Optogenetic manipulation of Gq- and Gi/o-coupled receptor signaling in neurons and heart muscle cells
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife assessment
This work provides a potentially useful resource for scientists who wish to use optogenetics to manipulate GPCR signalling in larval zebrafish. It compares the physiological effects of different vertebrate and invertebrate rhodopsins expressed in either reticulospinal neurons or cardiomyocytes. The evidence for light-induced effects on behavior (either tail bending or heart beating) is solid, although only limited cell types and conditions are tested.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
- Neuroscience (eLife)
Abstract
G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) transmit signals into cells depending on the G protein type. To analyze the functions of GPCR signaling, we assessed the effectiveness of animal G-protein-coupled bistable rhodopsins that can be controlled into active and inactive states by light application using zebrafish. We expressed Gq- and Gi/o-coupled bistable rhodopsins in hindbrain reticulospinal V2a neurons, which are involved in locomotion, or in cardiomyocytes. Light stimulation of the reticulospinal V2a neurons expressing Gq-coupled spider Rh1 resulted in an increase in the intracellular Ca 2+ level and evoked swimming behavior. Light stimulation of cardiomyocytes expressing the Gi/o-coupled mosquito Opn3, pufferfish TMT opsin, or lamprey parapinopsin induced cardiac arrest, and the effect was suppressed by treatment with pertussis toxin or barium, suggesting that Gi/o-dependent regulation of inward-rectifier K + channels controls cardiac function. These data indicate that these rhodopsins are useful for optogenetic control of GPCR-mediated signaling in zebrafish neurons and cardiomyocytes.
Article activity feed
-
-
Author Response
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
This paper investigates whether bistable rhodopsins can be used to manipulate GPCR signalling in zebrafish. As a first step, the authors compared the performance of bistable rhodopsins fused with a flag tag or with a fluorescent protein tag (TagCFP). Constructs were compared by expressing in HEK cells followed by calcium imaging with aequorin or cAMP monitoring with GloSensor. This showed that the protein with a smaller flag tag performed better. Then, a series of transgenic zebrafish lines were made, in which tagged rhodopsins were expressed in reticulospinal neurons or cardiomyocytes.
The data indicate that bistable rhodopsin can be used to manipulate Gq and Gi/o signalling in zebrafish. The Gq-coupled SpiRh1 was effective in manipulating reticulospinal neurons, as indicated by …
Author Response
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
This paper investigates whether bistable rhodopsins can be used to manipulate GPCR signalling in zebrafish. As a first step, the authors compared the performance of bistable rhodopsins fused with a flag tag or with a fluorescent protein tag (TagCFP). Constructs were compared by expressing in HEK cells followed by calcium imaging with aequorin or cAMP monitoring with GloSensor. This showed that the protein with a smaller flag tag performed better. Then, a series of transgenic zebrafish lines were made, in which tagged rhodopsins were expressed in reticulospinal neurons or cardiomyocytes.
The data indicate that bistable rhodopsin can be used to manipulate Gq and Gi/o signalling in zebrafish. The Gq-coupled SpiRh1 was effective in manipulating reticulospinal neurons, as indicated by analysis of tail movements and calcium imaging of the neurons. Gi/o signalling could be manipulated by Opn3 from mosquitoes, TMT from pufferfish, and parapinopsin from lamprey, as shown by their effects on the heartbeat. Lamprey parapinopsin has the interesting property that it can be turned on and off by different wavelengths of light, and this was used to stop and restart the heart. Finally, the authors show that the cardiac effects are mediated by an inward-rectifier K+ channel, through the use of pharmacological inhibitors.
A strength of this paper is the testing of a range of bistable rhodopsins, with a total of 10 proteins tested. This provides a good resource for future experiments. A weakness is the failure to show that some experiments involved repeated sampling of the same animal. Figure 3 gives the impression that there are 48 independent datapoints. However, there are 8 animals, with 6 datapoints coming from each. Similarly, Figure 4 shows the data from 6 trials of 4 animals, not 24 independent animals. Repeated sampling should be reflected in the data presentation, and in the statistical analysis. Was there an effect of trial number, which is suggested in Figure 6?
