Author response:

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors address a fundamental unresolved question in cerebellar physiology: do synapses between granule cells (GCs) and Purkinje cells (PCs) made by the ascending part of the axon (AA) have different synaptic properties from those made by parallel fibers? This is an important question, as GCs integrate sensorimotor information from numerous brain areas with a precise and complex topography.

Summary:

The authors argue that CGs located close to PCs essentially contact PC dendrites via the ascending part of their axons. They demonstrate that joint high-frequency (100 Hz) stimulation of distant parallel fibers and local CGs potentiates AA-PC synapses, while parallel fiber-PC synapses are depressed. On the basis of paired-pulse ratio analysis, they concluded that evoked plasticity was postsynaptic. When individual pathways were stimulated alone, no LRP was observed. This associative plasticity appears to be sensitive to timing, as stimulation of parallel fibers first results in depression, while stimulation of the AA pathway has no effect. NMDA, mGluR1 and GABAA receptors are involved in this plasticity.

Strengths:

Overall, the associative modulation of synaptic transmission is convincing, and the experiments carried out support this conclusion. However, weaknesses limit the scope of the results.

Weaknesses:

One of the main weaknesses of this study is the suggestion that high-frequency parallel-fiber stimulation cannot induce long term potentiation unless combined with AA stimulation. Although we acknowledge that the stimulation and recording conditions were different from those of other studies, according to the literature (e.g. Bouvier et al 2016, Piochon et al 2016, Binda et al, 2016, Schonewille et al 2021 and others), high-frequency stimulation of parallel fibers leads to long-term postsynaptic potentiation under many different experimental conditions (blocked or unblocked inhibition, stimulation protocols, internal solution composition). Furthermore, in vivo experiments have confirmed that high-frequency parallel fibers are likely to induce long-term potentiation (Jorntell and Ekerot, 2002; Wang et al, 2009). This article provides further evidence that long-term plasticity (LTP and LTD) at this connection is a complex and subtle mechanism underpinned by many different transduction pathways. It would therefore have been interesting to test different protocols or conditions to explain the discrepancies observed in this dataset.

Even though this is not the main result of this study, we acknowledge that the control experiments done on PF stimulation add a puzzling result to an already contradictory literature. High frequency parallel fibre stimulation (in isolation) has been shown to induce long term potentiation in vitro, but not always, and most importantly, this has been shown in vivo. This was in fact the reason for choosing that particular stimulation protocol. Examination of in vitro studies, however, show that the results are variable and even contradictory. Most were done in the presence of GABAA receptor antagonists, including the SK channel blocker Bicuculline, whereas in the study by Binda (2016), LTP was blocked by GABAA receptor inhibition. In some studies also, LTP was under the control of NMDAR activation only, whereas in Binda (2016), it was under the control of mGluR activation. Moreover, most experiments were done in mice, whereas our study was done in rats. Our results reveal intricate mechanisms working together to produce plasticity, which are highly sensitive to in vitro conditions. We designed our experiments to be close to physiological conditions, with inhibition preserved and a physiological chloride gradient. It is likely that experimental differences have given rise to the variability of the results and our inability to reproduce PF-LTP, but it was not the aim of this study to dissect the subtleties of the different experimental protocols and models. We will modify the Discussion to describe that point fully including differences in experimental conditions.

Another important weakness is the lack of evidence that the AAs were stimulated. Indeed, without filling the PC with fluorescent dye or biocytin during the experiment, and without reconstructing the anatomical organization, it is difficult to assess whether the stimulating pipette is positioned in the GC cluster that is potentially in contact with the PC with the AAs. According to EM microscopy, AAs account for 3% of the total number of synapses in a PC, which could represent a significant number of synapses. Although the idea that AAs repeatedly contact the same Purkinje cell has been propagated, to the best of the review author's knowledge, no direct demonstration of this hypothesis has yet been published. In fact, what has been demonstrated (Walter et al 2009; Spaeth et al 2022) is that GCs have a higher probability of being connected to nearby PCs, but are not necessarily associated with AAs.

