latency-based criteria for selection, the number of astrocytes to analyze might be reduced by 10-fold or more, making our second analytical recommendation much more feasible.

For structure-based selection - Genetically-encoded Ca2+ indicators such as GCaMP6 are in principle expressed throughout an astrocyte, even in regions that are not labelled by SR101. Moreover, astrocytes form independent 3D territories, so one can safely assume that the GCaMP6 signal within an astrocyte volume belongs to that specific astrocyte (this is particularly evident if the neighboring astrocytes are GCaMP6-negative). Therefore, authors could extend their analysis of Ca2+ signals in individual astrocytes to the regions that are SR101-negative and try to better integrate fast signals in their spatial threshold concept. Even if they decided to be conservative on their methods, and stick to the astrocyte segmentation based on the SR-101 signal, they should acknowledge that SR101 dye staining quality can vary considerably between individual astrocytes within a FOV - some astrocytes will have much greater structural visibility in the distal processes than others. This means that some astrocytes may have segmented domains extending more distally than others and we think that authors should privilege such astrocytes for analysis. However, cases like the representative astrocytes shown in Figure 4A or Figure S1B, have segmented domains localized only to proximal processes near the soma. Accordingly, given the reported timing differences between "arbor" and "soma" activation, one might expect there to be comparable timing differences between domains that are distal vs proximal to the soma as well. Fast signals in peripheral regions of astrocytes in contact with synapses are largely IP3R2-independent (Stobart et al., 2018). However, the quality of SR101 staining has implications for interpreting the IP3R2 KO data. There is evidence IP3R2 KO may preferentially impact activity near the soma (Srinivasan et al., 2015). Thus, astrocytes with insufficient staining - visible only in the soma and proximal domains - might show a biased effect for IP3R2 KO. While not necessarily disrupting the core conclusions made by the authors based on their analysis of SR101-segmented astrocytes, we think results would be strengthened if astrocytes with sufficient SR101 staining - i.e. more consistent with previous reports of L2/3 astrocyte area (Lanjakornsiripan et al., 2018) - were only included. This could be achieved by using max or cumulative projections of individual astrocytes in combination with SR101 staining to construct more holistic structural maps (Bindocci et al., 2017).

For latency-based selection - The authors record calcium activity within a FOV containing at least 20+ astrocytes over a period of 60s, during which a 2Hz hindpaw stimulation at 2mA is applied for 20s. As discussed above, presumably some astrocytes in a FOV are the first to respond to the stimulus series, while others likely respond with longer latency to the stimulus. For the shorter-latency responders <3s, it is easier to attribute their calcium increases as "following the sensory information" projecting to L2/3. In other cases, when "arbor" responses occur at 10s or later, only after 20 stimulus events (at 2Hz), it is likely they are being activated by a more complex and recurrent circuit containing several rounds of neuron-glia crosstalk etc., which would be mechanistically distinct from astrocytes responding earlier. We suggest that authors focus more on the shorter latency response astrocytes, as they are more likely to have activity corresponding to the stimulus itself.

The second level of analysis refinement we suggest relates specifically to the issue of propagation and timing for the activity within "arbor", "soma" and "post-soma". Currently, the authors use an ROI-based approach that segments the "arbor" into domains. We suggest that this approach could be supplemented by a more robust temporal analysis. This could for example involve starting with temporal maps that take pixels above a certain amplitude and plot their timing relative to the stimulus-onset, or (better) the first active pixel of the astrocyte. This type of approach has become increasingly used (Bindocci et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019; Ruprecht et al., 2022) and we think its use can greatly help clarify both the proposed sequence and better characterize the spatial threshold. We think this analysis should specifically address several important points:

1. Where/when does the astrocyte activation begin? Understanding the beginning is very important, particularly because another potential spatial threshold - preceding the one the authors describe in the paper - could gate the initial activation of more distal processes, as discussed above. This sequentially earlier spatial threshold could (for example) rely on microdomain interaction with synaptic elements and (in contrast) be IP3R2 independent (Srinivasan et al., 2015, Stobart et al., 2018). We would be interested to know whether, in a subset of astrocytes that meet the structure and latency criteria proposed above and can produce global activation, there is an initial local GCaMP6f response of a minimal size that must occur before propagation towards the soma begins. The data associated with varying stimulus parameters could potentially be useful here and reveal stimulus intensity/duration-dependent differences.

2. Whether the propagation in the authors' experimental model is centripetal? This is implied throughout the manuscript but never shown. We think establishing whether (or not) the calcium dynamics are centripetal is important because it would clarify whether spatially adjacent domains within the "arbor" need to be sequentially active before reaching the threshold and then reaching the soma. More broadly, visualizing propagation will help to better visualize summation, which is presumably how the threshold is first reached (and overcome). The alternative hypothesis of a general excitability threshold, as discussed above, would be challenged here and possibly rejected, thereby clarifying the nature of the Ca2+ process that needs to reach a threshold for further expansion to the soma and other parts of the astrocyte.