In response to the reviewer’s comments, we modified the graph to show the average data for individual animals in Figure 3A-E, Figure 3-supplement 2, Figure 4D-F, H, and Figure 4-supplement 2B. We also showed the effect of trial number (difference between trials 1 and 6) in Figure 3-supplement 1 and Figure 4-supplement 1. In addition, we also showed all data as source data. We believe that more accurate statistical analyses were conducted using data from each individual animal.
Delta F/F refers to relative change, which should be (F-F0)/F0. This should be zero when t = 0. The values in Figure 3E, and 3F are ~ 1 when t = 0, however. Are these figures showing F/F0?
The reviewer is correct. It is indeed F-F0/F0 (ΔF/F0). In Figure 3F (3E in the original manuscript), t=0 was the time when 470-495 nm light (for both stimulation of SpiRh1 and detection of GCaMP6s fluorescence) started to be applied. In the experiment in Figure 3G (3F in the original manuscript), 405 nm light was applied to activate SpiRh1[S186F] for 2 s and then 470-495 nm light was applied to detect GCaMP6s fluorescence. In other words, t=0 is the time when 405 nm light started to be applied.
The authors' conclusions that the bistable rhodopsins are useful tools in the zebrafish system appear largely justified. This is consistent with findings from other organisms, including mouse (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8097317/, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627321001616). The tools here are likely to find broad use by scientists who use the zebrafish as the experimental system for a variety of different areas.
For the studies on LamPP and MosOpn3, we cited the references mentioned by the reviewer. We believe that our study substantiates that LampPP and MosOpn3, as well as other bistable rhodopsins, are valuable tools for zebrafish research, as pointed out by the reviewer.
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
The presented study aims at deciphering the physiological function of GPCR signaling in excitable cells. To this end, the authors developed transgenic zebrafish models expressing a selection of Gq- and Gi/o-coupled bistable rhodopsins in either reticulospinal neurons or cardiomyocytes and elucidated behavioral responses (tail movements) or physiological responses (heartbeat) as well as intracellular Ca2+ dynamics following optical stimulation of rhodopsins.
One of the major strengths of the presented study is the functional comparison of five Gq- and five Gi/o-coupled rhodopsins in two major classes of excitable cells, however; the selection of rhodopsins tested remains elusive. More importantly, it is not obvious why some of the effects of rhodopsin activation were assessed in both neurons and cardiomyocytes, while others were only tested in one of the two systems without further explanation. The main chosen experimental readouts (swimming/tail bending or cardiac contractions) have limited informative value regarding GPCR signaling, as they will only report the peak of the iceberg, namely whether movements are elicited or heartbeats inhibited. No analysis on subtle changes in heart rate and contraction force was included, but such modulation of cardiac activity (e.g. positive or negative chronotropic, inotropic, dromotropic, bathmotropic, and/or lusitropic responses) would represent better the physiological modulation of the heart via GPCR and down-stream signaling events. In line, the presented data only represents behavior at one light intensity tested, whereas a light titration of observed effects could provide more meaningful insight into both rhodopsin responses and signaling mechanisms. Also, the potential promiscuity of G protein activation of selected receptors has not been addressed, neither experimentally nor in the discussion part. As a result of the above-mentioned limitations, it is difficult to follow the logic of the study and especially to interconnect the data obtained in reticulospinal neurons (where activation of jumping spider rhodopsin elicited tail bending) to myocyte data (where three Gi-coupled rhodopsins suppressed cardiac activity). Moreover, as such, the study does not provide explanations on why a certain tool might evoke an effect in one system or the other, or not, which could be the main deliverable of such a comparative analysis.
