Longitudinal assessment of DREADD expression and efficacy in the monkey brain
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife Assessment
This study provides a novel and critically important insight into the long-term use of DREADDs to modulate neuronal activity in nonhuman primates. The methods are compelling, demonstrating the peak dynamics and the subsequent stability of chemogenetic effects for 1.5 years, informing experimental designs and interpretation of highly impactful chemogenetic studies in macaques. The protocols, data, and outcomes can serve as guidelines for future experiments. Therefore, the findings will be of significant interest to the field of chemogenetics and may also be of broader interest to researchers and clinicians who seek to utilize viral vectors and/or related genetic technologies.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
Abstract
Designer Receptors Exclusively Activated by Designer Drugs (DREADDs) offer a powerful means for reversible control of neuronal activity through systemic administration of inert actuators. Because chemogenetic control relies on DREADD expression levels, understanding and quantifying the temporal dynamics of their expression is crucial for planning long-term experiments in monkeys. In this study, we longitudinally quantified in vivo DREADD expression in macaque monkeys using positron emission tomography with the DREADD-selective tracer [ 11 C]deschloroclozapine (DCZ), complemented by functional studies. Twenty macaque monkeys were evaluated after being injected with adeno-associated virus vectors expressing the DREADDs hM4Di or hM3Dq, whose expression was quantified as changes in [ 11 C]DCZ binding potential from baseline levels. Expression levels of both hM4Di and hM3Dq peaked around 60 days post-injection, remained stable for about 1.5 years, and declined gradually after two years. Significant chemogenetic control of neural activity and behavior persisted for about two years. Virus titer and the presence of protein tags significantly influenced expression levels, with co-expressed protein tags reducing overall expression levels. These findings provide valuable insights and guidelines for optimizing the use of DREADDs in long-term primate studies and potential therapeutic applications.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
eLife Assessment
This study provides a novel and critically important insight into the long-term use of DREADDs to modulate neuronal activity in nonhuman primates. The methods are compelling, demonstrating the peak dynamics and the subsequent stability of chemogenetic effects for 1.5 years, informing experimental designs and interpretation of highly impactful chemogenetic studies in macaques. The protocols, data, and outcomes can serve as guidelines for future experiments. Therefore, the findings will be of significant interest to the field of chemogenetics and may also be of broader interest to researchers and clinicians who seek to utilize viral vectors and/or related genetic technologies.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
Inhibitory hM4Di and excitatory hM3Dq DREADDs are currently the most commonly utilized chemogenetic tools in the field of nonhuman primate research, but there is a lack of available information regarding the temporal aspects of virally-mediated DREADD expression and function. Nagai et al. investigated the longitudinal expression and efficacy of DREADDs to modulate neuronal activity in the macaque model. The authors demonstrate that both hM4Di and hM3Dq DREADDs reach peak expression levels after approximately 60 days and are stably expressed for a period of at least 1.5 years in the macaque brain. During this period, DREADDs effectively modulated neuronal activity, as evidenced by a variety of measures, including behavioural testing, functional imaging, and/or electrophysiological recording. Notably, …
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
Inhibitory hM4Di and excitatory hM3Dq DREADDs are currently the most commonly utilized chemogenetic tools in the field of nonhuman primate research, but there is a lack of available information regarding the temporal aspects of virally-mediated DREADD expression and function. Nagai et al. investigated the longitudinal expression and efficacy of DREADDs to modulate neuronal activity in the macaque model. The authors demonstrate that both hM4Di and hM3Dq DREADDs reach peak expression levels after approximately 60 days and are stably expressed for a period of at least 1.5 years in the macaque brain. During this period, DREADDs effectively modulated neuronal activity, as evidenced by a variety of measures, including behavioural testing, functional imaging, and/or electrophysiological recording. Notably, some of the data suggest that DREADD expression may decline after two years. This is a novel finding and has important implications for the utilization of this technology for long-term studies, as well as its potential therapeutic applications. Lastly, the authors highlight that peak DREADD expression may be significantly influenced by the choice of viral titer and the expressed protein tag, emphasizing the importance of careful design and selection of viral constructs for neuroscientific research. This study represents a critical step in the field of chemogenetics, setting the scene for future development and optimization of this technology.
Strengths:
The longitudinal approach of this study provides important preliminary insights into the long-term utility of chemogenetics, which has not yet been thoroughly explored.
The data presented are novel and inclusive, relying on well-established in vivo imaging methods, as well as behavioral and immunohistochemical techniques. The conclusions made by the authors are generally supported by a combination of these techniques. In particular, the utilization of in vivo imaging as a non-invasive method is translationally relevant and likely to make an impact in the field of chemogenetics, such that other researchers may adopt this method of longitudinal assessment in their own experiments. Rigorous standards have been applied to the datasets, and the appropriate controls have been included where possible.