3. In complement to the previous point: we understand that the spatial threshold does not per se have a location, but is there some spatial logic underlying the organization of active domains before the soma response occurs? One can easily imagine multiple scenarios of sparse heterogeneous GCaMP6f signal distributions that correspond to {greater than or equal to}22.6% of the arborization, but that would not be expected to trigger soma activation. For example, the diagram in Figure 4C showing the astrocyte response to 2Hz stim (which lacks a soma response) underscores this point. It looks like it has {greater than or equal to}22.6% activation that is sparsely localized throughout the arborization. If an alternative spatial distribution for this activity occurred, such that it localized primarily to a specific process within the arbor, would it be more likely to trigger a soma response?

4. Does "pre-soma" activation predict the location and onset time of "post-soma" activation? For example, are arbor domains that were part of the "pre-soma" response the first to exhibit GCaMP6f signal in the "post-soma" response?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Lines et al investigated the integration of calcium signals in astrocytes of the primary somatosensory cortex. Their goal was to better characterize the mechanisms that govern the spatial characteristics of calcium signals in astrocytes. In line with previous reports in the field, they found that most events originated and stayed localized within microdomains in distal astrocyte processes, occasionally coinciding with larger events in the soma, referred to as calcium surges. As a single astrocyte communicates with hundreds of thousands of synapses simultaneously, understanding the spatial integration of calcium signals in astrocytes and the mechanisms governing the latter is of tremendous importance to deepen our understanding of signal processing in the central nervous system. The authors thus aimed to unveil the properties governing the emergence of calcium surges. The main claim of this manuscript is that there would be a spatial threshold of ~23% of microdomain activation above which a calcium surge, i.e. a calcium signal that spreads to the soma, is observed. Although the study provides data that is highly valuable for the community, the conclusions of the current version of the manuscript seem a little too assertive and general compared with what can be deduced from the data and methods used.

The major strength of this study is the experimental approach that allowed the authors to obtain numerous and informative calcium recordings in vivo in the somatosensory cortex in mice in response to sensory stimuli as well as in situ. Notably, they developed an interesting approach to modulating the number of active domains in peripheral astrocyte processes by varying the intensity of peripheral stimulation (its amplitude, frequency, or duration).

The major weakness of the manuscript is the method used to analyze and quantify calcium activity, which mostly relies on the analysis of averaged data and overlooks the variability of the signals measured. As a result, the main claims from the manuscript seem to be incompletely supported by the data. The choice of the use of a custom-made semi-automatic ROI-based calcium event detection algorithm rather than established state-of-the-art software, such as the event-based calcium event detection software AQuA (DOI: 10.1038/s41593-019-0492-2), is insufficiently discussed and may bias the analysis. Some references on this matter include: Semyanov et al, Nature Rev Neuro, 2020 (DOI: 10.1038/s41583-020-0361-8); Covelo et al 2022, J Mol Neurosci (DOI: 10.1007/s12031-022-02006-w) & Wang et al, 2019, Nat Neuroscience (DOI: 10.1038/s41593-019-0492-2). Moreover, the ROIs used to quantify calcium activity are based on structural imaging of astrocytes, which may not be functionally relevant.

For the reasons listed above, the manuscript would probably benefit from some rephrasing of the conclusions and a discussion highlighting the advantages and limitations of the methodological approach. The question investigated by this study is of great importance in the field of neuroscience as the mechanisms dictating the spatio-temporal properties of calcium signals in astrocytes are poorly characterized, yet are essential to understand their involvement in the modulation of signal integration within neural circuits.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
The study aims to elucidate the spatial dynamics of subcellular astrocytic calcium signaling. Specifically, they elucidate how subdomain activity above a certain spatial threshold (~23% of domains being active) heralds a calcium surge that also affects the astrocytic soma. Moreover, they demonstrate that processes on average are included earlier than the soma and that IP3R2 is necessary for calcium surges to occur. Finally, they associate calcium surges with slow inward currents.

Strengths:
The study addresses an interesting topic that is only partially understood. The study uses multiple methods including in vivo two-photon microscopy, acute brain slices, electrophysiology, pharmacology, and knockout models. The conclusions are strengthened by the same findings in both in vivo anesthetized mice and in brain slices.

Weaknesses:
The method that has been used to quantify astrocytic calcium signals only analyzes what seems to be a small proportion of the total astrocytic domain on the example micrographs, where a structure is visible in the SR101 channel (see for instance Reeves et al. J. Neurosci. 2011, demonstrating to what extent SR101 outlines an astrocyte). This would potentially heavily bias the results: from the example illustrations presented it is clear that the calcium increases in what is putatively the same astrocyte goes well beyond what is outlined with automatically placed small ROIs. The smallest astrocytic processes are an order of magnitude smaller than the resolution of optical imaging and would not be outlined by either SR101 or with the segmentation method judged by the ROIs presented in the figures. Completely ignoring these very large parts of the spatial domain of an astrocyte, in particular when making claims about a spatial threshold, seems inappropriate. Several recent methods published use pixel-by-pixel event-based approaches to define calcium signals. The data should have been analyzed using such a method within a complete astrocyte spatial domain in addition to the analyses presented. Also, the authors do not discuss how two-dimensional sampling of calcium signals from an astrocyte that has processes in three dimensions (see Bindocci et al, Science 2017) may affect the results: if subdomain activation is not homogeneously distributed in the three-dimensional space within the astrocyte territory, the assumptions and findings between a correlation between subdomain activation and somatic activation may be affected.