We are grateful for helpful and insightful comments from the reviewer. We believe that the presentation of experimental findings in the original manuscript may have led to a misunderstanding. We examined the effects of Gq and Gi/o-coupled bistable rhodopsins on both reticulospinal V2a neurons and cardiomyocytes. We observed noticeable effects of Gq rhodopsins on reticulospinal V2a neurons, but no significant effects on cardiomyocytes. Similarly, we found effects of Gi/o-coupled rhodopsins on cardiomyocytes, but no significant effects on reticulospinal V2a neurons. These discrepancies could be attributed to differences in the target cells and experimental conditions, suggesting the need for further optimization. We described the data on page 13, lines 16-22 and page 16, lines 9-10 in the Result section and Table 1, and discussed the relationship between the activity of bistable rhodopsins and their effects on target cells on page 21, lines 6-15 and page 24, line 19-page 25, line 2 in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript.
In order to clarify the function of Gi/o-coupled rhodopsins on the heart in more detail, we conducted experiments in which we activated cardiomyocytes expressing bistable rhodopsins at various light intensities to observe the effects on heartbeats. We analyzed cardiac arrest rate, latency to cardiac arrest, and time to resumption of heartbeat. The results of these experiments are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 4-supplement 2, 3 in the revised manuscript. We described the data on page 15, line 16-page 16, line 1 in the revised manuscript, as follows.
To analyze the photosensitivity of Gi/o-coupled rhodopsins, we applied light of various intensities for 1 s and examine their effect on HBs (Figure 4-supplement 2). Cardiac arrest was induced and sustained for over 20 s after stimulation of MosOpn3 with 0.05 mW/mm2 light for 1 s. Photoactivation of PufTMT and LamPP at lower light intensities (0.2 or 0.05 mW/mm2) resulted in cardiac arrest, but faster HB recovery than stimulation with 0.5 mW/mm2 light (Figure 4-supplement 2). The data indicate that the ability of MosOpn3 to suppress HBs is more photosensitive than PufTMT and LamPP in the zebrafish heart. We further examined atrial-ventricular (AV) conductivity by measuring the time difference between atrial and ventricular contractions before and after light stimulation when HBs had slightly recovered. There was no significant difference in AV conductivity before and after light stimulation (Figure 4-supplement 3).
We performed experiments to the best of our ability with current technology regarding cardiac function. However, we hope that the reviewer is willing to acknowledge that there are certain limitations in conducting a detailed analysis of the zebrafish larval heart, since many experimental techniques, such as electrophysiological analysis, have not yet been fully or effectively established for this animal model.
While the presented data is interesting, the graphical presentation and description of the data are insufficient. Most importantly, the current version of the text does not include a quantitative description of effects and statistical analyses (which are found in the figures and legends!). The lack of quantitative description also extends to both the introduction and discussion, which remain general without a specific dissection of observed effects.
We have described quantitative data in the Result section.
One major concern is the selective citation of own work. While single statements in both the introduction and discussion are supported by up to ten own papers, recent studies using rhodopsins for dissecting GPCR signaling in neurons are not sufficiently discussed and new data is not compared to published results by other teams. Moreover, relevant papers on cardiomyocytes (e.g. PMID: 35579776, 35365606, 34987414, 30894542) are not cited at all, despite the use of similar rhodopsins and/or optogenetic activation of the same signaling pathways. Taking into account these published studies may help to better understand the observed responses.
We apologize for not citing important relevant papers in the original manuscript. We have now cited all four papers (Dai et la., 2022; Wagdi et al., 2022; Cokic et al., 2021; Makowka et al., 2019) mentioned by the reviewer, as well as a new paper describing the use of MosOpn3 and LamPP in C. elegans neurons (Koyanagi et al., 2022) in the Introduction section. We also discussed the differences between our findings and previously published data in the Discussion section.