The number of macaque subjects (20) from which data was available is also notable. Behavioral testing was performed in 11 subjects, FDG-PET in 5, electrophysiology in 1, and [11C]DCZ-PET in 15. This is an impressive accumulation of work that will surely be appreciated by the growing community of researchers using chemogenetics in nonhuman primates.
The implication that chemogenetic effects can be maintained for up to 1.5-2 years, followed by a gradual decline beyond this period, is an important development in knowledge. The limited duration of DREADD expression may present an obstacle in the translation of chemogenetic technology as a potential therapeutic tool, and it will be of interest for researchers to explore whether this limitation can be overcome. This study therefore represents a key starting point upon which future research can build.
Weaknesses:
Overall, the conclusions of the paper are mostly supported by the data but may be overstated in some cases, and some details are also missing or not easily recognizable within the figures. The provision of additional information and analyses would be valuable to the reader and may even benefit the authors' interpretation of the data.
The conclusion that DREADD expression gradually decreases after 1.5-2 years is only based on a select few of the subjects assessed; in Figure 2, it appears that only 3 hM4Di cases and 2 hM3Dq cases are assessed after the 2-year timepoint. The observed decline appears consistent within the hM4Di cases, but not for the hM3Dq cases (see Figure 2C: the AAV2.1-hSyn-hM3Dq-IRES-AcGFP line is increasing after 2 years.)
Given that individual differences may affect expression levels, it would be helpful to see additional labels on the graphs (or in the legends) indicating which subject and which region are being represented for each line and/or data point in Figure 1C, 2B, 2C, 5A, and 5B. Alternatively, for Figures 5A and B, an accompanying table listing this information would be sufficient.
While the authors comment on several factors that may influence peak expression levels, including serotype, promoter, titer, tag, and DREADD type, they do not comment on the volume of injection. The range in volume used per region in this study is between 2 and 54 microliters, with larger volumes typically (but not always) being used for cortical regions like the OFC and dlPFC, and smaller volumes for subcortical regions like the amygdala and putamen. This may weaken the claim that there is no significant relationship between peak expression level and brain region, as volume may be considered a confounding variable. Additionally, because of the possibility that larger volumes of viral vectors may be more likely to induce an immune response, which the authors suggest as a potential influence on transgene expression, not including volume as a factor of interest seems to be an oversight.
The authors conclude that vectors encoding co-expressed protein tags (such as HA) led to reduced peak expression levels, relative to vectors with an IRES-GFP sequence or with no such element at all. While interesting, this finding does not necessarily seem relevant for the efficacy of long-term expression and function, given that the authors show in Figures 1 and 2 that peak expression (as indicated by a change in binding potential relative to non-displaced radioligand, or ΔBPND) appears to taper off in all or most of the constructs assessed. The authors should take care to point out that the decline in peak expression should not be confused with the decline in longitudinal expression, as this is not clear in the discussion; i.e. the subheading, "Factors influencing DREADD expression," might be better written as, "Factors influencing peak DREADD expression," and subsequent wording in this section should specify that these particular data concern peak expression only.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary
This paper reports histological, PET imaging, functional, and behavioural data evaluating the longevity of AAV2 infection in multiple brain areas of macaques in the context of DREADD experiments. The central aim is to provide unprecedented information about how long the expression of HM4di or HM3dq receptors is expressed and efficient in modulating brain functions after vector injections. The data show peak expression after 40 to 60 days of vector injection, and stable expressions for up to 1.5 years for hM4di, and that hM3dq remained mostly at 75% of peak after a year, declining to 50% after 2 years. DREADDs effectively modulated neuronal activity and behaviour for approximately two years, evaluated with behavioral testings, neural recordings, or FDG-PET. A statistical evaluation revealed that …
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary
This paper reports histological, PET imaging, functional, and behavioural data evaluating the longevity of AAV2 infection in multiple brain areas of macaques in the context of DREADD experiments. The central aim is to provide unprecedented information about how long the expression of HM4di or HM3dq receptors is expressed and efficient in modulating brain functions after vector injections. The data show peak expression after 40 to 60 days of vector injection, and stable expressions for up to 1.5 years for hM4di, and that hM3dq remained mostly at 75% of peak after a year, declining to 50% after 2 years. DREADDs effectively modulated neuronal activity and behaviour for approximately two years, evaluated with behavioral testings, neural recordings, or FDG-PET. A statistical evaluation revealed that vector titers, DREADD type, and tags contribute to the measured peak level of DREADD expression.