The experiments are performed either in anesthetized mice, or in slices. The study would have come across as much more solid and interesting if at least a small set of experiments were performed also in awake mice (for instance during spontaneous behavior), given the profound effect of anesthesia on astrocytic calcium signaling and the highly invasive nature of preparing acute brain slices. The authors mention the caveat of studying anesthetized mice but claim that the intracellular machinery should remain the same. This explanation appears a bit dismissive as the response of an astrocyte not only depends on the internal machinery of the astrocyte, but also on how the astrocyte is stimulated: for instance synaptic stimulation or sensory input likely would be dependent on brain state and concurrent neuromodulatory signaling which is absent in both experimental paradigms. The discussion would have been more balanced if these aspects were dealt with more thoroughly.

The study uses a heaviside step function to define a spatial 'threshold' for somata either being included or not in a calcium signal. However, Fig 4E and 5D showing how the method separates the signal provide little understanding for the reader. The most informative figure that could support the main finding of the study, namely a ~23% spatial threshold for astrocyte calcium surges reaching the soma, is Fig. 4G, showing the relationship between the percentage of arborizations active and the soma calcium signal. A similar plot should have been presented in Fig 5 as well. Looking at this distribution, though, it is not clear why ~23% would be a clear threshold to separate soma involvement, one can only speculate how the threshold for a soma event would influence this number. Even if the analyses in Fig. 4H and the fact that the same threshold appears in two experimental paradigms strengthen the case, the results would have been more convincing if several types of statistical modeling describing the continuous distribution of values presented in Fig. 4E (in addition to the heaviside step function) were presented.

The description of methods should have been considerably more thorough throughout. For instance which temperature the acute slice experiments were performed at, and whether slices were prepared in ice-cold solution, are crucial to know as these parameters heavily influence both astrocyte morphology and signaling. Moreover, no monitoring of physiological parameters (oxygen level, CO2, arterial blood gas analyses, temperature etc) of the in vivo anesthetized mice is mentioned. These aspects are critical to control for when working with acute in vivo two-photon microscopy of mice; the physiological parameters rapidly decay within a few hours with anesthesia and following surgery.

Author Response

eLife assessment

Building on their own prior work, the authors present valuable findings that add to our understanding of cortical astrocytes, which respond to synaptic activity with calcium release in subcellular domains that can proceed to larger calcium waves. The proposed concept of a spatial "threshold" is based on solid evidence from in vivo and ex vivo imaging data and the use of mutant mice. However, details of the specific threshold should be taken with caution and appear incomplete unless supported by additional experiments with higher resolution in space and time.

We thank the reviewers and editors for the positive assessment of our work as containing valuable findings that add to our understanding of cortical astrocytes. We also appreciate their positive appraisal of the proposed concept of a spatial threshold supported by solid evidence.

Regarding their specific comments, we truly appreciate them because they have helped to clarify issues and to improve the study. Provisional point-by-point responses to these comments are provided below. Regarding the general comment on the spatial and temporal resolution of our study, we would like to clarify that the spatial and temporal resolution used in the current study (i.e., 2 - 5 Hz framerate using a 25x objective with 1.7x digital zoom with pixels on the order of 1 µm2) is within the norm in the field, does not compromise the results, nor diminish the main conceptual advancement of the study, namely the existence of a spatial threshold for astrocyte calcium surge.

We respect the thoughtfulness of the reviewers and editors and look forward to improving the paper to fully answer both public and private comments with a revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Lines et al., provide evidence for a sequence of events in vivo in adult anesthetized mice that begin with a footshock driving activation of neural projections into layer 2/3 somatosensory cortex, which in turn triggers a rise in calcium in astrocytes within "domains" of their "arbor". The authors segment the astrocyte morphology based on SR101 signal and show that the timing of "arbor" Ca2+ activation precedes somatic activation and that somatic activation only occurs if at least {greater than or equal to}22.6% of the total segmented astrocyte "arbor" area is active. Thus, the authors frame this {greater than or equal to}22.6% activation as a spatial property (spatial threshold) with certain temporal characteristics - i.e., must occur before soma and global activation. The authors then elaborate on this spatial threshold by providing evidence for its intrinsic nature - is not set by the level of neuronal stimulus and is dependent on whether IP3R2, which drives Ca2+ release from the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) in astrocytes, is expressed. Lastly, the authors suggest a potential physiologic role for this spatial threshold by showing ex vivo how exogenous activation of layer 2/3 astrocytes by ATP application can gate glutamate gliotransmission to layer 2/3 cortical neurons - with a strong correlation between the number of active astrocyte Ca2+ domains and the slow inward current (SIC) frequency recorded from nearby neurons as a readout of glutamatergic gliotransmission. This is interesting and would potentially be of great interest to readers within and outside the glia research community, especially in how the authors have tried to systematically deconstruct some of the steps underlying signal integration and propagation in astrocytes. Many of the conclusions posited by the authors are potentially important but we think their approach needs experimental/analytical refinement and elaboration.