Additional comment: Data were obtained from larvae zebrafish. It would be useful to include a discussion on how GPCR signaling might be different in adult fish compared to larvae, and how to test whether the observed effects are more generally applicable.
We discussed the differences between the hearts of zebrafish larvae and adults, and the differences in GPCR signaling, on page 27, lines 10-16, as follows. In this study, we used zebrafish larvae to study the role of GPCR signaling in cardiac function, and there are differences in heart structure and function between larvae and adult zebrafish. As a zebrafish grows, blood pressure increases and the heart becomes more complex with the development of valves and ventricular trabeculae. Therefore, GPCR signaling, which regulates heart structure and function, may differ between juvenile and adult fish. Optogenetic manipulation of the heart’s function in adult zebrafish using bistable opsins should clarify this issue.
-
eLife assessment
This work provides a potentially useful resource for scientists who wish to use optogenetics to manipulate GPCR signalling in larval zebrafish. It compares the physiological effects of different vertebrate and invertebrate rhodopsins expressed in either reticulospinal neurons or cardiomyocytes. The evidence for light-induced effects on behavior (either tail bending or heart beating) is solid, although only limited cell types and conditions are tested.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
This paper investigates whether bistable rhodopsins can be used to manipulate GPCR signalling in zebrafish. As a first step, the authors compared the performance of bistable rhodopsins fused with a flag tag or with a fluorescent protein tag (TagCFP). Constructs were compared by expressing in HEK cells followed by calcium imaging with aequorin or cAMP monitoring with GloSensor. This showed that the protein with a smaller flag tag performed better. Then, a series of transgenic zebrafish lines were made, in which tagged rhodopsins were expressed in reticulospinal neurons or cardiomyocytes.
The data indicate that bistable rhodopsin can be used to manipulate Gq and Gi/o signalling in zebrafish. The Gq-coupled SpiRh1 was effective in manipulating reticulospinal neurons, as indicated by analysis of tail movements …
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
This paper investigates whether bistable rhodopsins can be used to manipulate GPCR signalling in zebrafish. As a first step, the authors compared the performance of bistable rhodopsins fused with a flag tag or with a fluorescent protein tag (TagCFP). Constructs were compared by expressing in HEK cells followed by calcium imaging with aequorin or cAMP monitoring with GloSensor. This showed that the protein with a smaller flag tag performed better. Then, a series of transgenic zebrafish lines were made, in which tagged rhodopsins were expressed in reticulospinal neurons or cardiomyocytes.
The data indicate that bistable rhodopsin can be used to manipulate Gq and Gi/o signalling in zebrafish. The Gq-coupled SpiRh1 was effective in manipulating reticulospinal neurons, as indicated by analysis of tail movements and calcium imaging of the neurons. Gi/o signalling could be manipulated by Opn3 from mosquitoes, TMT from pufferfish, and parapinopsin from lamprey, as shown by their effects on the heartbeat. Lamprey parapinopsin has the interesting property that it can be turned on and off by different wavelengths of light, and this was used to stop and restart the heart. Finally, the authors show that the cardiac effects are mediated by an inward-rectifier K+ channel, through the use of pharmacological inhibitors.
A strength of this paper is the testing of a range of bistable rhodopsins, with a total of 10 proteins tested. This provides a good resource for future experiments. A weakness is the failure to show that some experiments involved repeated sampling of the same animal. Figure 3 gives the impression that there are 48 independent datapoints. However, there are 8 animals, with 6 datapoints coming from each. Similarly, Figure 4 shows the data from 6 trials of 4 animals, not 24 independent animals. Repeated sampling should be reflected in the data presentation, and in the statistical analysis. Was there an effect of trial number, which is suggested in Figure 6?
Delta F/F refers to relative change, which should be (F-F0)/F0. This should be zero when t = 0. The values in Figure 3E, and 3F are ~ 1 when t = 0, however. Are these figures showing F/F0?