The article presents a thorough discussion of the limitations and specificities of chemogenetic approaches in monkeys.
Strength
These are unique data, in non-human primates (NHP), an animal model that not only features physiological and immunological characteristics similar to humans but also contribute to neurobiological functional studies on a long timescale with experiments spanning months or years. This evaluation of the long-term efficacy of DREADDs will be very important for all laboratories using this approach in NHP but also for future use of such approach in experimental therapies. The longevity estimates are based on multiple approaches including behavioural and neurophysiological ones, thus providing information on the functional efficacy of DREADD expression.
Performing such evaluation requires specific tools like PET imaging that very few monkey labs have access to in the world. This study was done by the laboratory that has developed the radiotracer c11-DCZ used here, a radiotracer binding selectively to DREADDs and providing, using PET, quantitative in vivo measures of DREADD expression. This study and its data should thus be a reference in the field, providing estimates to plan future chemogenetic experiments.
Publishing databases of experimental outcomes in NHP DREADD experiments is crucial for the community because such experiments are rare, expensive, and long. It contributes to refining experiments and reducing the number of animals overall used in the domain.
Weaknesses
This study is a meta-analysis of several experiments performed in one lab. The good side is that it combined a large amount of data that might not have been published individually; the downside is that all things were not planned and equated, creating a lot of unexplained variances in the data. This was yet judiciously used by the authors, but one might think that planned and organized multicentric experiments would provide more information and help test more parameters, including some related to inter-individual variability, and particular genetic constructs.
-
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary
This manuscript, from the developers of the novel DREADD-selective agonist DCZ (Nagai et al., 2020), utilizes a unique dataset where multiple PET scans in a large number of monkeys, including baseline scans before AAV injection, 30-120 days post-injection, and then periodically over the course of the prolonged experiments, were performed to access short- and long-term dynamics of DREADD expression in vivo, and to associate DREADD expression with the efficacy of manipulating the neuronal activity or behavior. The goal was to provide critical insights into the practicality and design of multi-year studies using chemogenetics and to elucidate factors affecting expression stability.
Strengths are systematic quantitative assessment of the effects of both excitatory and inhibitory DREADDs, quantification …
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary
This manuscript, from the developers of the novel DREADD-selective agonist DCZ (Nagai et al., 2020), utilizes a unique dataset where multiple PET scans in a large number of monkeys, including baseline scans before AAV injection, 30-120 days post-injection, and then periodically over the course of the prolonged experiments, were performed to access short- and long-term dynamics of DREADD expression in vivo, and to associate DREADD expression with the efficacy of manipulating the neuronal activity or behavior. The goal was to provide critical insights into the practicality and design of multi-year studies using chemogenetics and to elucidate factors affecting expression stability.
Strengths are systematic quantitative assessment of the effects of both excitatory and inhibitory DREADDs, quantification of both the short-term and longer-term dynamics, a wide range of functional assessment approaches (behavior, electrophysiology, imaging), and assessment of factors affecting DREADD expression levels, such as serotype, promoter, titer (concentration), tag, and DREADD type.
Minor weaknesses are related to a few instances of suboptimal phrasing, and some room for improvement in time course visualization and quantification. These would be easily addressed in a revision.
These findings will undoubtedly have a very significant impact on the rapidly growing but still highly challenging field of primate chemogenetic manipulations. As such, the work represents an invaluable resource for the community.
-
Author response:
Public Reviews:
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Overall, the conclusions of the paper are mostly supported by the data but may be overstated in some cases, and some details are also missing or not easily recognizable within the figures. The provision of additional information and analyses would be valuable to the reader and may even benefit the authors' interpretation of the data.
We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive feedback. We are pleased that the reviewer found the overall conclusions of our paper to be well supported by the data, and we appreciate the suggestions for improving figure clarity and interpretive accuracy. Below we address each point raised:
The conclusion that DREADD expression gradually decreases after 1.5-2 years is only based on a select few of the subjects assessed; in Figure …
Author response:
Public Reviews:
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Overall, the conclusions of the paper are mostly supported by the data but may be overstated in some cases, and some details are also missing or not easily recognizable within the figures. The provision of additional information and analyses would be valuable to the reader and may even benefit the authors' interpretation of the data.
