Skip to main content
PLOS Computational Biology logoLink to PLOS Computational Biology
. 2023 Apr 17;19(4):e1010993. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010993

Dual contribution of ASIC1a channels in the spinal processing of pain information by deep projection neurons revealed by computational modeling

Magda Chafaï 1, Ariane Delrocq 1,2, Perrine Inquimbert 3, Ludivine Pidoux 1, Kevin Delanoe 1, Maurizio Toft 1, Frederic Brau 1, Eric Lingueglia 1, Romain Veltz 2,*, Emmanuel Deval 1,*
Editor: Daniele Marinazzo4
PMCID: PMC10109503  PMID: 37068087

Abstract

Dorsal horn of the spinal cord is an important crossroad of pain neuraxis, especially for the neuronal plasticity mechanisms that can lead to chronic pain states. Windup is a well-known spinal pain facilitation process initially described several decades ago, but its exact mechanism is still not fully understood. Here, we combine both ex vivo and in vivo electrophysiological recordings of rat spinal neurons with computational modeling to demonstrate a role for ASIC1a-containing channels in the windup process. Spinal application of the ASIC1a inhibitory venom peptides mambalgin-1 and psalmotoxin-1 (PcTx1) significantly reduces the ability of deep wide dynamic range (WDR) neurons to develop windup in vivo. All deep WDR-like neurons recorded from spinal slices exhibit an ASIC current with biophysical and pharmacological characteristics consistent with functional expression of ASIC1a homomeric channels. A computational model of WDR neuron supplemented with different ASIC1a channel parameters accurately reproduces the experimental data, further supporting a positive contribution of these channels to windup. It also predicts a calcium-dependent windup decrease for elevated ASIC conductances, a phenomenon that was experimentally validated using the Texas coral snake ASIC-activating toxin (MitTx) and calcium-activated potassium channel inhibitory peptides (apamin and iberiotoxin). This study supports a dual contribution to windup of calcium permeable ASIC1a channels in deep laminae projecting neurons, promoting it upon moderate channel activity, but ultimately leading to calcium-dependent windup inhibition associated to potassium channels when activity increases.

Author summary

This work combines both ex vivo and in vivo electrophysiology to pharmacological approaches with animal toxins and computational modeling to report an unexpected dual participation of Acid-Sensing Ion Channels (ASICs) to the spinal pain facilitation process called windup. We demonstrate a functional expression of particular calcium permeable ASIC subtypes in spinal neurons associated to windup in deep dorsal horn laminae, and show that the in vivo spinal application of ASIC inhibitory toxins significantly reduces windup. A computational model of these neurons that includes ASIC and synaptic acidification parameters, reproduces experimental data with a windup increase when ASICs are progressively added to the model. But the model also unexpectedly predicts a windup decrease for high ASIC conductances, which has been experimentally validated in vivo using a potent pharmacological ASIC activator. Our experimental and computational data therefore support a bell-shaped modulation of spinal windup by ASICs, with a positive contribution for low to moderate activity but a negative calcium-dependent impact when their activity is strongly increased.

Introduction

Dorsal horn of the spinal cord is a key point of the pain neuraxis where sensory-nociceptive information, coming from the periphery, enters the central nervous system to be integrated, processed, and sent to the brain. It consists of an extremely complex neuronal network organized in different laminae (laminae I to VI), including different types of projection neurons as well as excitatory/inhibitory interneurons (for review, see [1]). The complexity of dorsal spinal cord neuronal network not only lies on its architecture and its great neuronal diversity, but also on the fact it receives various sensory and nociceptive inputs from the periphery, and that it is modulated by descending pathways from supra-spinal levels. Spinal inputs come from peripheral Aβ, Aδ and C fibers and, importantly, these inputs can be subject to different facilitation/sensitization processes, leading to pain hypersensitivity and allodynia (for reviews, see [2,3]). These processes generally result from intense and repetitive noxious inputs and are associated with neuronal plasticity that sensitizes spinal neurons by increasing their spontaneous activity, decreasing their activation threshold, amplifying their response to stimuli and/or enlarging their receptive fields. Sensitized states can be long-lasting but are normally not permanent. However, they can also be associated to chronic pain states of clinical relevance [4], when pain loses its physiological protective function to fall into pathology.

Much progress has been made over the last decades in the understanding of spinal facilitation/sensitization molecular mechanisms, including windup, which is a “short term” facilitation process typical of wide dynamic range (WDR) projecting neurons [5]. Windup is a homosynaptic facilitation process of C-fiber inputs following peripheral low-frequency repetitive stimulations, resulting in a progressive increase of the number of action potentials (APs) evoked by WDR neurons [2]. Although windup and central sensitization share common properties, they are not equivalent but windup can lead to some aspects of central sensitization [6]. Therefore, windup remains an interesting way to study the processing of nociceptive information by spinal cord neurons (for reviews see, [2,7]). Many factors have been reported to contribute to and/or to modulate windup, among which the most important appear to be NMDA receptors [8,9], neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptors [10] and L-type calcium channels [1113].

ASICs (Acid-Sensing Ion channels) are voltage-independent cationic channels mainly selective for Na+ ions [14]. These channels are gated by protons, i.e., they are sensors of extracellular pH. Several ASIC subunits have been identified in mammals (ASIC1 to ASIC4, for reviews see [15,16]), which assemble as trimers [17] to form functional channels, including homomers and heteromers [18]. ASICs are widely expressed in the nervous system and are found throughout the pain neuraxis, including in spinal neurons of the dorsal horn [1921]. The discovery and in vivo use of pharmacological tools able to modulate their activities (for review see [22]) have largely contributed to a body of proofs arguing for the involvement of these channels in pain, both in humans [23,24], and mainly in animal models of pain, either at the peripheral or the central level [2530]. Interestingly, peptides isolated from animal venoms, which remain so far the most specific pharmacological tools able to modulate particular subtypes of ASICs [28,3133], were reported to have strong analgesic or painful effects in animals [2528,31,34,35], depending on whether they inhibit or activate the channels, respectively. ASICs are thus interesting pharmacological targets for pain, but if their role in peripheral sensory neurons is relatively well documented, little is known about their participation in pain processes in the central nervous system. For instance, while pharmacological inhibition of ASICs at the spinal cord level is known to produce potent analgesia [20,28,34], the mechanism of this effect still remains poorly understood.

In this work, we investigated the role of spinal ASICs, which are mainly formed by ASIC1a-containing channels [1921], in the processing of pain information. By combining both in vivo and ex vivo neurophysiological approaches with pharmacology and computational modeling, we propose that ASIC1a homomeric channels in deep laminae projecting neurons participate to the spinal windup facilitation process with dual promoting and inhibitory contributions depending on their activity.

Results

Pharmacological inhibition of ASIC1a-type channels in the dorsal spinal cord decreases the evoked activity of WDR neurons

To study the in vivo role of spinal ASICs in the processing of sensory and nociceptive inputs, extracellular recordings of dorsal horn neurons (DH neurons) were performed on anesthetized rats (Figs 1 and S1 and S2). ASIC1a homomeric and ASIC1a/ASIC2 heteromeric channels have been reported to be predominant in dorsal spinal cord neurons [1921]. In vivo recordings of DH neurons were thus combined with the use of mambalgin-1 and PcTx1, two inhibitory peptides specific for ASIC1-type channels, including ASIC1a homomers [28,33] and ASIC1a/ASIC2 heteromers [28,3638], with nanomolar to few hundred nanomolar affinities. The combination of two independent selective inhibitors both increased the specificity of our results and allowed to gain information on the ASIC1a channel subtypes involved because of their partially overlapping pharmacological profiles. WDR neurons were classically identified according to their ability to evoke action potential (AP) firing in response to both innocuous (brush) and noxious (pinch) mechanical stimulations of their receptive fields on rat hind-paws (Fig 1A). A windup protocol was designed (16 repetitive electrical stimulations at 1 Hz) and applied onto the receptive fields of WDR neurons every 10 minutes, before (control) and after spinal application of mambalgin-1 (Fig 1B–1E) or PcTx1 (Fig 1F–1H). In control conditions, the number of APs evoked by C-fibers increased, as expected, with the number of stimulations, and the maximal windup was reached between the 13th and the 16th stimulation (Fig 1C and 1F). Spinal application of mambalgin-1 for 10 min drastically reduced the C-fiber induced windup by approximately 50% (Fig 1C), i.e., 44% and 55% depending on whether the percentage of inhibition was calculated from the total number of AP (Fig 1D), or from the area under curve (Fig 1E), respectively. Interestingly, it also slightly but significantly decreased by 21% the number of APs at the input, which corresponds to the number of APs evoked by WDR neurons at the first stimulation (Fig 1C, inset). The same kind of effects was also obtained when PcTx1 was delivered at the spinal level (Fig 1F–1H). Indeed, windup was inhibited by 57% or 60% in terms of total number of AP or AUC, respectively (Fig 1G and 1H). Moreover, PcTx1 also affected the input, with a 47% decrease of the number of AP induced at the first stimulation (Fig 1F, inset).

Fig 1. Windup inhibition induced by spinal application of ASIC1a channel blockers.

Fig 1

A, Schematic representation of the in vivo electrophysiological method used to record WDR neurons from anesthetized rat. Receptive fields of neurons are stimulated either mechanically (brush, pinch) or electrically. B, Typical electrophysiological recording of a WDR neuron obtained following 16 electrical repetitive stimulations of its receptive field at 1Hz (windup protocol, see methods), before (control, top trace) and after spinal application of 30μM mambalgin-1 (bottom trace). C, Windup curves representing the number of C fiber-evoked APs for each of the 16 repetitive electrical stimulations in basal conditions (control, 1st), and after 10 min spinal application of mambalgin-1 (2nd, n = 13, **, *** and **** significantly different with p<0.01, p<0.001 and p<0.0001, respectively, two-way ANOVA followed by a Sidak multiple comparison test). The inset shows the average number of APs evoked by the first electrical stimulation, i.e., before establishment of windup (n = 13, *p<0.05, paired t test). D and E, Statistical analyses of the total number of AP evoked by C fibers during a windup protocol (D), and of the global windup estimated as the area under curves (AUC, E) from the data shown C (n = 13, ***p<0.001 and ****p<0.0001, paired t tests). F, Windup curves representing the number of C fiber-evoked AP for each of the 16 repetitive electrical stimulations in control (1st) condition and after spinal application of 30μM PcTx1 (2nd, n = 15, **, *** and **** significantly different with p<0.01, p<0.001 and p<0.0001, respectively, two-way ANOVA followed by a Sidak multiple comparison test). The inset shows the average number of AP evoked by the first electrical stimulation (n = 15, **p<0.01, paired t test). G and H, Statistical analyses of the total number of AP evoked by C fibers during a windup protocol (G), and of the global windup estimated as the area under curves (AUC, H) from the data shown F (n = 15, ****p<0.0001, paired t tests).

Spinal application of mambalgin-1 or PcTx1 also affected the Aβ- and Aδ-evoked activities in WDR neurons (S1 Fig), with small inhibitions of associated firings. Indeed, the firing induced by brushing (S1A Fig), which can be related to Aβ-fibers, was decreased by 20% in the presence of mambalgin-1, while PcTx1 had no effect (S1B Fig, p = 0.07 and p = 0.31, respectively). Moreover, both mambalgin-1 and PcTx1 significantly reduced the total number of AP induced by Aδ-fibers during the windup protocol (by 26% and 44%, respectively, S1C and S1D Fig).