The authors' conclusions that the bistable rhodopsins are useful tools in the zebrafish system appear largely justified. This is consistent with findings from other organisms, including mouse (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8097317/, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627321001616). The tools here are likely to find broad use by scientists who use the zebrafish as the experimental system for a variety of different areas.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
The presented study aims at deciphering the physiological function of GPCR signaling in excitable cells. To this end, the authors developed transgenic zebrafish models expressing a selection of Gq- and Gi/o-coupled bistable rhodopsins in either reticulospinal neurons or cardiomyocytes and elucidated behavioral responses (tail movements) or physiological responses (heartbeat) as well as intracellular Ca2+ dynamics following optical stimulation of rhodopsins.
One of the major strengths of the presented study is the functional comparison of five Gq- and five Gi/o-coupled rhodopsins in two major classes of excitable cells, however; the selection of rhodopsins tested remains elusive. More importantly, it is not obvious why some of the effects of rhodopsin activation were assessed in both neurons and …
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
The presented study aims at deciphering the physiological function of GPCR signaling in excitable cells. To this end, the authors developed transgenic zebrafish models expressing a selection of Gq- and Gi/o-coupled bistable rhodopsins in either reticulospinal neurons or cardiomyocytes and elucidated behavioral responses (tail movements) or physiological responses (heartbeat) as well as intracellular Ca2+ dynamics following optical stimulation of rhodopsins.
One of the major strengths of the presented study is the functional comparison of five Gq- and five Gi/o-coupled rhodopsins in two major classes of excitable cells, however; the selection of rhodopsins tested remains elusive. More importantly, it is not obvious why some of the effects of rhodopsin activation were assessed in both neurons and cardiomyocytes, while others were only tested in one of the two systems without further explanation. The main chosen experimental readouts (swimming/tail bending or cardiac contractions) have limited informative value regarding GPCR signaling, as they will only report the peak of the iceberg, namely whether movements are elicited or heartbeats inhibited. No analysis on subtle changes in heart rate and contraction force was included, but such modulation of cardiac activity (e.g. positive or negative chronotropic, inotropic, dromotropic, bathmotropic, and/or lusitropic responses) would represent better the physiological modulation of the heart via GPCR and down-stream signaling events. In line, the presented data only represents behavior at one light intensity tested, whereas a light titration of observed effects could provide more meaningful insight into both rhodopsin responses and signaling mechanisms. Also, the potential promiscuity of G protein activation of selected receptors has not been addressed, neither experimentally nor in the discussion part. As a result of the above-mentioned limitations, it is difficult to follow the logic of the study and especially to interconnect the data obtained in reticulospinal neurons (where activation of jumping spider rhodopsin elicited tail bending) to myocyte data (where three Gi-coupled rhodopsins suppressed cardiac activity). Moreover, as such, the study does not provide explanations on why a certain tool might evoke an effect in one system or the other, or not, which could be the main deliverable of such a comparative analysis.
While the presented data is interesting, the graphical presentation and description of the data are insufficient. Most importantly, the current version of the text does not include a quantitative description of effects and statistical analyses (which are found in the figures and legends!). The lack of quantitative description also extends to both the introduction and discussion, which remain general without a specific dissection of observed effects.
One major concern is the selective citation of own work. While single statements in both the introduction and discussion are supported by up to ten own papers, recent studies using rhodopsins for dissecting GPCR signaling in neurons are not sufficiently discussed and new data is not compared to published results by other teams. Moreover, relevant papers on cardiomyocytes (e.g. PMID: 35579776, 35365606, 34987414, 30894542) are not cited at all, despite the use of similar rhodopsins and/or optogenetic activation of the same signaling pathways. Taking into account these published studies may help to better understand the observed responses.
Additional comment: Data were obtained from larvae zebrafish. It would be useful to include a discussion on how GPCR signaling might be different in adult fish compared to larvae, and how to test whether the observed effects are more generally applicable.
-