We thank the reviewer for her/his positive appraisal and comments that has helped us to improve the study. In response to their insights, we aim to address the key points raised below:

1. Sequence of Events: We acknowledge the reviewer's interest in our findings regarding the sequence of events. We will provide a more detailed description of the methods and results to clarify the temporal relationships between neural activation, astrocyte calcium dynamics, and astrocyte morphology segmentation.

2. Spatial Threshold: The reviewer accurately identifies our characterization of a spatial threshold (≥22.6% activation) with temporal characteristics as a crucial aspect of our study. We will expand upon this concept by offering a clearer illustration of how this threshold relates to somatic and global activation.

3. Intrinsic Nature of Spatial Threshold: The reviewer's insightful observation regarding the inherent quality of the spatial threshold, regardless of its dependence on neuronal stimuli is noteworthy. We will provide additional details to substantiate this claim, shedding more light on the fundamental nature of this phenomenon.

4. Physiological Implications: The reviewer rightly highlights the potential physiological significance of our findings, particularly in relation to gliotransmission in cortical neurons. We will enhance our discussion by elaborating on the implications of these observations.

The primary issue for us, and which we would encourage the authors to address, relates to the low spatialtemporal resolution of their approach. This issue does not necessarily compromise the concept of a spatial threshold, but more refined observations and analyses are likely to provide more reliable quantitative parameters and a more comprehensive view of the mode of Ca2+ signal integration in astrocytes.

We agree with the reviewer that our spatial-temporal resolution (2 – 5 Hz framerate using a 25x objective and 1.7x digital zoom with pixels on the order of 1 µm) does not compromise the proposed concept of the existence of a spatial threshold for the intracellular calcium expansion.

For this reason, and because their observations might be perceived as both a conceptual and numerical standard in the field, we believe that the authors should proceed with both experimental and analytical refinement. Notably, we have difficulty with the reported mean delays of astrocyte Ca2+ elevations upon sensory stimulation. The 11s delay for response onset in "arbor" and 13s in the soma are extremely long, and we do not think they represent a true physiologic latency for astrocyte responses to the sensory activity. Indeed, such delays appear to be slower even than those reported in the initial studies of sensory stimulation in anesthetized mice with limited spatial-temporal resolution (Wang et al. Nat Neurosci., 2006) - not to say of more recent and refined ones in awake mice (Stobart et al. Neuron, 2018) that identified even sub-second astrocyte Ca2+ responses, largely preserved in IP3R2KO mice. Thus, we are inclined to believe that the slowness of responses reported here is an indicator of experimental/analytical issues. There can be several explanations of such slowness that the authors may want to consider for improving their approach: (a) The authors apparently use low zoom imaging for acquiring signals from several astrocytes present in the FOV: do all of these astrocytes respond homogeneously in terms of delay from sensory stimulus? Perhaps some are faster responders than others and only this population is directly activated by the stimulus. Others could be slower in activation because they respond secondarily to stimuli. In this case, the authors could focus their analysis specifically on the "fast-responding population". (b) By focusing on individual astrocytes and using higher zoom, the authors could unmask more subtle Ca2+ elevations that precede those reported in the current manuscript. These signals have been reported to occur mainly in regions of the astrocyte that are GCaMP6-positive but SR101-negative and constitute a large percentage of its volume (Bindocci et al., 2017). By restricting analysis to the SR101-positive part of the astrocyte, the authors might miss the fastest components of the astrocyte Ca2+ response likely representing the primary signals triggered by synaptic activity. It would be important if they could identify such signals in their records, and establish if none/few/many of them propagate to the SR-101-positive part of the astrocyte. In other words, if there is only a single spatial threshold, the one the authors reported, or two or more of them along the path of signal propagation towards the cell soma that leads eventually to the transformation of the signal into a global astrocyte Ca2+ surge.

We thank the reviewer for these excellent and important comments. The qualm with the mean delays of astrocyte activation is indeed a result of averaging together astrocyte responses to a 20 second stimulus. Indeed, astrocyte responses are heterogeneous and many astrocytes respond much quicker, as can be seen in example traces in Figs. 1D, 1G, and 3C. Indeed, with any biological system variability exists, however here we take the averaged responses in order to identify a general property of astrocyte calcium dynamics: the existence of the concept of a spatial threshold for astrocyte calcium surge.

Further, we used a lower stimulus frequency (2Hz) than Stobart et al. (90 Hz) to assess subthreshold activities. We found that stronger stimuli decreased response delays and will include this result in the revised manuscript. Interestingly, from Fig 4F, higher stimulus did not significantly alter the spatial threshold. In the revised version of the manuscript, we will provide a more detailed analysis and the consequent discussion of this analysis.

