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.
The revised manuscript is improved compared to the first iteration. While some concerns have been addressed, my main critique pertaining to ROI approach/sampled area, statistical analyses and anesthesia are in my view still important caveats of the study that I think should have been even more clearly addressed in the manuscript.
Strengths:<br /> 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.
Authors reply: 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 or mostly comprised of extracellular space, and we chose the conservative approach 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 have included a paragraph in the discussion to address this limitation in our study on P15, L23-27:<br /> "The investigation of the spatial threshold could be improved in the future in a number of ways. One being the use of state-of-the-art imaging in 3D(Bindocci et al., 2017). While the original publication using 3D imaging to study astrocyte physiology does not necessarily imply that there would be different calcium dynamics in one axis over another, the three-dimensional examination of the spatial threshold could refine the findings we present here.
Comments on revisions: It is good that 3D imaging aspects are mentioned as a limitation, and I agree that Bindocci et al. do not necessarily suggest that results in this manuscript would have been different if also the third spatial dimension was included in the analyses. However, the way I see it, the added analyses and text changes throughtout still do not adequately address my concern pertaining to basing a spatial threshold on a fraction of the astrocyte territory.
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.
Authors reply: We agree with the reviewer and have added to the paper a discussion for our justification on the use of the Heaviside step function, and have included this in the methods section. We chose the Heaviside step function to represent the on/off situation that we observed in the data that suggested a threshold in the biology. 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 different statistical model describing the data would be more convincing and confirmed the spatial threshold with the use of a confidence interval in the text and supported the use of percent domains active for this threshold over other properties such as spatial or temporal clustering using a general linear model. P18-19, L34-2:<br /> "Heaviside step function<br /> The Heaviside step function below in equation 4 is used to mathematically model the transition from one state to the next and has been used in simple integrate and fire models (Bueno-Orovio et al., 2008; Gerstner, 2000).<br /> π»(π) βΆ=<br /> 0, π < πT<br /> {<br /> 1, π {greater than or equal to} πT<br /> (4)<br /> The Heaviside step function π»(π) is zero everywhere before the threshold area (πT) and one everywhere afterwards. From the data shown in Figure 4E where each point (π(π)) is an individual astrocyte response with its percent area (π) domains active and if the soma was active or not denoted by a 1 or 0 respectively. To determine πT in our data we iteratively subtracted π»(π) from π(π) for all possible values of πT to create an error term over π. The area of the minimum of that error term was denoted the threshold area.
Comments on revisions: Even with the added explanations, I am still not sure that the data show a specific threshold, or that the statistical model enforce a threshold onto the data. The data in Fig. 4G does not in my view clearly show a clear threshold as suggested. The analyses are strengthened with an added statistical modeling, however, the details of the modeling is not presented in the manuscript as far as I can see. As a bare minimum the statistical packages/tools used, the model details and goodness of fit as residual plots must be shown/commented.
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.
Authors reply: We have increased the thoroughness of our methods section. Especially including that body temperature and respiration were indeed monitored throughout anesthesia.
Comments on revisions: Bath temperature for slice experiments, or cutting conditions are still not reported. For the in vivo experiments, it must be commented that this level of physiological monitoring for acute in vivo brain physiology experiments (self breathing, no control of O2/CO2) is barely adequate and could represent a considerable caveat of the study.