All together, these results obtained with two independent selective inhibitors of ASIC1a channel subtypes demonstrate that spinal ASIC1a contribute to the integration of C-fiber inputs and associated windup. In addition, an involvement of either ASIC1a homomers or ASIC1a/ASIC2 heteromers is suggested from the partially overlapping pharmacological profiles of mambalgin-1 and PcTx1, which strongly affect ASIC1a homomeric channels [28,33] and have also been reported to be able to inhibit ASIC1a/ASIC2 heteromers [28,3638] under specific conditions for PcTx1 [3638].

ASIC1a channel subtypes are functionally expressed in large WDR-like neurons from deep laminae V

To further investigate the contribution of spinal ASIC channels to WDR neuron activity, patch-clamp experiments were performed on spinal cord slices (Fig 2). Electrophysiological recordings were made in deep laminae V to record and characterize native ASIC currents in large neurons, which most likely correspond to the WDR neurons [39] studied in vivo (Fig 1). All the neurons recorded displayed an ASIC-type current in response to extracellular acidification from pH7.3 to pH6.6 (Fig 2A), with an average amplitude of 242 ± 37pA and an inactivation time constant of 1,536 ± 98ms (Fig 2B, left panel). Such inactivation kinetics were in the range of those of homomeric ASIC1a (Fig 2B, right panel) and heteromeric ASIC1a/ASIC2 [18,26] channels. On the other hand, the native ASIC current had a stable amplitude over time and no tachyphylaxis phenomenon [36,40] was observed upon repetitive activation at pH6.6 (Fig 2C), which was different from what has been classically described for ASIC1a homomeric channels [36,40], and to what was observed here in HEK293 cells transfected with ASIC1a (Fig 2C, inset). Tachyphylaxis has been reported to be absent in ASIC1a heteromeric channels containing the ASIC2 subunit [36,40], which would suggest that the native ASIC currents recorded from deep laminae neurons could be carried by ASIC1a/ASIC2 heteromers. However, native ASIC currents were almost completely blocked by extracellular applications of mambalgin-1 (1μM) and PcTx1 (30nM), although the conditions used are not supposed to lead to heteromer inhibition by the PcTx1 toxin [36,37] (Fig 2A and 2D).

Fig 2. Characterization of a native ASIC1a-type current in deep projection neurons from laminae V.

Fig 2

A, Typical voltage-clamp recordings of deep projection neurons (laminae V) obtained from spinal cord slices following extracellular acidifications from pH7.3 to pH6.6. Extracellular applications of the ASIC1a inhibitory peptides PcTx1 (30nM) or mambalgin-1 (1μM) both decrease the amplitude of native pH6.6-induced currents. B, Inactivation kinetics of native pH6.6-induced currents recorded in spinal neurons (native) are compared to those of ASIC1a homomeric currents form HEK293 transfected cells (form pH7.4 to 6.6). Inactivation rates (τ) were obtained by fitting current inactivation decays with a mono-exponential (n = 23 and 20 for spinal neurons and ASIC1a-HEK293 cells, respectively, p = 0.2399, unpaired t-test). C, Peak amplitude of the native ASIC current recorded in neurons following four consecutive pH6.6 extracellular acidifications (from 7.3 to 6.6 every 60s). Amplitudes are normalized to the first pH6.6-evoked current (n = 14, no significant tachyphylaxis process with p = 0.1882, one-way ANOVA test followed by a Dunnet’s post hoc test). Inset shows the same experiment performed on ASIC1a homomeric current recorded in HEK293 cells (from 7.4 to 6.6 every 60s, n = 20, significant tachyphylaxis process with ***p<0.001 and ****p<0.0001, one-way ANOVA test followed by a Dunnet’s post hoc test). D, Statistical analysis of both PcTx1 (30nM) and mambalgin-1 (1μM) effects on the native pH6.6-induced current amplitudes recorded as in A (n = 9 and 5, respectively, ****p<0.0001, paired Student t-test).

To further investigate the effects of PcTx1 on homomeric ASIC1a and heteromeric ASIC1a/ASIC2 channels, HEK293 cells were transfected with either ASIC1a alone or ASIC1a in combination with ASIC2a or ASIC2b subunits (Fig 3). The three different channel subtypes were clearly distinguishable according to their pH5.0-evoked currents, with a significant increase of the sustained/transient current ratio for ASIC1a/ASIC2a and ASIC1a/ASIC2b heteromers compared to ASIC1a homomeric channels (Fig 3A and 3B).The pH-dependence for activation was also different between the three ASIC1a channel subtypes, with a lower sensitivity for hereromers compared to the homomer as indicated by the pH6.6/pH5.0 current ratio (S2A Fig). Importantly, we found that ASIC1a homomer was the only ASIC1a channel subtype to be inhibited by PcTx1 in our conditions (Fig 3C), while mambalgin-1 inhibited both homomeric ASIC1a and heteromeric ASIC1a/ASIC2 channels as previously described [28] (Fig 3D).

Fig 3. Effects of PcTx1 and mambalgin-1 on ASIC1a homomeric and heteromeric channels.

Fig 3

A, Typical ASIC1a, ASIC1a/2a and ASIC1a/2b currents recorded at -50 mV from HEK293 transfected cells following extracellular acidification to pH5.0. B, Statistical analysis of the current densities recorded in A. Both the transient (tr) and sustained (sst) currents were measured, and the ratio sst/tr is represented on the bargraph on the bottom right (n = 8–25, One-way ANOVA with p<0.0001 followed by a Tukey’s multiple comparison test, **** p<0.0001). C-D, Effects of PcTx1 (30 nM or 300 nM) and mambalgin-1 (1μM) on pH-evoked ASIC1a (pH7.4 to pH6.0), ASIC1a/2a (pH7.4 to pH6.0) and ASIC1a/2b (pH8.0 to pH6.0) currents (n = 5–11).

Altogether, these data demonstrate for the first time that ASIC1a channel subtypes are functionally expressed in deep WDR neurons from laminae V, which is fully consistent with their participation to C-fiber input integration and windup. The properties of native ASIC1a-type currents, i.e. kinetics and more importantly pharmacological inhibition by both mambalgin-1 and PcTx1, suggest the expression of ASIC1a homomers rather than heteromers (i.e., ASIC1a/ASIC2 channels) in these neurons.

Computational model of WDR neuron including ASIC1a channel parameters and acidification of the synaptic cleft

A mathematical model of WDR neurons and windup was initially described by Aguiar and colleagues [41], and was later taken over by Radwani and colleagues [13] to help demonstrate the involvement of Cav1.3 channels in the genesis of windup. We decided to take advantage of this model to help us understand the role of ASIC1a channels in the processing of C-fiber input and windup in WDR neurons (Figs 4 and S3). In this model, a WDR neuron receives a direct input from an Aδ-fiber as well as an input from a C-fiber through an interneuron (S3A Fig). With this model, we were able to fully reproduce the windup described by Aguiar and colleagues [41], including the windup inhibition when NK1 ion channel parameters were modified (S3B Fig). The C-fiber-induced spiking activity predicted by the WDR neuron model was then compared to our experimental results, i.e., an average of about 30 neurons recorded in control conditions. The spike time plot (S3C and S3D Fig) indicated that the model fitted better to experimental data when the interneuron between C-fibers and WDR neuron was removed. We thus decided to use a simplified model without interneuron (Fig 4A) to further study the involvement of ASIC1a in the windup process.

Fig 4. Computational model of WDR neuron with ASIC1a channel parameters and a synaptic cleft acidification system.

Fig 4

A, Schematic representation of the computational model used, with a WDR projection neuron receiving directly a 20-synapse connection from both Aδ-fibers and C-fibers. B, Simulation curve showing the evolution of synaptic pH as a function of time during windup-inducing stimulations. C, Simulation windup curves obtained without (control, no ASIC, black dots) and with moderate homomeric ASIC1a conductances (g is 0.01nS, 0.05nS, 0.1nS and 0.2nS, green squares). D, Simulation windup curves obtained in control condition (no ASIC, black dots) and with high homomeric ASIC1a conductances (0.2nS, 1nS and 1.4nS, full squares). E, Simulation windup curves obtained without (control, no ASIC, black dots) and with moderate heteromeric ASIC1a conductances g is 0.4nS, 0.8nS, 1.5nS and 3nS, green squares). F, Simulation windup curves obtained in control condition (no ASIC, black dots) and with high heteromeric ASIC1a conductances (3nS and 15nS, full squares). Compared to control, gradually adding homomeric or heteromeric ASIC1a channels first increases windup, then decreases it. Removing the calcium conductance in ASIC parameters (same conductances, open squares) suppresses the inhibitory effect of high ASIC conductances and strongly potentiates windup.

The WDR model was supplemented with either native ASIC1a homomeric or ASIC1a heteromeric channel parameters based on a recently described ASIC1a model [42] and previous data obtained in cultured rat spinal cord neurons [19] (see material and methods). A small calcium conductance was included to account for reported ASIC-mediated intracellular calcium increase ([14] and S2B Fig). Furthermore, as ASICs are proton-gated ion channels, we also needed to introduce a model of synaptic cleft acidification in our WDR neuron model. This particular point was achieved according to the work of Highstein and colleagues [43], where the synaptic pH is controlled by (i) a buffer, (ii) a homeostatic system that tends to bring the pH to the physiological value of 7.4 and, (iii) a proton current entering the synapse that generates acidification during synaptic activity (see material and methods). Using this model of synaptic pH control, the predicted acidification during a windup protocol is described in Fig 4B.

Including native ASIC1a homomeric channel parameters in our WDR neuron model progressively increased the windup as the total ASIC conductance increased to 0.2nS (Fig 4C), in good agreement with experimental data showing a windup decrease following spinal application of mambalgin-1 or PcTx1 (Fig 1). However, when further increasing the ASIC1a conductance up to 1.4nS, the model showed progressive suppression of the windup (Fig 4D). We hypothesized that this effect was due to the ASIC-mediated increase of intracellular calcium concentration and subsequent activation of the hyperpolarizing calcium-dependent K+ channels present in the model (S7 Fig). This was supported by the fact that removing the Ca2+ permeability of ASICs restored the windup increase (Fig 4D).

Including native ASIC1a heteromeric parameters in our WDR neuron model gave qualitatively similar results, although within higher conductance range: a windup potentiation when ASIC conductance progressively increased up to 3nS, and a calcium-dependent windup decrease associated to higher ASIC conductances (Fig 4E and 4F). The ASIC conductance levels used in our models were in the range of the native ASIC1a-type global conductance estimated in WDR neurons (Fig 2), assuming the mean current amplitude recorded at -80 mV and a classical reversal potential of +50 mV (~ 2nS).

The mathematical model described here was thus fully consistent with an involvement in the windup process of homomeric or heteromeric ASIC1a-containing channels located in WDR neurons at the post-synapse with C-fibers. It also suggested a “bell-shape” participation of calcium-permeable ASIC1a to windup, with both positive and negative effects associated to low/medium and high conductances, respectively.

Maximal activation of spinal ASIC1a channel subtypes inhibits windup through calcium-dependent K+ channels

Our mathematical model predicted windup inhibition for high conductances of ASIC1a channels in WDR neurons, involving ASIC1a-associated calcium entry and likely subsequent activation of calcium-dependent K+ channels. This hypothesis was tested experimentally by using MitTx (Fig 5), a peptide toxin with potent activating effects on ASICs and particularly ASIC1a channels [31]. MitTx was indeed reported to generate a maximal and persistent activation of the channels as well as a potent calcium response in neurons, which was abolished in ASIC1a knockout mice. Spinal application of MitTx induced a dose-dependent inhibition of windup (Fig 5A and 5B), in agreement with the effect predicted by our computational model. This effect started at 10-7M / 5.10-7M and reached a maximum at 10-6M. Inhibition of windup by MitTx was partially reversible upon washout (up to ~50% of control after 40 min of washout, Fig 1B). The computational model was next configured to mimic the experimental effect of MitTx, i.e., with a sustained activation of ASIC channels at medium conductance, rather than very high conductances with normal dynamics (Fig 5C). This simulation confirmed that MitTx inhibits windup, in good agreement with experimental data.