In this context, there is another concept that we encourage the authors to better clarify: whether the spatial threshold that they describe is constituted by the enlargement of a continuous wavefront of Ca2+ elevation, e.g. in a single process, that eventually reaches 22.6% of the segmented astrocyte, or can it also be constituted by several distinct Ca2+ elevations occurring in separate domains of the arbor, but overall totaling 22.6% of the segmented surface? Mechanistically, the latter would suggest the presence of a general excitability threshold of the astrocyte, whereas the former would identify a driving force threshold for the centripetal wavefront. In light of the above points, we think the authors should use caution in presenting and interpreting the experiments in which they use SIC as a readout. Their results might lead some readers to bluntly interpret the 22.6% spatial threshold as the threshold required for the astrocyte to evoke gliotransmitter release. Indeed, SIC are robust signals recorded somatically from a single neuron and likely integrate activation of many synapses all belonging to that neuron. On the other hand, an astrocyte impinges in a myriad of synapses belonging to several distinct neurons. In our opinion, it is quite possible that more local gliotransmission occurs at lower Ca2+ signal thresholds (see above) that may not be efficiently detected by using SIC as a readout; a more sensitive approach, such as the use of a gliotransmitter sensor expressed all along the astrocyte plasma-membrane could be tested to this aim.

The reviewer raised an excellent point. Whether the spatial threshold of 22.6% occur in the segmented astrocyte or may be reached occurring in separate domains of the arbor, is an important question and we aim to address this by novel analysis that will be provided in the revised version of the manuscript.

Regarding comments on SIC, we fully agree with the reviewer. In the revised version of the manuscript, we will include text in the discussion to ensure the correct interpretation of the results, i.e., the observed 22.6% spatial threshold for the SIC does not necessarily indicates an intrinsic property of gliotransmitter release; rather, since SICs have been shown to be calcium-dependent, it is not surprising that their presence, monitored at the whole-cell soma, matches the threshold for the intracellular calcium extension.

Additional considerations are that the authors propose an event sequence as follows: stimulus - synaptic drive to L2/3 - arbor activation - spatial threshold - soma activation - post soma activation - gliotransmission. This seems reminiscent of the sequence underlying neuronal spike propagation - from dendrite to soma to axon, and the resulting vesicular release. However, there is no consensus within the glial field about an analogous framework for astrocytes. Thus, "arbor activation", "soma activation", and "post soma activation" are not established `terms-of-art´. Similarly, the way the authors use the term "domain" contrasts with how others have (Agarwal et al., 2017; Shigetomi et al., 2013; Di Castro et al., 2011; Grosche et al., 1999) and may produce some confusion. The authors could adopt a more flexible nomenclature or clarify that their terms do not have a defined structural-functional basis, being just constructs that they justifiably adapted to deal with the spatial complexity of astrocytes in line with their past studies (Lines et al., 2020; Lines et al., 2021).

We agree there is no consensus within the glial field about this event sequence. One major difference between this sequence of events and neuronal spike propagation is directionality from dendrite to soma to axon. It is unknown whether directionality of the calcium signal exists in astrocytes. The term “microdomain” is used in the references above to define distal subcellular domains in contact with synapses, and in order to dissociate from this term we adopt the nomenclature “domain” to define all subcellular domains in the astrocyte arborization. These items will be discussed and clarified in the revised version of the manuscript.

Our previous points suggest that the paper would be significantly strengthened by new experimental observations focusing on single astrocytes and using acquisitions at higher spatial and temporal resolution. If the authors will not pursue this option, we encourage them to at least improve their analysis, and at the same time recognize in the text some limitations of their experimental approach as discussed above. We indicate here several levels of possible analytical refinement.

We believe our spatial (25x objective and 1.7x digital zoom with pixels on the order of 1µm) and temporal (2 – 5 Hz framerate) resolution is within the range used in the glial field. In any case the existence of a spatial threshold for astrocyte calcium surge is not compromised with the use of this imaging resolution.

The first relates to the selection of astrocytes being analyzed, and the need to focus on a much narrower subpopulation than (for example) 987 astrocytes used for the core data. This selection would take into greater consideration the aspects of structure and latency. With the structural and latency-based criteria for selection, the number of astrocytes to analyze might be reduced by 10-fold or more, making our second analytical recommendation much more feasible.

We agree that individual differences exist, however, establishing a general concept requires the sampling of many astrocytes. Nevertheless, we aim to further address this issue in the revised version of the manuscript by analyzing the calcium dynamics in individual domains.