We fully agree with the reviewer that we have not identified morphologically ascending axon synapses, and we stress this fact both in the first paragraph of the Results section, and again at the beginning of Discussion. Our point is mainly topographical, given the well documented geometrical organisation of the cerebellar cortex, and strictly speaking, inputs are local (including ascending axon) or distal (parallel fibre). Similarly, the studies by Isope and Barbour (2002) and Walter et al. (2009), just like Sims and Hartell (2005 and 2006), have coined the term ‘ascending axon’ when drawing conclusions about locally stimulated inputs. Moreover, our results do not rely on or assume multiple contacts, stronger connections, or higher probability of connections between ascending axons and Purkinje cells. Our results only demonstrate a different plasticity outcome for the two types of inputs. Therefore, our manuscript could be rephrased with the terms ‘local’ and ‘distal’ granule cell inputs, but this would have no more implication for the results or the computation performed in Purkinje cells. However, in our experience, this is more confusing to the reader, and as we already stress this point in the manuscript, we do not wish to make this modification. However we will modify the abstract of the manuscript to clarify that point.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors describe a form of synaptic plasticity at synapses from granule cells onto Purkinje cells in the mouse cerebellum, which is specific to synapses proximal to the cell body but not to distal ones. This plasticity is induced by the paired or associative stimulation of the two types of synapses because it is not observed with stimulation of one type of synapse alone. In addition, this form of plasticity is dependent on the order in which the stimuli are presented, and is dependent on NMDA receptors, metabotropic glutamate receptors and to some degree on GABAA receptors. However, under all experimental conditions described, there is a progressive weakening or run-down of synaptic strength. Therefore, plasticity is not relative to a stable baseline, but relative to a process of continuous decline that occurs whether or not there is any plasticity-inducing stimulus.

As highlighted by the reviewer, we observed a postsynaptic rundown of the EPSC amplitude for both input pathways. Rundown could be mistaken for a depression of synaptic currents, not for a potentiation, and the progressive decrease of the EPSC amplitude during the course of an experiment leads to an underestimate of the absolute potentiation. We have taken the view to provide a strong set of control data rather than selecting experiments based on subjective criteria or applying a cosmetic compensation procedure. We have conducted control experiments with no induction (n = 17), which give a good indication of the speed and amplitude of the rundown. Comparison shows a highly significant potentiation of the ascending axon EPSC. Depression of the parallel fibre EPSC, on the other hand, was not significantly different from rundown, and we have not spoken of parallel fibre long term depression. The data show thus very clearly that ascending axon and parallel fibre synapses behave differently following the costimulation protocol.

Strengths:

The focus of the authors on the properties of two different synapse-types on cerebellar Purkinje cells is interesting and relevant, given previous results that ascending and parallel fiber synapses might be functionally different and undergo different forms of plasticity. In addition, the interaction between these two synapse types during plasticity is important for understanding cerebellar function. The demonstration of timing and order-dependent potentiation of only one pathway, and not another, after associative stimulation of both pathways, changes our understanding of potential plasticity mechanisms. In addition, this observation opens up many new questions on underlying intracellular mechanisms as well as on its relevance for cerebellar learning and adaptation.

Weaknesses and suggested improvements:

A concern with this study is that all recordings demonstrate "rundown", a progressive decrease in the amplitude of the EPSC, starting during the baseline period and continuing after the plasticity-induction stimulus. In the absence of a stable baseline, it is hard to know what changes in strength actually occur at any set of synapses. Moreover, the issues that are causing rundown are not known and may or may not be related to the cellular processes involved in synaptic plasticity. This concern applies in particular to all the experiments where there is a decrease in synaptic strength.

We have provided an answer to that point directly below the summary paragraph. Moreover, if the phenomenon causing rundown was involved in plasticity, it should affect plasticity of both inputs, which was not the case, clearly distinguishing the ascending axon and parallel fibre inputs.

The authors should consider changes in the shape of the EPSC after plasticity induction, as in Fig 1 (orange trace) as this could change the interpretation.

Figure 1 shows an average response composed of evoked excitatory and inhibitory synaptic currents. The third section of Supplementary material (supplementary figure 3) shows that this complex shape is given by an EPSC followed by a delayed disynaptic IPSC. We would like to point out that while separating EPSC from IPSC might appear difficult from average traces due to the averaged jitter in the onset of the synaptic currents, boundaries are much clearer when analysing individual traces. In the same section we discuss the results of experiments in which transient applications of SR 95531 before and after the induction protocol allowed us to measure the EPSC, while maintaining the experimental conditions during induction. Analysis of the kinetics of the EPSCs during gabazine application at the beginning and end of experiments, showed that there is no change in the time to peak of both AA and PF response. The decay time of AA and PF EPSC are slightly longer at the end of the experiment, even if the difference is not significant for AA inputs (we will add this analysis to the revised version of the paper). Our analysis, that uses as template the EPSCs kinetics measured at the beginning and at the end of the experiments, takes directly into account these changes. The results show clearly that the presence of disynaptic inhibition doesn’t significantly affect the measure of the peak EPSC after the induction protocol nor the estimate of plasticity.

In addition, the inconsistency with previous results is surprising and is not explained; specifically, that no PF-LTP was induced by PF-alone repeated stimulation.