Fig 5. The ASIC1a activator MitTx inhibits windup in vivo.

Fig 5

A-B, Spinal applications of MitTx (2nd) dose dependently and reversibly inhibits windup (n = 5–9; panel A: *p<0.05, **p<0.01 and ****p<0.0001 for control vs. MitTx 10−6 M, #p<0.05, ##p<0.01 and ####p<0.0001 for control vs. MitTx 5.10−7 M, &p<0.05, &&p<0.01, &&&p<0.001 and &&&&p<0.0001 for control vs. MitTx 10−7 M, $$p<0.01 and $$$p<0.001 for control vs. MitTx 5.10−8 M; panel B: *p<0.05, **p<0.01 and ***p<0.001 as compared to control (1st), respectively; Mixed-effect analyses followed by Dunnet’s multiple comparison tests). C, Simulation of the effect of MitTx on windup (Control: no ASIC conductance; with ASIC: with a native homomeric ASIC1a conductance of 0.2nS; with ASIC+MitTx: sustained full activation (without inactivation) of ASIC1a with a same conductance of 0.2nS). Note that because the ASIC channel is constitutively and fully activated, the outcome of this simulation does not depend on the pH and dynamics of the channel, and is therefore the same for all ASIC types (homomeric, heteromeric). D-E, The inhibitory effect of MitTx 5.10-7M is abolished by spinal pre- and co-application of the KCa blockers apamin and iberiotoxin (D, 10-6M each). Removing these two blockers restored the windup inhibition induced by MitTx (application sequence: control / Apamin+IberioTx / Apamin+IberioTx+MitTx / MitTx). As a comparison, data already presented in B and showing the effect of MitTx 5.10-7M applied alone, i.e., without pre-application of KCa blockers, are also represented on the bargraph in E (n = 5–9; panel D: **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 and ****p<0.0001 as compared to control, respectively, two-way ANOVA followed by a Dunnet’s multiple comparison test; panel E: ***p<0.001, one-way ANOVA followed by a Dunnet’s multiple comparison test).

To test the hypothesis that windup inhibition induced by MitTx was due to the opening of calcium-activated K+ channels (KCa) following ASIC1a-associated intracellular calcium increase, we inhibited KCa in vivo by applying apamin and iberiotoxin at the spinal level while WDR neurons were recorded (Fig 5D). Spinal application of these two toxins together had no significant effect on windup. However co-application of apamin and iberiotoxin together with MitTx prevented the strong windup inhibition induced by MitTx alone (Fig 5D–5E). The removal of KCa blockers restored the potency of MitTx to inhibit windup, with an effect that was comparable to the one initially observed, i.e., without pre/co-application of the KCa blockers (Fig 5E).

To summarize, all these data showed that maximal activation of spinal ASIC1a channels by MitTx inhibited windup through a mechanism that is dependent on calcium-activated K+ channels. It is in full agreement with the prediction of our mathematical model and further supports both the relevance of the model and the participation of ASIC1a channels to windup in WDR neurons.

Discussion

The present work describes how ASIC1a channels are involved in the processing of pain message at the level of deep laminae spinal WDR neurons. Spinal ASIC1a activity had already been associated to windup and CFA-induced hypersensitivity of dorsal horn neurons [20]. However, the channel subtypes as well as the subsets of spinal neurons involved remained to be determined. By combining in vivo and ex vivo electrophysiological recordings, pharmacology and computational modeling, we propose that ASIC1a homomeric channels are functionally expressed in spinal dorsal horn neurons likely corresponding to WDR neurons, where they are basically involved in the windup process and participate to the post-synaptic integration of nociceptive information coming from the periphery. This is in good agreement with the large expression of ASIC1a in spinal cord neurons [1921]. It is important to mention that other ASIC1a-expressing neurons beside deep WDR neurons, including axons from afferents, could also contribute to the windup modulation since drugs were applied to the entire spinal cord. However, functional characterization of ASIC1a homomers in lanima V WDR neurons strongly supports, together with the WDR computational model, a windup-related role in these neurons.

Post-synaptic expression of ASIC1a channels has been reported in other areas of the central nervous system such as nucleus accumbens and amygdala neurons, where the channels have been involved in synaptic transmission [44,45]. However, expression of different ASIC1a channel subtypes, including homomers and heteromers, remains largely unknown, especially in the different subsets of spinal neurons where they are probably finely tuned at the post- and probably also the pre-synaptic levels. We described here that ASIC1a homomers are at least post-synaptically expressed in deep WDR neurons to participate to windup through an intriguing “bell shape” mechanism. Indeed, inhibiting or maximally activating ASIC channels both lead to the same result, i.e., a windup inhibition. The way inhibitors like mambalgin-1 (or PcTx1) and activators like MitTx inhibit windup is different. If the inhibition of ASIC1a channel subtypes (mambalgin-1 or PcTx1 effects) in WDR neurons produced, as expected, a windup decrease most probably associated with reduced depolarization, the consequence of their over-activation (MitTx effect) is not so straightforward and associated to the calcium conductance of ASIC1a-containing channels. It is important to note that MitTx is a potent activator of ASIC1a channels and provokes an activation that is different from activation of these channels by their natural ligand (i.e., protons). A normal ASIC1a channel activates and inactivates upon acidification, while ASIC1a stays open as long as the MitTx is present because of lack of desensitization and slow reversibility [31]. The amplitude of the activation can also be higher than with the natural ligand. This most probably explains why MitTx, even at low concentrations, has only an inhibitory effect on windup, because it actually mimics situations associated with over-activation of ASIC1a channels instead of their normal activation. Anyway, it strongly argues for an expression in WDR neurons of homomeric ASIC1a channels, which are the only ASICs expressed in the central nervous system described to exhibit a substantial Ca2+ permeability (at least in rodents), although our experiments also suggest a Ca2+ permeability for ASIC1a/ASIC2a (but not ASIC1a/ASIC2b) heteromers (S2B Fig). It can be hypothesized that, in vivo, an excessive synaptic acidification related to intense synaptic activity could, in some conditions, cause an over-activation of ASIC1a channels, ultimately leading to windup inhibition associated to calcium-sensitive K+ channels. This feed-back loop could constitute a protection mechanism that may prevent WDR neurons from over-excitability. Such a protection mechanism could be a more general property of neurons expressing ASIC1a channel subtypes, and especially those having a significant Ca2+ conductance like homomeric ASIC1a channels [14].

Our data clearly show that ASICs, contrary to NMDA receptors for instance, are not mandatory to produce windup since their pharmacological inhibition by the toxins PcTx1 or mambalgin-1 decreases, but not abolishes, windup. ASIC1a thus seems to have a rather modulatory effect. The computational model allows to speculate on how ASICs compare with other currents playing a role in windup (S8 Fig). The AMPA and NMDA currents clearly dominate the input to the dendrite, as expected. The dynamic of ASIC currents is rather similar to that of the NK1 receptor associated currents although currents are bigger, which suggest a close contribution of both, at least for low to moderate ASIC conductances. The ASIC currents also have a much bigger amplitude than the calcium-activated non-specific currents iCaAN. The dynamics of the L-type calcium channels, only activating briefly at spike times, is quite different from that of ASICs, which might also explain why the calcium influx from ASICs could inhibit windup although L-type calcium channels participate to windup generation according to Aguiar and colleagues [41]. The small but sustained ASIC current induced by repetitive stimulation appears to be important for the role of ASIC1a in windup, as it may also be the case for its role in LTP that have been reported in different brain areas [44,46,47], although the two processes are different.

Moreover, although the time scale of the acidification shown in Fig 4B is similar to that of windup, it is the intrinsic dynamics of ASICs rather than the time course of acidification that is crucial to the effect of ASICs on windup: as shown in S9 Fig, qualitatively similar results arise for very different acidification time courses. In our simulations, homomeric and heteromeric models operate on slightly different conductance ranges. This is not discriminatory because the exact values of ASIC-associated calcium influx, which are experimentally unknown and arbitrarily chosen in the model, may alter the tipping point of the dual effect of ASICs: the less calcium they let in, the higher the conductance at which ASICs start activating KCa channels and reducing windup (in the high-conductance set-up as in the MiTx/full activation set-up).

The use of computational modeling has been instrumental to the success of our project. Indeed, using one of the very few existing models of WDR neurons and neglecting network effects, we have been able to mathematically reproduce experimentally obtained results, and point towards a biological mechanism realizing predictions, which were further supported by in vivo experiments. Such a back and forth exchange between experimental and computational approaches further demonstrates how computational modeling can help understand the complexity of biological events and, in the present case, how unitary mechanisms can be involved in complex physiological processes such as windup. It is noteworthy that this model was able to (i) confirm the in vivo observations regarding the role of ASIC1a channels in windup, and (ii) to predict a windup inhibition upon large activation of ASIC1a channels through calcium-dependent K+ channels, which has then been experimentally validated. The key to these achievements was to modify the model of Aguiar and colleagues [41] by adding different parameters of ASIC1a channels, based on a recently published model [42] and existing data [19], and a synaptic pH model. Several research axes are now possible, including the numerical dissection of the precise mechanisms by which WDR response shows up and is altered by ASIC1a channels, which could provide the operating regime of the WDR neurons and point towards simplified/phenomelogical models of these neurons [48,49]. These simplified models of WDR neurons could also be embedded in a network and help revisit our assumption regarding the role of the network in shaping the WDR response.

Most if not all spinal neurons have been reported to display a functional ASIC1a channel subtype, including homomers and heteromers made of ASIC1a, ASIC2a and ASIC2b subunits [1921]. Understanding how these different channel subtypes are distributed within the neuronal network of the dorsal spinal cord is an essential point to fully demonstrate how ASICs participate to spinal pain mechanisms. This work provides both experimental and computational arguments for an original participation of calcium permeable ASIC1a channels in WDR neurons to the pain facilitation process of windup. It also set up an ASIC1a-containing WDR computational model that could be very helpful to further explore the role of ASIC channels in the spinal pain network.

Material and methods

Ethics statements

Experimental procedures used in this study were approved by the Institutional Local Ethical Committee (Ciepal-Azur) and authorized by the French Ministry of Research according to the European Union regulations (agreement n°02595.02).

Animal anesthesia and surgery

Experiments were performed on 5–7 week-old Wistar male rats (Charles River Laboratories) that were housed in a 12 hours light/dark cycle with food and water available ad libitum. Animals were anesthetized with isoflurane (Anesteo, France) and placed on a stereotaxic frame (M2E, France) with the head and vertebral column stabilized by ear bars and vertebral clamps, respectively. Limited laminectomies were performed at the T13-L2 segments to expose the dorsal spinal cord and the underlying dura mater was removed.

In vivo recording of dorsal horn neuron activity

Single unit extracellular recordings of lumbar dorsal horn neurons were made using tungsten paralyn-coated electrodes (0.5MΩ impedance, WPI, Europe). The tip of a recording electrode was initially placed at the dorsal surface of the spinal cord using a micromanipulator (M2E, France) and this initial position was set as 0μm on the micromanipulator’s micrometer. The electrode was then progressively moved down into the dorsal horn until the receptive field of a spinal neuron was localized on the ipsilateral plantar hindpaw using mechanical stimulations. Two types of mechanical stimulations were used to characterize spinal neurons, including non-noxious brushing and noxious pinching, and we focused on WDR neurons responding to both brush and pinch stimuli. The depth of the WDR neurons selected for this study was >400μm, most probably corresponding to deep neurons from laminae V. Activities of WDR neurons were sampled at 20 kHz, band-pass filtered (0.3–3 kHz) and amplified using a DAM80 amplifier (WPI, Europe), digitized with a A/D-D/A converter (1401 data acquisition system, Cambridge Electronic Design, Cambridge, UK), and recorded on a computer using Spike 2 software (Cambridge Electronic Design, Cambridge, UK).