We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive feedback. We are pleased that the reviewer found the overall conclusions of our paper to be well supported by the data, and we appreciate the suggestions for improving figure clarity and interpretive accuracy. Below we address each point raised:
The conclusion that DREADD expression gradually decreases after 1.5-2 years is only based on a select few of the subjects assessed; in Figure 2, it appears that only 3 hM4Di cases and 2 hM3Dq cases are assessed after the 2-year timepoint. The observed decline appears consistent within the hM4Di cases, but not for the hM3Dq cases (see Figure 2C: the AAV2.1-hSyn-hM3Dq-IRES-AcGFP line is increasing after 2 years.)
We agree that our interpretation should be stated more cautiously, given the limited number of cases assessed beyond the two-year timepoint. In the revised manuscript, we will clarify in both the Results and Discussion that the observed decline is based on a subset of animals. We will also state that while a consistent decline was observed in hM4Di-expressing monkeys, the trajectory for hM3Dq expression was more variable—with at least one case showing increased in signal beyond two years.
Given that individual differences may affect expression levels, it would be helpful to see additional labels on the graphs (or in the legends) indicating which subject and which region are being represented for each line and/or data point in Figure 1C, 2B, 2C, 5A, and 5B. Alternatively, for Figures 5A and B, an accompanying table listing this information would be sufficient.
We thank the reviewer for these helpful suggestions. In response, we will revise the relevant figures as noted in the “Recommendations for the authors”, including simplifying visual encodings and improving labeling. We will also provide a supplementary table listing the animal ID and brain regions for each data point shown in the graphs.
While the authors comment on several factors that may influence peak expression levels, including serotype, promoter, titer, tag, and DREADD type, they do not comment on the volume of injection. The range in volume used per region in this study is between 2 and 54 microliters, with larger volumes typically (but not always) being used for cortical regions like the OFC and dlPFC, and smaller volumes for subcortical regions like the amygdala and putamen. This may weaken the claim that there is no significant relationship between peak expression level and brain region, as volume may be considered a confounding variable. Additionally, because of the possibility that larger volumes of viral vectors may be more likely to induce an immune response, which the authors suggest as a potential influence on transgene expression, not including volume as a factor of interest seems to be an oversight.
We thank the reviewer for raising this important issue. We agree that injection volume is a potentially confounding variable. In response, we will conduct an exploratory analysis including volume as an additional factor. We will also expand the Discussion to highlight the need for future systematic evaluation of injection volume, especially in relation to immune responses or transduction efficiency in different brain regions.
The authors conclude that vectors encoding co-expressed protein tags (such as HA) led to reduced peak expression levels, relative to vectors with an IRES-GFP sequence or with no such element at all. While interesting, this finding does not necessarily seem relevant for the efficacy of long-term expression and function, given that the authors show in Figures 1 and 2 that peak expression (as indicated by a change in binding potential relative to non-displaced radioligand, or ΔBPND) appears to taper off in all or most of the constructs assessed. The authors should take care to point out that the decline in peak expression should not be confused with the decline in longitudinal expression, as this is not clear in the discussion; i.e. the subheading, "Factors influencing DREADD expression," might be better written as, "Factors influencing peak DREADD expression," and subsequent wording in this section should specify that these particular data concern peak expression only.
We appreciate this important clarification. In response, we will revise the title to “Factors influencing peak DREADD expression levels”, and we will specify that our analysis focused on peak ΔBPND values around 60 days post-injection. We will also explicitly distinguish these findings from the later-stage changes in expression seen in the longitudinal PET data in both the Results and Discussion sections.
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Weaknesses
This study is a meta-analysis of several experiments performed in one lab. The good side is that it combined a large amount of data that might not have been published individually; the downside is that all things were not planned and equated, creating a lot of unexplained variances in the data. This was yet judiciously used by the authors, but one might think that planned and organized multicentric experiments would provide more information and help test more parameters, including some related to inter-individual variability, and particular genetic constructs.
We thank the reviewer for bringing this important point to our attention. We fully agree that the retrospective nature of our dataset, compiled from multiple studies conducted within a single laboratory, introduces variability due to differences in constructs, injection sites, and timelines. While this reflects the real-world constraints of long-term NHP research, we acknowledge the need for more standardized approaches. We will add a statement in the revised Discussion emphasizing that future multicenter and harmonized studies would be valuable for systematically examining specific parameters and inter-individual variability.
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Minor weaknesses are related to a few instances of suboptimal phrasing, and some room for improvement in time course visualization and quantification. These would be easily addressed in a revision.
These findings will undoubtedly have a very significant impact on the rapidly growing but still highly challenging field of primate chemogenetic manipulations. As such, the work represents an invaluable resource for the community.
We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of our manuscript and for the constructive suggestions noted in the “Recommendations for the authors”. In response, we will carefully review and revise the manuscript to improve visualization and quantification.
-