In our experimental conditions, PF-LTP was not induced when stimulating PF only, the only condition that reproduces experiments in the literature. As discussed in our response to reviewer 1, a close look at the literature, however, reveals variabilities and contradictions behind seemingly similar results. They reveal intricate mechanisms working together to produce plasticity, which are sensitive to in vitro conditions. We designed our experiments to be close to physiological conditions, with inhibition preserved and a physiological chloride gradient. It is likely that experimental differences have given rise to the variability of the results and our inability to observe PF-LTP. We will modify the discussion section to discuss that point fully in the context of past results.

The authors test the role of NMDARs, GABAARs and mGluRs in the phenotype they describe. The data suggest that the form of plasticity described here is dependent on any one of the three receptors. However, the location of these receptors varies between the Purkinje cells, granule cells and interneurons. The authors do not describe a convincing hypothetical model in which this dependence can be explained. They suggest that there is crosstalk between AA and PF synapses via endocannabinoids downstream of mGluR or NO downstream of NMDARs. However, it is not clear how this could lead to the long-term potentiation that they describe. Also, there is no long-lasting change in paired-pulse ratio, suggesting an absence of changes in presynaptic release.

We suggest in the result section that the transient change in paired pulse ratio (PPR) is linked to a transient presynaptic effect only, which has been reported by others. This suggests that the long lasting changes observed are postsynaptic, like other reports with similar trains of stimulation, and we will modify the manuscript to state this clearly.

Concerning the involvement of multiple molecular pathways, investigators often tested for the involvement of NMDAR or mGluRs in cerebellar plasticity, rarely both. Here we showed that both pathways are involved. The conjunctive requirement for NMDAR and mGluR activation can easily be explained based on the dependence of cerebellar LTP and LTD on the concentrations of both NO and postsynaptic calcium (Coesman et al., 2004; Safo and Regehr, 2005; Bouvier et al., 2016; Piochon et al., 2016). NO production has been linked to the activation of NMDARs in granule cell axons (Casado et al., 2002; Bidoret et al., 2009; Bouvier et al., 2016), occasionally in molecular layer interneurones (Kono et al., 2019). NO diffuses to activate Guanylate Cyclase in the Purkinje cell. Based on the literature also, different mechanisms can feed a calcium increase, including mGluRs activation. Therefore NMDARs and mGluRs can reasonably cooperate to control postsynaptic plasticity. The associative nature of AA-LTP is more complex to explain, i.e. the requirement for co-activation of AA and PF inputs, and indicates a necessary cross talk between synaptic sites. We propose that either one of the receptors is absent from AA synapses, and a signal needs to propagate from PF to AA synapses, or that both receptors are present but a signal is required to activate one of the receptors at AA synapses.

We also observed an effect of GABAergic inhibition. GABAergic inhibition was elegantly shown by Binda (2016) to regulate calcium entry together with mGluRs, and control plasticity induction. A similar mechanism could contribute to our results, although inhibition might have additional effects. We will modify the discussion of the manuscript and add a diagram to highlight the links between the different molecular pathways and potential cross talk mechanisms, and the location of receptors.

Is the synapse that undergoes plasticity correctly identified? In this study, since GABAergic inhibition is not blocked for most experiments, PF stimulation can result in both a direct EPSC onto the Purkinje cell and a disynaptic feedforward IPSC. The authors do address this issue with Supplementary Fig 3, where the impact of the IPSC on the EPSC within the EPSC/IPSC sequence is calculated. However, a change in waveform would complicate this analysis. An experiment with pharmacological blockade will make the interpretation more robust. The observed dependence of the plasticity on GABAA receptors is an added point in favor of the suggested additional experiments.

We did consider that due to long recording times there might be kinetic changes, and that’s the reason why the experiments of Supplementary figure 3 were done with pharmacological blockade of GABAAR with gabazine, both before and again after LTP induction. The estimate of the amplitude of the EPSC is based on the actual kinetics of the response at both times.

A primary hypothesis of this study is that proximal, or AA, and distal, or PF, synapses are different and that their association is specifically what drives plasticity. The alternative hypothesis is that the two synapse-types are the same. Therefore, a good control for pairing AA with PF would be to pair AA with AA and PF with PF, thereby demonstrating that pairing with each other is different from pairing with self.

Pairing AA with AA would be difficult because stimulation of AA can only be made from a narrow band below the PC and we would likely end up stimulating overlapping sets of synapses.. However, Figure 5 shows the effect of stimulating PF and PF, while also mimicking the sparse and dense configuration of the usual experiment. It shows that sparse PF do not behave like AA. Sims and Hartell (2006) also made an experiment with sparse PF inputs and observed clear differences between sparse local (AA) and sparse distal (PF) synapses.