Windup protocol and analysis

Once a WDR neuron was isolated, its receptive field was stimulated every 10 minutes with the following protocol: 10 times brushing, to generate Aβ-evoked response, followed by a train of 16 supraliminar electrical repetitive stimulations (1Hz, 4ms pulse width, Dagan S900 stimulator, Mineapolis, USA) to induce windup. Intensity of currents injected for the windup protocols was determined as the intensity required to evoke less than 10 action potentials (APs) at the first stimulation, corresponding to 1.2–3 times the AP thresholds. Controls and drugs were applied consecutively in the same animals for 10 minutes between the stimulation protocols, directly to the dorsal surface of the spinal cord in 40μl of ACSF saline solution that contained (in mM): NaCl 119, KCl 2.5, NaH2PO4 1.25, MgSO4 1.3, CaCl2 2.5, NaHCO3 26, glucose 11 and HEPES 10 (pH adjusted to 7.4 with NaOH). Two controls were performed before drug application, and the average of these controls was used as baseline. APs evoked by WDR were classified according to the time frame at which they were emitted following the electrical stimulation artifact, i.e., 0–20, 20–90 and 90–350 ms for Aβ-, Aδ- and C-inputs, respectively [50]. The remaining APs evoked 350–1,000 ms after the stimulation artifact were classified as the post-discharge activity of WDR neurons. Windup calculations were established by counting the number of APs evoked during the C- and post-discharge parts of recordings. Area under curves (AUC) for windup were calculated from graphs of the number of APs as a function of the stimulus number (windup curves) using Prism software, with the baseline set at the number of APs obtained at the first stimulation for each windup curve.

Patch-clamp experiments on spinal cord slices

Transverse spinal slices (400μm thick) were prepared from male rats (15–28 days old) as described previously [51]. Rats were deeply anesthetized with urethane (1.9 g/kg, i.p.) and killed by decapitation. The spinal cord was removed by hydraulic extrusion and washed in ice-cold (≤4°C) sucrose–artificial CSF (ACSF) containing the following (in mm): 248 sucrose, 11 glucose, 26 NaHCO3, 2 KCl, 1.25 KH2PO4, 2 CaCl2, 1.3 MgSO4 (bubbled with 95% O2 and 5% CO2). The lumbar segment was embedded in 5% agarose, and 400-μm-thick transverse slices were cut with a vibratome (VT1200S; Leica, Germany). Slices were stored at room temperature in a chamber filled with normal ACSF containing the following (in mm): 126 NaCl, 26 NaHCO3, 2.5 KCl, 1.25 NaH2PO4, 2 CaCl2, 2 MgCl2, 10 glucose (bubbled with 95% O2 and 5% CO2, pH 7.3; 310 mOsm measured). Lamina V putative WDR neurons were recorded based on the localization and the visualization of their large body size. Patch-clamp recordings were obtained with an Axon MultiClamp 200B amplifier coupled to a Digidata 1322A Digitizer (Molecular Devices, CA, USA). Borosilicate patch pipettes (2–4 MΩ) were filled with (composition in mM): 125 KCl, 10 HEPES, 2 MgCl2, 2 MgATP, 0.2 MgGTP (pH 7.3). Neurons were voltage clamped at -80 mV and ASIC currents induced by locally puffing a MES-buffered pH6.6 solution for 5 seconds.

Patch-Clamp and calcium experiments on HEK293 transfected cells

HEK293 were prepared as described elsewhere [52], before being transfected using JetPEI (Polyplus transfection SA, Illkirch, France) with different plasmids encoding the rat clones of ASIC1a, ASIC2a and/or ASIC2b. Different mixtures of pCI-A1a alone or pCI-A1a + pCI-A2a (1:2 ratio) or pCI-A1a + pCI-A2b (1:2 ratio) with either pIRES2-EGFP (patch-clamp experiments) and/or pIRES2-HcRed (calcium experiments) were used for transfections. Fluorescent cells were then used for patch-clamp or calcium recordings 2–4 days after transfection. For patch-clamp experiments, the whole-cell configuration was used to record membrane currents at a holding potential of -50 mV, and recordings were made at room temperature using an Axopatch 200B amplifier (Axon Instruments) with a 2 kHz low-pass filter and a Digidata 1550 A-D/D-A converter (Axon Instruments) driven by pClamp software (version 11; Axon Instruments), with a sampling rate of 20 kHz. The patch pipettes were made with borosilicate glass capillaries (WPI, France) and were filled with an intracellular solution containing (in mM): 135 KCl, 2 MgCl2, 5 EGTA, and 10 HEPES (pH 7.25 with KOH). The extracellular solution bathing the cells contained (in mM) the following: 145 NaCl, 5 KCl, 2 MgCl2, 2 CaCl2, 10 HEPES (pH 7.4 with N-methyl-D-glucamine), and ASIC currents were induced by shifting one out of eight outlets of a homemade microperfusion system driven by solenoid valves, from a holding control solution at (i.e., pH 7.4 or pH 8.0) to an acidic test solution (pH 5.0 or pH 6.0 or pH6.6 with MES or HEPES as pH buffer). For intracellular calcium measurements, cells were incubated with Fluo4-AM (Invitrogen by Thermo Fisher Scientific) for 45 minutes at 37°C. Cells were then placed on a wide-field inverted fluorescence microscope (Axiovert200M, Carl Zeiss, Rueil Malmaison, France) equipped with a metal-halide excitation source, an ORCA-Flash4.0 sCMOS camera (Hamamatsu, Massy, France) a YFP filter set (excitation Band Pass 500/20 nm; emission Band Pass 535/30 nm; dichroic mirror Long Pass 515nm) and a PlanApoChromat 63x/1.4 DIC oil immersion objective (pixel size: 100nm/pixel). The fluorescence from HcRed expressing cells was taken at the beginning of each recording using a HcRed filter set (excitation Band Pass 560/40nm; emission Band Pass 630/75nm; dichroic mirror Long Pass 585 nm). Time-lapse Fluo4 images were then taken at 20 Hz in stream mode with Metamorph software V7.10.5 (Molecular Devices), while extracellular medium bathing the cells was rapidly changed for 5 seconds from a pH 7.4 control solution to a pH 6.0 test solution. The Fluo-4 intensity measurements during time were then made in HcRed expressing cells using a homemade ImageJ/Fiji macro-program. HcRed expressing cells were segmented by minimum dark thresholding after a median filtering and their corresponding Region of Interest (ROI) were used to get the mean fluorescent Fluo4 intensity during time. The fluorescence was normalized to the baseline (F/F0) defined for 3 seconds before pH6.0 acidifications.

Drugs

Synthetic mambalgin-1 was purchased from Synprosis/Provepep (Fuveau, France) and Smartox (Saint Martin d’Hères, France). PcTx1, MitTx and IbTx were purchased from Smartox. Apamin was purified in the laboratory from bee venom. Toxins were prepared as stock solutions in ACSF or extracellular patch clamp solutions, stored at -20°C, and/or diluted/prepared to the final concentration just before the experiments. For patch-clamp experiments, toxins were applied onto the cells in the control extracellular solution (pH7.4 or pH8.0) containing 0.05% (w/v) BSA for 60 seconds before extracellular acidification. No BSA was used for in vivo experiments.

Statistical analysis

Data are presented as the mean +/- SEM and statistical analysis was performed using Prism software. The statistical tests used to compare different sets of data are indicated in each figure legend.

WDR neuron mathematical modeling including ASIC1a channel parameters and synaptic cleft acidification

Our computational model of WDR neuron (Figs 4 and S3 and S4) is an elaboration of a model introduced by Aguiar and colleagues [41]. We refer to this work for the model description and only underline our modifications. The model, implemented in NEURON software, was downloaded from ModelDB (https://senselab.med.yale.edu/modeldb/).

By lack of evidence on the polysynaptic nature of the connection between the C-fiber and the WDR neuron, we removed the interneuron from the model in [41] to better fit the experimental spiking dynamics (see Results and S3C and S3D Fig). Our model is thus made of a WDR neuron, with dendrite, soma and axon, which receives a direct input from C-fiber via 20 synapses and from Aδ-fiber via 20 synapses. The Aδ-fiber contacts the WDR neuron with a smaller delay than the C-fiber and its synaptic mechanisms are AMPA and NMDA receptors; further details can be found in the original work [41]. The C-fiber synapses each include AMPA, NMDA and GABAA receptors with unchanged time dynamics and respective maximum conductances of 6nS, 4nS and 0.3nS, respectively, as well as a neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor with rise time constant of intermediate value τrise = 150ms and maximum conductance of 3pS. In order to finely adjust windup in the model without interneuron (before introducing ASICs) to experimental data, the calcium-dependent potassium current in the WDR model were tuned to gKCa = 2 mScm−2 in the soma and gKCa = 2.5 mScm−2 in the dendrite.

Next, we supplemented our WDR model with a model of ASIC1a channel, with parameters to reproduce either native ASIC1a homomeric or heteromeric currents. The model is a simple Hodgkin–Huxley model of ionic channel, adapted from [42]; some of its parameters were modified to model native currents from [19]. As for the WDR model from [41], we refer to the corresponding publication for the structural and parametric choices that are not explicitly mentioned here. Note however that the null pH shift of 0.15 introduced in their Fig 2C was removed in all models. In these models, the current flowing through the channels is defined as = gmh∙(VE), where g is the maximal conductance of the channel, and m and h the activation and inactivation variables, respectively. Both variables are only sensitive to pH.

The native homomeric and heteromeric channel models were built to match the experimental data of respectively “Type 1” and “Type 2” native ASIC current from [19], the most complete analysis of native ASIC channel parameters in spinal neurons to date. The parameters for the asymptotic, pH-dependent values for m and h are given by Eq (1) and Eq (2) with parameters given in Table 1, chosen to fit the values found in [19]:

m=11+10nm(pHpH0.5m) (1)
h=alpha1+10nh(pHpH0.5h) (2)

Table 1. Parameters defining the pH-dependence of the steady-state ‌m and h variables for the native homomeric and heteromeric ASIC models.

nm pH 0.5m nh pH 0.5h Alpha
Homomeric native 1.5 6.46 4.6 7.3 1.3
Heteromeric native 1.94 6.03 3.82 6.74 1

Note that the work of [19] fit a sigmoid with maximal value alpha = 1.3 (instead of 1) for h, which we respected, having no grounds to create a different model.

The order of magnitude of the time constant for the activation variable m is small enough to be considered instantaneous in our experimental setup, and its value as a function of pH was left unchanged from the heterologous ASIC1a model of [42] in all models. The time constant τh of the inactivation variable h was fitted to data of [19].

For the homomeric model, there is little available data in [19]. Therefore several functional forms were fitted to the few available data points, resulting in qualitatively similar results (see S4 Fig). A biased gaussian form was chosen:

τh=a1ea2(pHb2)2+a3pHb3, with a1 = 49.196, a2 = 34.632, b2 = 7.144, a3 = 0.95 and b3 = 3.77.

The Gaussian roughly reproduces the shape of τh in the existing heterologous model from [42], but the added affine part was needed to fit the extremal data of [19].