For structure-based selection - Genetically-encoded Ca2+ indicators such as GCaMP6 are in principle expressed throughout an astrocyte, even in regions that are not labelled by SR101. Moreover, astrocytes form independent 3D territories, so one can safely assume that the GCaMP6 signal within an astrocyte volume belongs to that specific astrocyte (this is particularly evident if the neighboring astrocytes are GCaMP6negative). Therefore, authors could extend their analysis of Ca2+ signals in individual astrocytes to the regions that are SR101-negative and try to better integrate fast signals in their spatial threshold concept. Even if they decided to be conservative on their methods, and stick to the astrocyte segmentation based on the SR-101 signal, they should acknowledge that SR101 dye staining quality can vary considerably between individual astrocytes within a FOV - some astrocytes will have much greater structural visibility in the distal processes than others. This means that some astrocytes may have segmented domains extending more distally than others and we think that authors should privilege such astrocytes for analysis. However, cases like the representative astrocytes shown in Figure 4A or Figure S1B, have segmented domains localized only to proximal processes near the soma. Accordingly, given the reported timing differences between "arbor" and "soma" activation, one might expect there to be comparable timing differences between domains that are distal vs proximal to the soma as well. Fast signals in peripheral regions of astrocytes in contact with synapses are largely IP3R2-independent (Stobart et al., 2018). However, the quality of SR101 staining has implications for interpreting the IP3R2 KO data. There is evidence IP3R2 KO may preferentially impact activity near the soma (Srinivasan et al., 2015). Thus, astrocytes with insufficient staining - visible only in the soma and proximal domains - might show a biased effect for IP3R2 KO. While not necessarily disrupting the core conclusions made by the authors based on their analysis of SR101-segmented astrocytes, we think results would be strengthened if astrocytes with sufficient SR101 staining - i.e. more consistent with previous reports of L2/3 astrocyte area (Lanjakornsiripan et al., 2018) - were only included. This could be achieved by using max or cumulative projections of individual astrocytes in combination with SR101 staining to construct more holistic structural maps (Bindocci et al., 2017).

We agree with the ideas concerning SR101, and indeed there could be variability in the origins of the astrocyte calcium signal. Astrocyte territory boundaries can be difficult to discern when both astrocytes express GCaMP6. Here we take a conservative approach to constrain ROIs to SR101-positive astrocyte territory outlines without invading neighboring cells in order to reduce error in the estimate of a spatial threshold. The effect of IP3R2 KO preferentially impacting activity near the soma is interesting, and in line with our conclusions. We agree that the findings from SR101-negative pixels would not necessarily disrupt the core conclusions of the study, and the additional analysis suggested would further strengthen results.

For latency-based selection - The authors record calcium activity within a FOV containing at least 20+ astrocytes over a period of 60s, during which a 2Hz hindpaw stimulation at 2mA is applied for 20s. As discussed above, presumably some astrocytes in a FOV are the first to respond to the stimulus series, while others likely respond with longer latency to the stimulus. For the shorter-latency responders <3s, it is easier to attribute their calcium increases as "following the sensory information" projecting to L2/3. In other cases, when "arbor" responses occur at 10s or later, only after 20 stimulus events (at 2Hz), it is likely they are being activated by a more complex and recurrent circuit containing several rounds of neuron-glia crosstalk etc., which would be mechanistically distinct from astrocytes responding earlier. We suggest that authors focus more on the shorter latency response astrocytes, as they are more likely to have activity corresponding to the stimulus itself.

We agree that different times of astrocyte calcium increases may be due to different mechanisms outside of the astrocyte. We believe the spatial threshold will be intrinsic to these external variables; yet we believe that longer latency responses are physiological and may carry important information to determining the astrocyte calcium responses.

The second level of analysis refinement we suggest relates specifically to the issue of propagation and timing for the activity within "arbor", "soma" and "post-soma". Currently, the authors use an ROI-based approach that segments the "arbor" into domains. We suggest that this approach could be supplemented by a more robust temporal analysis. This could for example involve starting with temporal maps that take pixels above a certain amplitude and plot their timing relative to the stimulus-onset, or (better) the first active pixel of the astrocyte. This type of approach has become increasingly used (Bindocci et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019; Ruprecht et al., 2022) and we think its use can greatly help clarify both the proposed sequence and better characterize the spatial threshold. We think this analysis should specifically address several important points:

We agree that the creation of temporal maps from our own data will be interesting. We will provide the results of the suggested analysis in the revised version of the manuscript.

1. Where/when does the astrocyte activation begin? Understanding the beginning is very important, particularly because another potential spatial threshold - preceding the one the authors describe in the paper - could gate the initial activation of more distal processes, as discussed above. This sequentially earlier spatial threshold could (for example) rely on microdomain interaction with synaptic elements and (in contrast) be IP3R2 independent (Srinivasan et al., 2015, Stobart et al., 2018). We would be interested to know whether, in a subset of astrocytes that meet the structure and latency criteria proposed above and can produce global activation, there is an initial local GCaMP6f response of a minimal size that must occur before propagation towards the soma begins. The data associated with varying stimulus parameters could potentially be useful here and reveal stimulus intensity/duration-dependent differences.

This is a very important point. It is difficult to pinpoint the beginning of the signal, which is why we rely on the average of responses.

1. Whether the propagation in the authors' experimental model is centripetal? This is implied throughout the manuscript but never shown. We think establishing whether (or not) the calcium dynamics are centripetal is important because it would clarify whether spatially adjacent domains within the "arbor" need to be sequentially active before reaching the threshold and then reaching the soma. More broadly, visualizing propagation will help to better visualize summation, which is presumably how the threshold is first reached (and overcome). The alternative hypothesis of a general excitability threshold, as discussed above, would be challenged here and possibly rejected, thereby clarifying the nature of the Ca2+ process that needs to reach a threshold for further expansion to the soma and other parts of the astrocyte.