It is hypothesized that the association of a PF input with an AA input is similar to the association of a PF input with a CF input. However, the two are very different in terms of cellular location, with the CF input being in a position to directly interact with PF-driven inputs. Therefore, there are two major issues with this hypothesis: 1) how can sub-threshold activity at one set of synapses affect another located hundreds of micrometers away on the same dendritic tree? 2) There is evidence that the CF encodes teaching/error or reward information, which is functionally meaningful as a driver of plasticity at PF synapses. The AA synapse on one set of Purkinje cells is carrying exactly the same information as the PF synapses on another set of Purkinje cells further up and down the parallel fiber beam. It is suggested that the two inputs carry sensory vs. motor information, which is why this form of plasticity was tested. However, the granule cells that lead to both the AA and PF synapses are receiving the same modalities of mossy fiber information. Therefore, one needs to presuppose different populations of granule cells for sensory and motor inputs or receptive field and contextual information. As a consequence, which granule cells lead to AA synapses and which to PF synapses will change depending on which Purkinje cell you're recording from. And that's inconsistent with there being a timing dependence of AA-PF pairing in only one direction. Overall, it would be helpful to discuss the functional implications of this form of plasticity.

We do not hypothesise that association of the AA and PF inputs is similar to the association of PF and climbing fibre inputs. We compare them because it is the only other known configuration triggering associative plasticity in Purkinje cells. We conclude that ‘The climbing fibre is not the only key to associative plasticity’, and it is indeed interesting to observe that even if the inputs are very small compared to the powerful climbing fibre input, they can be effective at inducing plasticity. Physiologically, the climbing fibre signal has been clearly linked to error and reward signals, but reward signals are also encoded by granule cell inputs (Wagner et al., 2017). We will modify the discussion to make sure that we do not suggest equivalence with CF induced LTD.

Moreover, we fully agree that AA and PF synapses made up by a given granule cell carry the same information, and cannot encode sensory and motor information at the same time. Yet, these synapses carry different information. AA synapses from a local granule cell deliver information about the local receptive field, but PF synapses from the same granule cell will deliver contextual information about that receptive field to distant Purkinje cells. In the context of sensorimotor learning, movement is learnt with respect to a global context, not in isolation, therefore learning a particular association must be relevant. The associative plasticity we describe here could help explain this functional association. Difference in timing of the inputs therefore should represent difference in the timing of activation of different granule cells which receive either local information or information from different receptive fields. We will modify the discussion to make sure we do not suggest association between sensory and motor inputs, and clarify our view of local receptive field and context about ongoing activity.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Granule cells' axons bifurcate to form parallel fibers (PFs) and ascending axons (AAs). While the significance of PFs on cerebellar plasticity is widely acknowledged, the importance of AAs remains unclear. In the current paper, Conti and Auger conducted electrophysiological experiments in rat cerebellar slices and identified a new form of synaptic plasticity in the AA-Purkinje cell (PC) synapses. Upon simultaneous stimulation of AAs and PFs, AA-PC EPSCs increased, while PFs-EPSCs decreased. This suggests that synaptic responses to AAs and PFs in PCs are jointly regulated, working as an additional mechanism to integrate motor/sensory input. This finding may offer new perspectives in studying and modeling cerebellum-dependent behavior. Overall, the experiments are performed well. However, there are two weaknesses. First, the baseline of electrophysiological recordings is influenced significantly by run-down, making it difficult to interpret the data quantitatively. The amplitude of AA-EPSCs is relatively small and the run-down may mask the change. The authors should carefully reexamine the data with appropriate controls and statistics. Second, while the authors show AA-LTP depends on mGluR, NMDA receptors, and GABA-A receptors, which cell types express these receptors and how they contribute to plasticity is not clarified. The recommended experiments may help to improve the quality of the manuscript.

As highlighted by the reviewer and developed above in response to reviewer 2, we observed a postsynaptic rundown of the EPSC amplitude. Rundown could be mistaken for a depression of synaptic currents, not for a potentiation. Moreover, we have conducted control experiments with no induction (n = 17), which give a good indication of the speed and amplitude of the rundown, and provide a baseline. Comparison shows a highly significant potentiation of the ascending axon EPSC, relative to baseline and relative to these control experiments. Depression of the parallel fibre EPSC on the other hand was not significantly different from rundown. For that reason we have not spoken of parallel fibre long term depression. The data, however, show that ascending axon and parallel fibre synapses behave very differently following the costimulation protocol.

We have discussed above in our response to reviewer 2 the potential involvement of mGluRs, NMDARs and GABAARs. We will modify the discussion of the manuscript and add a diagram to highlight the links between the different molecular pathways and potential cross talk mechanisms, and the location of receptors.

Figures and data

Associative plasticity of AA and PF inputs

Time dependence of plasticity

Role of NMDARs and mGluRs

GABAA receptor block affects long term plastic changes

Role of the sparse input distribution

GABA_A receptor block affects long term plastic changes