For the heteromeric model, the rates for the relevant pH range (6.6–7.4) were plotted on a logarithmic scale and were found to be roughly aligned. This inspired us to make an exponential fit of the form τh=aeb(pHc)+d, but, in order to properly account for the time constant being low at both high and low pH values (such as 5), we symmetrized the pH-dependence with an absolute value. The resulting expression for the time constant is:

τh=42.862*e5.375*|pH6.6|+1.645(s).

As done in [41] for NMDA and NK1 receptors, we modeled the ASIC1a-dependent increase in intracellular calcium concentration [53,54] by setting 10% of the current entering through ASIC channels (of all models) as calcium current. The maximal ASIC conductance at each synapse varied between 0nS and 3nS for “moderate” conductances (Fig 4C, 4E), thus remaining below that of NMDA receptors, and up to 15nS for the “high” conductances of the heteromeric model (Fig 4F). S6 Fig illustrates the behavior of the two models defined above under standard protocols. Due to experimental evidence suggesting prominent involvement of homomeric ASIC1a channels, all figures and results are given for the homomeric model unless explicitly mentioned.

Based on evidence of the postsynaptic involvement of ASICs in central synaptic transmission [44,45], and of synaptic cleft acidification during transmission [55], we located ASIC channels in the WDR membrane at each synapse with the C-fiber. We modeled synaptic cleft acidification based on the work of Highstein and colleagues [43], with parameters fitted to our needs. The total proton concentration in the synaptic cleft is modeled as:

ddt([H+]{1+[B]0[H+]+Kd})=q[H+][H]0τ

At every synaptic activation, defined by the presynaptic membrane potential going over -30mV, an input proton current q of 1ms duration is delivered into the cleft, modeling the putative proton sources during synaptic transmission (release of acidic vesicles, proton extrusion by the Na+/H+ exchanger…). The baseline proton concentration is given by the physiological pH as [H]0 = 10−7.4M. The buffer parameters [B]0 = 22mM and Kd = 10−6.3M were chosen for a model of physiological buffer used by [56]. The values of the proton current q = 0.3mM/ms and time constant τ = 0.1ms, least constrained by experimental data or physiological plausibility, were chosen from a range of acceptable values to adjust the resulting pH range to physiological values and to significantly affect windup (see S4 Fig). The precise choice of q and τ is not important: S4 and S8 Figs show that values within a certain area yield qualitatively similar results in terms of wind-up and spike counts, although the synaptic acidification undergoes very distinct dynamics.

Fig 4B shows the synaptic cleft acidification during the simulation using the chosen parameters, and S6E Fig shows how the two ASIC models respond to this synaptic acidification.

All simulation protocols were run with 15 stimulations delivered 1s apart starting at 1s, and the distribution of synaptic delays was kept unchanged.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Effect of spinal application of mambalgin-1 and PcTx1 on WDR neuron activities evoked by Aβ and Aδ fibers.

A, Typical recordings obtained following stimulation of a WDR neuron receptive field by 10 repetitive brushings (non-noxious stimulations), before (control) and after a 10-min application of mambalgin-1 (30μM) at the spinal cord level. B, The total number of AP evoked during the brushing protocol described in A are compared before (control 1 and 2, which represent two brushing experiments that were performed consecutively at 10 min intervals) and after applications of either mambalgin-1 or PcTx1 30μM (n = 11–12, p<0.05, one-way ANOVA tests followed by Dunnet’s mutiple comparison tests). C, Typical recordings showing the activity of a WDR neuron during a windup protocol (16 repetitive electrical stimulations at 1Hz). Only the recordings obtained at stimulation 1, 5, 10 and 15 are represented. The vertical dashed lines represent the time ranges where the activity of the WDR is considered to be evoked by Aδ or C fibres. D, Total number of AP evoked by Aδ during windup protocols before (control) after applications of either mambalgin-1 or PcTx1 (n = 13–14, *, p<0.01, paired t test).

(PDF)

S2 Fig. Characteristics of ASIC1a, ASIC1a/ASIC2a and ASIC1a/ASIC2b channels.

A, Peak current ratios (pH6.6/pH5.0) obtained from whole-cell patch-clamp experiments performed in HEK293 cells transfected with either ASIC1a alone, ASIC1a+ASIC2a or ASIC1a+ASIC2b (n = 7–25, One-way ANOVA followed by a Tukey’s post hoc test with ****p<0.0001). B, Fluorescence ratio (F/F0) measured in HEK293 transfected cells loaded with the fluo4 calcium probe following a 5-seconds acidification of the extracellular medium from pH7.4 to pH6.0. The arrow indicates the time at which the pH6.0 acidification was applied (n = 88, 125, 35 and 175 for control, ASIC1a, ASIC1a/ASIC2a and ASIC1a/ASIC2b respectively, Two-way ANOVA followed by a Tukey’s post hoc test with ***p<0.001 and ****p<0.0001).

(PDF)

S3 Fig. Adapting the WDR neuron computational model.

A, Initial model developed by Aguiar and colleagues [41]. B, Using Aguiar’s model allows us to reproduce the results on windup when NK1 receptor parameters are removed. C-D, Spiking time profiles obtained for the first (stim1) and the fifteenth (stim 15) of the windup protocol (repetitive stimulations at 1Hz). Experimental data (blues curves), representing the mean number of AP per 20ms as a function of time (data from 29–30 neurons), are compared to data predicted by the Aguiar model, with (upper gray marks) or without (upper black marks) the interneuron between C-fiber and WDR neuron.

(PDF)

S4 Fig. Testing the robustness of the model.

Grid searches for the values of q and τ, the two least constrained parameters of the synaptic cleft pH model, for different models of τh. The time constant τ has no direct physiological meaning and is unconstrained. The proton current q is considered acceptable below the maximum 2mM/ms, which represents the effect of an outward current of 250pA/pF (as was observed in HV1-transfected HEK293 cells depolarized to +90mV in [56)) through a membrane of capacitance 2,4μF/cm2 as measured for spinal cord neurons by [57], into a synaptic cleft of 20nm width. We represent, on a q vs. τ plane, the zones in which (i) pH remains within a physiologically plausible range (ε7, red zone), (ii) windup matches experimental data (ε 180, yellow zone) and (iii) the number of spikes elicited by the last stimulation matches experimental data (ε22, blue zone). Conditions (ii) and (iii) together constrain the shape of the windup curve. Black dot represents our chosen model. The maximal ASIC conductance is g = 0.2nS for A, B, C. The colored lines mark the border of each zone, and the colors resulting from the overlap of several zones are shown in E. The red zone represents parameters sets for which the pH remains ε7 over 100 stimulations, in order to exclude parameter choices for which the pH only stays within the physiological range because the simulation is interrupted before pH drops further, rather than because the pH parameters are physiologically valid on the long run. Because the available experimental data for τh in the native homomeric model was insufficient to infer any functional form for τh as a function of pH, different functional forms were tested: (A), a Gaussian fit as described in the Methods to reproduce a hump-shaped τh as proposed for the heterologous model [42]; (B), an affine form τh = max (0, −a pH+b), with a = 160.4 and b = 1195.32. (C), a piecewise-affine form with a maximum at the same pH value as the m*h curve, τh=max(0,a1pHb1)ifpH7.37andτh=max(0,a2pH+b2)ifpH7.37, with a1 = 10.18, b1 = 49.92, a2 = -558.3 and b2 = 4143). D, is a similar grid search for the heteromeric model. The maximal ASIC conductance is g = 3nS (as observed earlier, the heteromeric models acts at higher conductances than the homomeric model). For all three functional forms of the homomeric model, as well as the heteromeric model, the zone in which the parameters respect physiological pH constraints and yield windup curves qualitatively matching experimental data, identified by the superposition of all three color zones (brownish-orange), is wide and includes several parameter sets. This suggests both computational and physiological robustness to synaptic cleft pH changes and precise ASIC dynamics. On the one hand, our modelling results do not rely heavily on the choice of the least constrained parameters such as a q, τ and the function τh. On the other hand, a single pH model is valid with different ASIC models, and each ASIC model is valid for a range of pH parameters, suggesting robustness to synaptic heterogeneity and differences of either pH dynamics or ASIC types.

(PDF)

S5 Fig. Effect of Apamin and Iberitoxin of the windup process.

Part of Fig 5D only showing the effects of Apamin + IberioTx (2nd) compared to control (1st).

(PDF)

S6 Fig. Behavior of the two types of ASIC models under standard protocols.

Simulation data representing the relative conductance obtained for the recovery from inactivation (A, C) and for the pH-dependent activation/inactivation (B, D) processes of native ASIC1a homomeric and ASIC1a/ASIC2 heteromeric models, which were elaborated with the type 1 and type 2 parameters, respectively. E, Relative conductance of ASIC channels of the two models in response to the synaptic cleft acidification modeled at the synapse (Fig 4B) during the simulation. Notice the different scales associated to the homomeric and heteromeric models, illustrating a difference of the conductance ranges over which the same qualitative behavior is observed. F, Relative ASIC conductance of the homomeric and heteromeric models when the channels are activated by a classical pH drop from pH7.4 to pH6.0 (blue) or 7.32 (orange).

(PDF)

S7 Fig. Effect of varying ASIC maximal conductance on calcium-related currents in the dendrite.

In this figure, we represent the current amplitude of the iCaAN, iKCa and iCa,L currents in the WDR neuron dendrite during the simulation at medium (A, C; 0.2nS) and high (B, D; 1.4nS) conductances corresponding respectively to wind-up potentiation by ASICs and wind-up inhibition by ASICs. The dendritic calcium concentration and the membrane potential of the soma and dendrite are also shown. C and D are close-up views of A and B respectively, for a better comparison of the iCaAN current values. The higher ASIC conductance clearly correlates with higher calcium concentrations in the dendrite, as well as stronger activation of the hyperpolarizing KCa channels, which we postulate is the mechanism underlying windup inhibition by ASICs. Contrariwise, the increased calcium concentration in the dendrite does not cause much higher activation of the iCaAN channels (which would have the opposite effect). More fluctuations of the membrane potential in C lead to more current fluctuations, but currents fluctuate between roughly the same values the two conditions (i.e., C and D). This is because iCaAN channels are already close to saturation/full opening at the concentrations reached with the moderate ASIC conductance (gating variable m ~ = 0.78–0.92).

(PDF)

S8 Fig. Comparing ASIC currents to other dendritic currents of the WDR neuron model.

This figure shows the transmembrane currents in the dendrite of the WDR model in order to evaluate how ASICs compare with other currents playing a role in windup. The simulation uses the native homomeric model with maximal conductance 0.2nS. A, The ASIC current (blue) and the sum of all other transmembrane dendritic currents (black) over the whole duration of the simulation. The ASIC current is slowly activating and remains a small contribution compared to the overall current. B, C, Close-ups of the same graphs with added details of each current: blue curve is the ASIC current, black curve is the total dendritic current, which is the sum of all other shown currents. iKCa, calcium-activated K+ currents. iCa,L, L-type calcium currents. iCaAN, calcium-activated nonspecific cationic currents. The AMPA and NMDA currents, shown in brown, pink, purple and red, clearly dominate, as expected, the input to the dendrite. The ASIC current, shown in blue, is a sustained and increasing current. Its dynamic is rather similar to that of the NK1 receptor associated currents (orange) although the ASIC current amplitude is slightly bigger; this may explain that at low to moderate conductances, ASICs participate to windup as NK1s do (as long as the associated calcium influx is not too big). The ASIC currents also have a much bigger amplitude than the calcium-activated non-specific currents iCaAN (light blue). The dynamics of the L-type calcium channels (light green), only activating briefly at spike times, is quite different from that of ASICs, which might also explain why the calcium influx from ASICs may inhibit windup although L-type calcium channels participate to windup generation according to Aguiar et al. [41].