We agree that our view is centripetal. Indeed, we have found arborization activity precedes soma activity. However, whether this is intrinsic or due to the fact that synapses are more likely to occur in the periphery requires further studies.

1. In complement to the previous point: we understand that the spatial threshold does not per se have a location, but is there some spatial logic underlying the organization of active domains before the soma response occurs? One can easily imagine multiple scenarios of sparse heterogeneous GCaMP6f signal distributions that correspond to {greater than or equal to}22.6% of the arborization, but that would not be expected to trigger soma activation. For example, the diagram in Figure 4C showing the astrocyte response to 2Hz stim (which lacks a soma response) underscores this point. It looks like it has {greater than or equal to}22.6% activation that is sparsely localized throughout the arborization. If an alternative spatial distribution for this activity occurred, such that it localized primarily to a specific process within the arbor, would it be more likely to trigger a soma response?

This is an interesting point and an analysis of spatial clustering on pre-soma domain activation may be useful to answer it.

1. Does "pre-soma" activation predict the location and onset time of "post-soma" activation? For example, are arbor domains that were part of the "pre-soma" response the first to exhibit GCaMP6f signal in the "post-soma" response?

This is another interesting analysis that can be done with a spatial clustering analysis.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Lines et al investigated the integration of calcium signals in astrocytes of the primary somatosensory cortex. Their goal was to better characterize the mechanisms that govern the spatial characteristics of calcium signals in astrocytes. In line with previous reports in the field, they found that most events originated and stayed localized within microdomains in distal astrocyte processes, occasionally coinciding with larger events in the soma, referred to as calcium surges. As a single astrocyte communicates with hundreds of thousands of synapses simultaneously, understanding the spatial integration of calcium signals in astrocytes and the mechanisms governing the latter is of tremendous importance to deepen our understanding of signal processing in the central nervous system. The authors thus aimed to unveil the properties governing the emergence of calcium surges. The main claim of this manuscript is that there would be a spatial threshold of ~23% of microdomain activation above which a calcium surge, i.e. a calcium signal that spreads to the soma, is observed. Although the study provides data that is highly valuable for the community, the conclusions of the current version of the manuscript seem a little too assertive and general compared with what can be deduced from the data and methods used.

The major strength of this study is the experimental approach that allowed the authors to obtain numerous and informative calcium recordings in vivo in the somatosensory cortex in mice in response to sensory stimuli as well as in situ. Notably, they developed an interesting approach to modulating the number of active domains in peripheral astrocyte processes by varying the intensity of peripheral stimulation (its amplitude, frequency, or duration).

We thank the reviewer for their kind and thoughtful review of our study.

The major weakness of the manuscript is the method used to analyze and quantify calcium activity, which mostly relies on the analysis of averaged data and overlooks the variability of the signals measured. As a result, the main claims from the manuscript seem to be incompletely supported by the data. The choice of the use of a custom-made semi-automatic ROI-based calcium event detection algorithm rather than established state-of-the-art software, such as the event-based calcium event detection software AQuA (DOI: 10.1038/s41593-019-0492-2), is insufficiently discussed and may bias the analysis. Some references on this matter include: Semyanov et al, Nature Rev Neuro, 2020 (DOI: 10.1038/s41583-020-0361-8); Covelo et al 2022, J Mol Neurosci (DOI: 10.1007/s12031-022-02006-w) & Wang et al, 2019, Nat Neuroscience (DOI: 10.1038/s41593-019-0492-2). Moreover, the ROIs used to quantify calcium activity are based on structural imaging of astrocytes, which may not be functionally relevant.

Unfortunately, there is no general consensus for calcium analysis in the astrocyte or neuronal field, and many groups use custom made software made in lab or custom software such as GECIquant or AQuA. While AQuA is an event-based calcium event detection software, it may be that not including inactive domains that are SR101 positive could underestimate the spatial threshold for calcium surge. Our data is not based on the functional events but is based on calcium with structural constraints within a single astrocyte. This is crucial to properly determine the ratio of active vs inactive pixels within a single astrocyte.

For the reasons listed above, the manuscript would probably benefit from some rephrasing of the conclusions and a discussion highlighting the advantages and limitations of the methodological approach. The question investigated by this study is of great importance in the field of neuroscience as the mechanisms dictating the spatio-temporal properties of calcium signals in astrocytes are poorly characterized, yet are essential to understand their involvement in the modulation of signal integration within neural circuits.

We thank the reviewer for their suggestions to benefit the conclusions and discussion.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The study aims to elucidate the spatial dynamics of subcellular astrocytic calcium signaling. Specifically, they elucidate how subdomain activity above a certain spatial threshold (~23% of domains being active) heralds a calcium surge that also affects the astrocytic soma. Moreover, they demonstrate that processes on average are included earlier than the soma and that IP3R2 is necessary for calcium surges to occur. Finally, they associate calcium surges with slow inward currents.