(PDF)

S9 Fig. The contribution of ASICs to windup does not rely on the dynamics of our chosen pH model.

This figure reproduces the results of Fig 4B, 4C and 4D for other choices of the pH parameters q and yielding very different synaptic cleft pH dynamics. A, E, evolution of the synaptic cleft pH for two other sets of parameters (compared to Fig 4B) in the validity zone defined by S4 Fig: the alternative 1 parameter set is (q = 1mM/ms, τ = 0.01ms) which results in a very fast acidification time course; the alternative 2 parameter set is (q = 0.05mM/ms, τ = 1ms) which contrariwise results in a very slow acidification time course. B, F, reproduction of Fig 4C for alternative 1 and alternative 2 parameter sets respectively: progressively increasing the ASIC1a maximal conductance potentiates windup, or, from the experimental point of view, inhibiting ASIC1a channels reduces windup. C, G, reproduction of Fig 4D for alternative 1 and alternative 2 parameter sets respectively: higher ASIC maximal conductances inhibit windup, but only if ASICs are permeable to calcium. D, H, ASIC conductance and current during the windup protocol with alternative 1 and alternative 2 parameter sets respectively for maximal conductance 0.2nS. The time course of the ASIC currents depends on the set of parameters, but not the time course of the windup. Overall, these qualitatively similar results with drastically differing pH time courses show that the effect of ASIC1a channels on windup is brought on by their own intrinsic dynamics rather than by the dynamics of the synaptic cleft acidification. Synaptic cleft acidification is required to activate ASICs, but the resulting windup follows its own time scale, independent of the time course of the acidification.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We thank Drs A. Baron, S. Diochot, J. Noel, and M. Salinas for helpful discussions, V. Friend and J. Salvi-Leyral for technical support, and V. Berthieux for secretarial assistance. We also thank the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale and the University Côte d’Azur for their supports.

Data Availability

The experimental data are available in open access in Zenodo (https://zenodo.org/record/7657384). The code is available in ModelDB (http://modeldb.yale.edu/267666).

Funding Statement

E.D. and E.L. received grants from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, ANR (ANR-13-BSV4-0009 and ANR-17-CE16-0018), https://anr.fr/, and from the LabEx ICST (ANR-11-LABX-0015-01). E.D. received grants from the Association Française contre les Myopathies, AFM (grant #19618 and grant#23731), http://www.afm-telethon.com/, and from the Institut Analgesia/SFETD. E.D. and R.V. received a grant from the Neuromod Institute of the University Côte d’Azur (UCA), https://neuromod.univ-cotedazur.eu/. E.D. and L.P. have been supported by the French government, through the UCAJEDI Investments in the Future project managed by the National Research Agency (ANR) with the reference number ANR-15-IDEX-01. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Peirs C, Seal RP. Neural circuits for pain: Recent advances and current views. Science. 2016;354(6312):578–84. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf8933 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Latremoliere A, Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: a generator of pain hypersensitivity by central neural plasticity. J Pain. 2009;10(9):895–926. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2009.06.012 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2750819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Woolf CJ, Salter MW. Neuronal plasticity: increasing the gain in pain. Science. 2000;288(5472):1765–9. doi: 10.1126/science.288.5472.1765 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Costigan M, Scholz J, Woolf CJ. Neuropathic pain: a maladaptive response of the nervous system to damage. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2009;32:1–32. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135531 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2768555. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mendell LM, Wall PD. Responses of Single Dorsal Cord Cells to Peripheral Cutaneous Unmyelinated Fibres. Nature. 1965;206:97–9. doi: 10.1038/206097a0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Li J, Simone DA, Larson AA. Windup leads to characteristics of central sensitization. Pain. 1999;79(1):75–82. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(98)00154-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Herrero JF, Laird JM, Lopez-Garcia JA. Wind-up of spinal cord neurones and pain sensation: much ado about something? Prog Neurobiol. 2000;61(2):169–203. Epub 2000/03/08. doi: 10.1016/s0301-0082(99)00051-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dickenson AH, Sullivan AF. Evidence for a role of the NMDA receptor in the frequency dependent potentiation of deep rat dorsal horn nociceptive neurones following C fibre stimulation. Neuropharmacology. 1987;26(8):1235–8. doi: 10.1016/0028-3908(87)90275-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Woolf CJ, Thompson SWN. The induction and maintenance of central sensitization is dependent on N-methyl-D-aspartic acid receptor activation; implications for the treatment of post-injury pain hypersensitivity states. Pain. 1991;44(3):293–9. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(91)90100-C . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Budai D, Larson AA. Role of substance P in the modulation of C-fiber-evoked responses of spinal dorsal horn neurons. Brain Res. 1996;710(1–2):197–203. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(95)01384-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Fossat P, Sibon I, Le Masson G, Landry M, Nagy F. L-type calcium channels and NMDA receptors: a determinant duo for short-term nociceptive plasticity. Eur J Neurosci. 2007;25(1):127–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.05256.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Morisset V, Nagy F. Plateau potential-dependent windup of the response to primary afferent stimuli in rat dorsal horn neurons. Eur J Neurosci. 2000;12(9):3087–95. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-9568.2000.00188.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Radwani H, Lopez-Gonzalez MJ, Cattaert D, Roca-Lapirot O, Dobremez E, Bouali-Benazzouz R, et al. Cav1.2 and Cav1.3 L-type calcium channels independently control short- and long-term sensitization to pain. J Physiol. 2016;594(22):6607–26. doi: 10.1113/JP272725 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5108908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Waldmann R, Champigny G, Bassilana F, Heurteaux C, Lazdunski M. A proton-gated cation channel involved in acid-sensing. Nature. 1997;386(6621):173–7. doi: 10.1038/386173a0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Deval E, Lingueglia E. Acid-Sensing Ion Channels and nociception in the peripheral and central nervous systems. Neuropharmacology. 2015;94:49–57. Epub 2015/03/01. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2015.02.009 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wemmie JA, Taugher RJ, Kreple CJ. Acid-sensing ion channels in pain and disease. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14(7):461–71. Epub 2013/06/21. doi: 10.1038/nrn3529 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4307015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jasti J, Furukawa H, Gonzales EB, Gouaux E. Structure of acid-sensing ion channel 1 at 1.9 A resolution and low pH. Nature. 2007;449(7160):316–23. doi: 10.1038/nature06163 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hesselager M, Timmermann DB, Ahring PK. pH Dependency and desensitization kinetics of heterologously expressed combinations of acid-sensing ion channel subunits. J Biol Chem. 2004;279(12):11006–15. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M313507200 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Baron A, Voilley N, Lazdunski M, Lingueglia E. Acid sensing ion channels in dorsal spinal cord neurons. J Neurosci. 2008;28(6):1498–508. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4975-07.2008 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Duan B, Wu LJ, Yu YQ, Ding Y, Jing L, Xu L, et al. Upregulation of acid-sensing ion channel ASIC1a in spinal dorsal horn neurons contributes to inflammatory pain hypersensitivity. J Neurosci. 2007;27(41):11139–48. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3364-07.2007 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6672839. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wu LJ, Duan B, Mei YD, Gao J, Chen JG, Zhuo M, et al. Characterization of acid-sensing ion channels in dorsal horn neurons of rat spinal cord. J Biol Chem. 2004;279(42):43716–24. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M403557200 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Baron A, Lingueglia E. Pharmacology of acid-sensing ion channels—Physiological and therapeutical perspectives. Neuropharmacology. 2015;94:19–35. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2015.01.005 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Jones NG, Slater R, Cadiou H, McNaughton P, McMahon SB. Acid-induced pain and its modulation in humans. J Neurosci. 2004;24(48):10974–9. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2619-04.2004 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ugawa S, Ueda T, Ishida Y, Nishigaki M, Shibata Y, Shimada S. Amiloride-blockable acid-sensing ion channels are leading acid sensors expressed in human nociceptors. J Clin Invest. 2002;110(8):1185–90. doi: 10.1172/JCI15709 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Deval E, Noel J, Gasull X, Delaunay A, Alloui A, Friend V, et al. Acid-sensing ion channels in postoperative pain. J Neurosci. 2011;31(16):6059–66. Epub 2011/04/22. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5266-10.2011 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Deval E, Noel J, Lay N, Alloui A, Diochot S, Friend V, et al. ASIC3, a sensor of acidic and primary inflammatory pain. EMBO J. 2008;27(22):3047–55. Epub 2008/10/17. doi: 10.1038/emboj.2008.213 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Diochot S, Alloui A, Rodrigues P, Dauvois M, Friend V, Aissouni Y, et al. Analgesic effects of mambalgin peptide inhibitors of acid-sensing ion channels in inflammatory and neuropathic pain. Pain. 2016;157(3):552–9. Epub 2015/10/23. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000397 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Diochot S, Baron A, Salinas M, Douguet D, Scarzello S, Dabert-Gay AS, et al. Black mamba venom peptides target acid-sensing ion channels to abolish pain. Nature. 2012;490(7421):552–5. Epub 2012/10/05. doi: 10.1038/nature11494 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Karczewski J, Spencer RH, Garsky VM, Liang A, Leitl MD, Cato MJ, et al. Reversal of acid-induced and inflammatory pain by the selective ASIC3 inhibitor, APETx2. Br J Pharmacol. 2010;161(4):950–60. Epub 2010/09/24. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.00918.x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Marra S, Ferru-Clement R, Breuil V, Delaunay A, Christin M, Friend V, et al. Non-acidic activation of pain-related Acid-Sensing Ion Channel 3 by lipids. EMBO J. 2016;35(4):414–28. doi: 10.15252/embj.201592335 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4755115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bohlen CJ, Chesler AT, Sharif-Naeini R, Medzihradszky KF, Zhou S, King D, et al. A heteromeric Texas coral snake toxin targets acid-sensing ion channels to produce pain. Nature. 2011;479(7373):410–4. Epub 2011/11/19. doi: 10.1038/nature10607 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Diochot S, Baron A, Rash LD, Deval E, Escoubas P, Scarzello S, et al. A new sea anemone peptide, APETx2, inhibits ASIC3, a major acid-sensitive channel in sensory neurons. Embo J. 2004;23(7):1516–25. doi: 10.1038/sj.emboj.7600177 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC391081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Escoubas P, De Weille JR, Lecoq A, Diochot S, Waldmann R, Champigny G, et al. Isolation of a tarantula toxin specific for a class of proton-gated Na+ channels. J Biol Chem. 2000;275(33):25116–21. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M003643200 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mazzuca M, Heurteaux C, Alloui A, Diochot S, Baron A, Voilley N, et al. A tarantula peptide against pain via ASIC1a channels and opioid mechanisms. Nat Neurosci. 2007;10(8):943–5. doi: 10.1038/nn1940 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Verkest C, Piquet E, Diochot S, Dauvois M, Lanteri-Minet M, Lingueglia E, et al. Effects of systemic inhibitors of acid-sensing ion channels 1 (ASIC1) against acute and chronic mechanical allodynia in a rodent model of migraine. Br J Pharmacol. 2018;175(21):4154–66. doi: 10.1111/bph.14462 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6177611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Joeres N, Augustinowski K, Neuhof A, Assmann M, Grunder S. Functional and pharmacological characterization of two different ASIC1a/2a heteromers reveals their sensitivity to the spider toxin PcTx1. Sci Rep. 2016;6:27647. doi: 10.1038/srep27647 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4899722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Liu Y, Hagan R, Schoellerman J. Dual actions of Psalmotoxin at ASIC1a and ASIC2a heteromeric channels (ASIC1a/2a). Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):7179. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-25386-9 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5940917. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Sherwood TW, Lee KG, Gormley MG, Askwith CC. Heteromeric acid-sensing ion channels (ASICs) composed of ASIC2b and ASIC1a display novel channel properties and contribute to acidosis-induced neuronal death. J Neurosci. 2011;31(26):9723–34. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1665-11.2011 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3160670. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Heise C, Kayalioglu G. Cytoarchitecture of the Spinal Cord. In: Atlas ACaDRFTa, editor. The spinal cord: Academic Press; 2009. p. 64–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Chen X, Grunder S. Permeating protons contribute to tachyphylaxis of the acid-sensing ion channel (ASIC) 1a. J Physiol. 2007;579(Pt 3):657–70. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2006.120733 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2151377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Aguiar P, Sousa M, Lima D. NMDA channels together with L-type calcium currents and calcium-activated nonspecific cationic currents are sufficient to generate windup in WDR neurons. J Neurophysiol. 2010;104(2):1155–66. doi: 10.1152/jn.00834.2009 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Alijevic O, Bignucolo O, Hichri E, Peng Z, Kucera JP, Kellenberger S. Slowing of the Time Course of Acidification Decreases the Acid-Sensing Ion Channel 1a Current Amplitude and Modulates Action Potential Firing in Neurons. Front Cell Neurosci. 2020;14:41. doi: 10.3389/fncel.2020.00041 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7059123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Highstein SM, Holstein GR, Mann MA, Rabbitt RD. Evidence that protons act as neurotransmitters at vestibular hair cell-calyx afferent synapses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(14):5421–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319561111 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3986198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Du J, Reznikov LR, Price MP, Zha XM, Lu Y, Moninger TO, et al. Protons are a neurotransmitter that regulates synaptic plasticity in the lateral amygdala. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(24):8961–6. Epub 2014/06/04. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1407018111 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4066526. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kreple CJ, Lu Y, Taugher RJ, Schwager-Gutman AL, Du J, Stump M, et al. Acid-sensing ion channels contribute to synaptic transmission and inhibit cocaine-evoked plasticity. Nat Neurosci. 2014;17(8):1083–91. Epub 2014/06/24. doi: 10.1038/nn.3750 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4115047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Chiang PH, Chien TC, Chen CC, Yanagawa Y, Lien CC. ASIC-dependent LTP at multiple glutamatergic synapses in amygdala network is required for fear memory. Sci Rep. 2015;5:10143. doi: 10.1038/srep10143 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4437300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Gobetto MN, Gonzalez-Inchauspe C, Uchitel OD. Histamine and Corticosterone Modulate Acid Sensing Ion Channels (ASICs) Dependent Long-term Potentiation at the Mouse Anterior Cingulate Cortex. Neuroscience. 2021;460:145–60. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2021.01.022 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Gerstner Wulfram, Kistler WM, Naud R, Paninski L. Neuronal Dynamics: From Single Neurons to Networks and Models of Cognition. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Izhikevich EM. Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience: The Geometry of Excitability and Bursting. Cambridge: Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2007.; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Suzuki R, Matthews EA, Dickenson AH. Comparison of the effects of MK-801, ketamine and memantine on responses of spinal dorsal horn neurones in a rat model of mononeuropathy. Pain. 2001;91(1–2):101–9. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00423-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Inquimbert P, Rodeau JL, Schlichter R. Regional differences in the decay kinetics of GABA(A) receptor-mediated miniature IPSCs in the dorsal horn of the rat spinal cord are determined by mitochondrial transport of cholesterol. J Neurosci. 2008;28(13):3427–37. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5076-07.2008 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6670604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Pidoux L, Delanoe K, Barbier J, Marchand F, Lingueglia E, Deval E. Single Subcutaneous Injection of Lysophosphatidyl-Choline Evokes ASIC3-Dependent Increases of Spinal Dorsal Horn Neuron Activity Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience. 2022;15:880651:880651. doi: 10.3389/fnmol.2022.880651 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9239072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Grunder S, Pusch M. Biophysical properties of acid-sensing ion channels (ASICs). Neuropharmacology. 2015;94:9–18. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2014.12.016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Zha XM, Wemmie JA, Green SH, Welsh MJ. Acid-sensing ion channel 1a is a postsynaptic proton receptor that affects the density of dendritic spines. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(44):16556–61. Epub 2006/10/25. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0608018103 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1621052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Chiacchiaretta M, Latifi S, Bramini M, Fadda M, Fassio A, Benfenati F, et al. Neuronal hyperactivity causes Na(+)/H(+) exchanger-induced extracellular acidification at active synapses. J Cell Sci. 2017;130(8):1435–49. doi: 10.1242/jcs.198564 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Zeng WZ, Liu DS, Liu L, She L, Wu LJ, Xu TL. Activation of acid-sensing ion channels by localized proton transient reveals their role in proton signaling. Sci Rep. 2015;5:14125. doi: 10.1038/srep14125 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4569896. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Gentet LJ, Stuart GJ, Clements JD. Direct measurement of specific membrane capacitance in neurons. Biophys J. 2000;79(1):314–20. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(00)76293-X ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1300935. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Comput Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010993.r001

Decision Letter 0

Kim T Blackwell, Erik Fransen

21 Dec 2021

Dear Dr. Deval,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Involvement of ASIC1a channels in the spinal processing of pain information by deep projection neurons" for consideration at PLOS Computational Biology.

As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

We are pleased to see reviewers pointing out the importance of your work and findings of interest. Reviewers further provide extensive suggestions on how your manuscript can be approved and we feel these will strengthen your work. We look forward to your updated manuscript.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Erik Fransen, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Kim Blackwell

Deputy Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: This study investigates the contribution of ASICs to a neuronal plasticity mechanism in the spinal cord, termed windup, that leads to chronic pain. The authors show first with in vivo experiments that the windup is partially inhibited by application of each of two different ASIC inhibitors, Mambalgin-1 or PcTx1. Based on a patch-clamp characterization of neurons of lamina V of the dorsal horn, they propose that the ASICs in these cells are mostly heteromeric channels containing ASIC1a and ASIC2 subunits. The authors present then a computational model of WDR neurons, which can produce windup that depends on ASIC function. This model shows that at high ASIC current densities, windup can be inhibited. This is consistent with the effect of the ASIC activator MitTx that inhibits the development of a windup. Experimental inhibition of Ca-activated K channels prevents this effect of Mit-Tx. The authors suggest that ASICs contribute in a biphasic way to WDR neuron signaling, with potentiation at low, and inhibition at high ASIC activities.

Major points

1. Based on the pharmacology of the windup, the functional characterization of ASIC currents in dorsal horn neurons, and the kinetic models, the authors conclude that ASIC1a/ASIC2 heteromeric ASICs are responsible for the windup. The basis for this conclusion is however very weak. It contradicts the observation by the authors that windup is inhibited by PcTx1, which inhibits only ASIC1a homomeric channels at the experimental conditions used (see PMID 27277303). The functional characterization of ASIC currents in the neurons of lamina V shows inhibition by PcTx1, identifying them as mostly ASIC1a homomer-mediated currents. This contradicts the conclusion made. Regarding the experiments shown in Fig. 2, it is indicated that the conditioning pH was 7.4; in the methods it is said that the slices were kept at pH7.3. Was the measuring solution different from this storage solution? The authors should determine experimentally the pH dependence of the currents, since this parameter is very different between ASIC1a homotrimers and ASIC1a-2 heterotrimers and would allow an experimental distinction.

2. In the model, a calcium permeability is attributed to heteromeric ASICs. The general view in the field is that only ASIC1a homotrimers are calcium permeable. Only one single study showed a calcium permeability of ASIC1a-ASIC2b channels. The authors should provide experimental proof of such a calcium permeability. In a heterologous system these would be straightforward experiments.

3. More information about the model must be provided to allow the reader to better understand it and evaluate its quality. This should include description of the behavior of the two ASIC types in standard protocols, such as pH dependence of activation, inactivation, kinetics of inactivation, recovery from inactivation. The currents generated in the two ASIC models by the pH change shown in Fig. 3B should be shown. From their characterization of lamina V neurons in Fig. 2, the authors should estimate the current density of ASICs in these neurons; they should discuss how this value correlates with the different values that they used in Fig. 3C. Clarify also in the legends whether the conductance values shown in Fig. 3 correspond to the maximal peak conductance that would be reached at the most acidic pH. In the description of the model in the methods, no properties of the A-delta fiber synapses are indicated. Spell out the name of the "NK1 receptor" and provide a reference. On p.19 in the methods, it is said that the ASIC1a homomeric model was unable to reproduce the experimental results. It would be good to indicate, due to which differences between ASIC1a homomers and heteromers the ASIC1a model could not produce a windup.

The model of acidification of the synaptic cleft appears very hypothetical and based more on ASIC function than on information about pH changes. The amplitude of the pH change indicated in Fig. 3B appears to be much bigger than expected from most studies that investigated such pH changes. The authors should provide support from the literature for these predicted pH changes.

4. The most important findings of this study are experimental. I think that an experimental journal would be better adapted to the content of the manuscript.

Specific points

1. Contribution of calcium entry to the inhibition of windup at high ASIC activity. Could the authors determine with their models the time course of calcium entry in the different conditions used in Figs. 3C-D and 4C, and evaluate how the inhibition of the windup correlates with calcium entry? It should also be tested and shown in the model, whether for the induction of windup a calcium permeability of the ASICs is required.

2. p.5, upper part of the page, the description of the actions of PcTx1 and Mambalgin is somewhat misleading; PcTx1 inhibits heteromers only under very specific conditions that are different from the ones used in this study. This should be clarified.

3. Regarding the windup protocols, were different conditions (as e.g. control and different drugs) tested in the same animals? If yes, this should be mentioned in the methods, and it should be indicated how long the intervals between different tests were.

4. p.9, 2nd paragraph, regarding Fig. 4B it is said that the effect of MitTx is fully reversible. However, the mean value after washout is probably close to 60% of the control value, thus this statement should be corrected.

5. p15, windup protocol, clarify to what the AUC measured in the windup protocols corresponds. Is it the AUC calculated from the graph of the number of APs as a function of the stimulus number?

6. Figure 1B, according to the text, the 16 stimulations in the windup protocol are applied at 1 Hz. In the figure however, the interval between the spikes does not correspond to 1s.

7. For the toxin solutions, was there BSA used? Was BSA also included in the control conditions?

8. In Fig. 2A, 3 control applications of pH6.6 were recorded, plus 5 applications (applications 4-8) during the administration of the toxin. Control experiments should be shown in which applications 4-8 are recorded in the absence of any drug.

9. Could you also describe the experimental conditions for ASIC1a-expressing HEK cells? Indicate also whether the recombinant ASIC1a was from rat.

10. Indicate in the figure legends the timing of drug applications; indicate whether they were applied only during the windup protocols, or if there was a pre-application, how long this was.

11. Supplementary Figure 1, indicate exactly what is meant with "control 1 and 2". Should the PcTx1 concentration in the legend rather be 30 nM? I am somewhat lost in panel C. I understand that stimulations of the windup protocol are applied once per second. However, the traces shown in panel C are much longer than 1s.

12. The supplementary figure is very difficult to understand. There are 3 conditions mentioned in the legend, however only 2 of them have an attributed color. In the graphs, there are colored lines and colored surfaces. There is a purple surface whose meaning is not defined.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Chafai et al provides functional evidence for a role of the ASIC1a subunit in the process of “wind-up” in WDR neurons in lamina V of the spinal dorsal horn in rats. Wind-up measured as a progressive increase in evoked activity in WDR neurons was induced with electrical stimulation at C-fibre intensity. Wind-up was reduced by ASIC inhibition with PcTx-1 and Mambalgin-1. Whole cell recordings from large diameter neurons in lamina V showed inward currents in response to pH challenge to 6.6 that were blocked by both PcTx-1 and Mambalgin-1. Numerical simulations indicate that a progressive fall in pH leads to an increase in an ASIC conductance that can produce firing patterns similar to those observed with wind-up. Interestingly, application of MitTx, an activator of ASIC1a, also reduced wind-up. To reconcile this apparent paradox, a permeability of ASIC1a to calcium was postulated to lead to activation of calcium-activated potassium channels and thus a reduction in wind-up. A role for calcium activated potassium channels was confirmed by experiment and simulation.