Strengths:

The study addresses an interesting topic that is only partially understood. The study uses multiple methods including in vivo two-photon microscopy, acute brain slices, electrophysiology, pharmacology, and knockout models. The conclusions are strengthened by the same findings in both in vivo anesthetized mice and in brain slices.

We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of the study and his/her comments.

Weaknesses:

The method that has been used to quantify astrocytic calcium signals only analyzes what seems to be a small proportion of the total astrocytic domain on the example micrographs, where a structure is visible in the SR101 channel (see for instance Reeves et al. J. Neurosci. 2011, demonstrating to what extent SR101 outlines an astrocyte). This would potentially heavily bias the results: from the example illustrations presented it is clear that the calcium increases in what is putatively the same astrocyte goes well beyond what is outlined with automatically placed small ROIs. The smallest astrocytic processes are an order of magnitude smaller than the resolution of optical imaging and would not be outlined by either SR101 or with the segmentation method judged by the ROIs presented in the figures. Completely ignoring these very large parts of the spatial domain of an astrocyte, in particular when making claims about a spatial threshold, seems inappropriate. Several recent methods published use pixel-by-pixel event-based approaches to define calcium signals. The data should have been analyzed using such a method within a complete astrocyte spatial domain in addition to the analyses presented. Also, the authors do not discuss how two-dimensional sampling of calcium signals from an astrocyte that has processes in three dimensions (see Bindocci et al, Science 2017) may affect the results: if subdomain activation is not homogeneously distributed in the three-dimensional space within the astrocyte territory, the assumptions and findings between a correlation between subdomain activation and somatic activation may be affected.

In order to reduce noise from individual pixels, we chose to segment astrocyte arborizations into domains of several pixels. As pointed out previously, including pixels outside of the SR101-positive territory runs the risk of including a pixel that may be from a neighboring cell, and we chose to avoid this source of error. We agree that the results have limitations from being acquired in 2D instead of 3D, but it is likely to assume the 3D astrocyte is homogeneously distributed and that the 2D plane is representative of the whole astrocyte. Indeed, no dimensional effects were reported in Bindocci et al, Science 2017. We plan to include a paragraph in the discussion to address this limitation in our study.

The experiments are performed either in anesthetized mice, or in slices. The study would have come across as much more solid and interesting if at least a small set of experiments were performed also in awake mice (for instance during spontaneous behavior), given the profound effect of anesthesia on astrocytic calcium signaling and the highly invasive nature of preparing acute brain slices. The authors mention the caveat of studying anesthetized mice but claim that the intracellular machinery should remain the same. This explanation appears a bit dismissive as the response of an astrocyte not only depends on the internal machinery of the astrocyte, but also on how the astrocyte is stimulated: for instance synaptic stimulation or sensory input likely would be dependent on brain state and concurrent neuromodulatory signaling which is absent in both experimental paradigms. The discussion would have been more balanced if these aspects were dealt with more thoroughly.

Yes, we agree that this is a limitation, and we will acknowledge this is in the discussion.

The study uses a heaviside step function to define a spatial 'threshold' for somata either being included or not in a calcium signal. However, Fig 4E and 5D showing how the method separates the signal provide little understanding for the reader. The most informative figure that could support the main finding of the study, namely a ~23% spatial threshold for astrocyte calcium surges reaching the soma, is Fig. 4G, showing the relationship between the percentage of arborizations active and the soma calcium signal. A similar plot should have been presented in Fig 5 as well. Looking at this distribution, though, it is not clear why ~23% would be a clear threshold to separate soma involvement, one can only speculate how the threshold for a soma event would influence this number. Even if the analyses in Fig. 4H and the fact that the same threshold appears in two experimental paradigms strengthen the case, the results would have been more convincing if several types of statistical modeling describing the continuous distribution of values presented in Fig. 4E (in addition to the heaviside step function) were presented.

We agree with the reviewer that we should add to the paper a discussion for our justification on the use of the Heaviside step function, and plan to include this. We chose the Heaviside step function to represent the on/off situation that we observed in the data. We agree with the reviewer that Fig. 4G is informative and demonstrates that under 23% most of the soma fluorescence values are clustered at baseline. We agree that a similar graph should be included in Fig. 5 as well. We agree that a different statistical model describing the data would be more convincing and also confirmed the spatial threshold with the use of a confidence interval in the text.

The description of methods should have been considerably more thorough throughout. For instance which temperature the acute slice experiments were performed at, and whether slices were prepared in ice-cold solution, are crucial to know as these parameters heavily influence both astrocyte morphology and signaling. Moreover, no monitoring of physiological parameters (oxygen level, CO2, arterial blood gas analyses, temperature etc) of the in vivo anesthetized mice is mentioned. These aspects are critical to control for when working with acute in vivo two-photon microscopy of mice; the physiological parameters rapidly decay within a few hours with anesthesia and following surgery.

We will increase the thoroughness of our methods section. Especially including that body temperature and respiration were indeed monitored throughout anesthesia.