This is an interesting manuscript that provides a functional characterization of putative ASIC currents in WDR neurons. Pharmacological blockade of ASIC reduced wind-up and this experimental result was consistent with results from numerical simulations using an ASIC conductance. In contrast, pharmacological activation of ASIC also reduced wind-up and to explain this, the authors postulate calcium entry via ASIC1a heteromers and ensuing hyperpolarization via IK and BK. This second dataset requires additional work to substantiate the involvement of calcium as outlined below.

The Figures present the data clearly and the manuscript is generally well written.

Major points.

1. There is a striking dichotomy in that both blockade and activation of ASIC reduce wind-up. The authors recognise this point and take up an explanation in the second paragraph of the discussion. However, the explanation provided here is ambiguous and conflates several ideas (outlined below). From my perspective to clarify the role of calcium additional experimental evidence is required to support the idea of calcium entry via ASIC in WDR neurons.

To re-iterate, toxin blockade of ASIC reduced wind-up. This implies that ASIC contributes to the wind-up process in the following manner. An ASIC conductance is low at rest and then during wind-up, as synaptic pH falls, ASIC is progressively recruited to enhance the wind-up process. The toxin blockers PcTx-1 and Mambalgin-1 both prevent this.

However, toxin activation of ASIC with MitTx also reduced wind-up. Assuming the same starting conditions, with a low ASIC conductance at rest, channel opening with MitTx should initially enhance wind-up. It does not. Rather, the clear result from the concentration response profile in Figure 4A&B is that MitTx either did not affect or reduced wind-up.

This is an intriguing result and since sits at the crux of the manuscript.

To explain reduced wind-up with ASIC activation by MitTx, the authors postulate that MitTx opens an ASIC conductance permeable to calcium. In the same sentence however, the idea of maximal channel activation is brought up by stating that “the consequence of their over-activation (MitTx effect) was unexpected and associated to the calcium conductance of ASIC1a-containing channels. (pp.11, last 3 lines). Two concepts are conflated here, specifically (1) maximal channel opening and (2) calcium permeability of ASIC. Taking these two ideas in turn. Firstly, maximal activation leads to calcium entry. The problem here is that the concentration-response profile for MitTx shown in Figure 4 demonstrates that MitTx never potentiates wind-up. This would imply that MitTx, even at low concentrations, maximally opens ASIC and this seems to be unlikely. To be specific, how does the ASIC at rest get to the maximally activated and thus calcium permeable state without showing some evidence of increasing the Na influx assigned to it during the process of wind-up.?? In addition, why does the calcium permeability not manifest during electrically evoked wind-up, i.e. without toxins under normal circumstances?

The second idea of calcium permeability is not clearly formulated in the text. My interpretation is that there are multiple sub-types of ASIC channels in WDR neurons and this is likely. In which case, MitTx activates an ASIC channel population comprising splice variants such as ASIC1a/ASIC2a that have a predominant Ca-conductance. In contrast, the ASIC channels recruited by electrical stimuli (and blocked by PicTx and Mambalgin-1) represents an ASIC population with low Ca-permeability – is this the case? The discussion does not adequately clarify this. Irrespective of the interpretation I would like to see experimental evidence demonstrating an increase in calcium in WDR neurons, at least in response to MitTx and better yet a smaller or absence of calcium increase during wind-up to electrical stimulation. This could be done using a calcium reporter. One might expect that during electrical wind-up the calcium increase is modest while in response to MitTx a prominent calcium increase ensues. Increases in calcium via calcium channel activators or perhaps thapsigargin mediated store release might also be valuable in this context.

2. Although it is stated in the text on pp.9 (second to last sentence) that apamin and iberotoxin in combination do not affect wind-up - it would be important to show this data as part of a Figure.

3. Drugs were applied to the entire spinal cord and thus any number of neurons, including axons from afferents are equally likely to be affected. The question then is, to what extent is the reduction in wind-up with both PcTx-1 and Mambalgin-1 not due to blockade of WDR neurons directly but rather due, at least in part, to blockade of primary afferent signals? The authors point out that both toxins reduced the response to the first stimulus and acknowledge that this represents a reduction in primary afferent input. How can one dissociate at which site the reduction in wind-up is taking place? and can this be done in a quantitative manner, eg. 40% reduction in primary afferent input and 20% from WDR?? This seems to be a major shortcoming of the manuscript.

4. The summary figures show paired data with values before and after drug application (eg. 1C&Finsets; 1D,E,G&H; 2D; 4E; Supp1AB&D). To better visualise the paired nature of these datasets, it would be helpful to join pairs of dots with a line. Showing independent clouds of data points is misleading for paired data.

Minor points:

1. Is the reference to Liu et al (2018) cited in the discussion pp.11 (beginning on last line) “This latter point strongly argues for an expression in WDR neurons of heteromeric ASIC1a/ASIC2b channels, which have a significant Ca2+ permeability [38].” Correct because Liu et al (2018) does not show that ASIC1a/ASIC2b channels have an elevated Ca-permeability.

2. The methods state on pp. 15 (Windup protocoland analysis paragraph, last sentence) ”Area under curves (AUC) for windup curves were determined using Prism software.” and I assume this means simply the integral of AP counts over time. Is this correct? and could this procedure be explained in more detail?

3. The species should be mentioned earlier, either in the title or the abstract.

4. Supplementary Figure 1, panel C shows prominent 50Hz noise in the signal – would it be possible to present a cleaner recording.

Reviewer #3: Windup is an important pain facilitation process in the spinal dorsal horn, characterized by a progressive, frequency-dependent increase in the excitability of WDR nociceptive neurons to repetitive stimulation of primary afferent nociceptive C-fibers. Windup plays an important role in spinal neuronal plasticity and is of unquestionable interest to understand pain processing in the dorsal horn. As the authors point out, the exact mechanism(s) behind windup is(are) still not fully understood.

Throughout the years (windup was originally reported ~half a century ago), different groups have been revealing different contributors for this facilitation process. Not so many groups have taken an integrative approach providing a holistic analysis where the effective role of different contributors are weighted. It should be noted that, as 1 Hz is the typical stimulation frequency in windup protocols, any mechanism with a “recovery” time constant/scale larger than 1 sec will potentially contribute to signal integration and an observable effect on windup profiles.

In this work the authors point to yet another contributor for action potentials windup in WDR neurons: acid sensing ion channels.

This is a clear and well-written manuscript combining in silico, ex vivo and in vivo experiments to verify and assess the contribution of ASIC currents is action potentials windup in WDR neurons.

Questions

1) The choice of the dynamics for the synaptic cleft H+ concentration is critical in shaping the windup profile. How is the time scale of the acidification “windup” (Fig. 3B) related with the time scale of the windup in the number of APs? In other words, is the APs windup profile (time constant) the same as the pH profile (time constant)?

2) No need for a sensitivity analysis on the new ASIC model + ProstProtCleftDyn model, but some insight would be relevant/useful on how robust the conclusions are regarding changes in the parameters of these new models.

3) Regarding this point “This study demonstrates a possible dual contribution to windup of calcium permeable ASIC1a/ASIC2 channels in deep laminae projecting neurons, promoting it upon moderate channel activity, but ultimately leading to calcium-dependent windup inhibition associated to potassium channels when activity increases”. As far as I understood, your model includes both Ca-dependent potassium currents and non-specific current dependent on intracellular Ca concentration (iCaAN). According to Fig 3D, iCaAN in your model does not seem to be needed to provide the temporal integration supporting windup. If iCaAN is not needed, I would state that.

4) I would argue that “total number of AP” nor “area under curves (AUC)” are the best metrics to characterize (and compare) windup curves. The ratio between the (asymptotic) maximum number of APs and the number of APs in response to the first stimulation seems to be a better metric. It is more robust for comparisons, especially in curve comparisons were the number of APs in the first response is different.

5) For the sake of advancing the understanding on the facilitation process of windup, it would be important to have in the Discussion more information on how ASICs compares with the other currents playing a role in windup (e.g. NMDA receptors, NK1 receptors, and L-type calcium channels). Are ASICs necessary and/or sufficient to produce APs windup? This should be discussed taking into account a potential therapeutic strategy based on ASICs inhibition.

Minor issues:

- Inconsistent use of “Fig” and “Figure”

- “was decrease by 20% in the presence of mambalgin-1” -> “decreased”

- When running the NEURON simulation (using mosinit.hoc file), the title of the window should be corrected (it retains the name of a previous publication).

- I would suggest that mosinit.hoc would already produce a figure with the .dat file. But this is just a suggestion thinking on a colleague that, for a quick test, may want to run the simulation without a NEURON+Python installation

**********

Have the authors made all data and (if applicable) computational code underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data and code underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data and code should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data or code —e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: None

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example in PLOS Biology see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

PLoS Comput Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010993.r003

Decision Letter 1

Kim T Blackwell, Erik Fransen

22 Dec 2022

Dear Dr. DEVAL,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Dual contribution of ASIC1a channels in the spinal processing of pain information by deep projection neurons revealed by computational modeling" for consideration at PLOS Computational Biology. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

I'm pleased to inform you that your updated manuscript was received very well by the reviewers. I would only like you to make a few updates to the text following the comments of reviewer 1. After your brief update, I will be able to accept your manuscript for publication.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Erik Fransen, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Kim Blackwell

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

***********************

A link appears below if there are any accompanying review attachments. If you believe any reviews to be missing, please contact ploscompbiol@plos.org immediately:

I'm pleased to inform you that your updated manuscript was received very well by the reviewers. I would only like you to make a few updates to the text following the comments of reviewer 1. After your brief update, I will be able to accept your manuscript for publication.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: The authors have provided additional information and data and have responded to most of my comments. There are a few points that should be addressed:

1. In Fig. S6E, the relative conductance m*h under the synaptic cleft acidification pattern is displayed. These conductances seem low and extremely low for the homomeric and heteromeric models, respectively. To allow the reader to have a point of comparison, the authors need to indicate (in the text or the legend) the m*h value that is reached at the peak following a typical ASIC1a-activating pH change, such as from pH7.4 to pH6.0 for the ASIC1a homotrimer and for the ASIC1a-containing heteromer model.

2. Fig. S7 is very useful for the understanding of the model. Based on this figure it is concluded that the higher ASIC conductance in B/D does not change much the ICaAN. The upper panel of C is however almost completely red and green, very different from the corresponding panel in D. Does the high color content in C indicate that ICaAN and ICa,L are fluctuating at a high frequency between different current amplitudes, while in condition D, ICaAN reaches soon after each spike a maximal inward current amplitude, from which it decreases slowly until the next spike? And ICa,L would be active only during the spike? The quality/resolution of this figures is not good enough to see any details. The authors need to better describe and interpret this model behavior in the text of the manuscript.

The plots of Ca concentrations are the same in A and C, and B and D. It is not necessary to show them twice. However, it is important to show the membrane potential under these protocols, since the windup is determined as a change in the number of action potentials after each electrical stimulation. This could be done, for the two conditions, in either Fig. S7 or S8, over the whole time of a windup protocol.

3. The resolution of most supplementary figures is very low. This may be due to the merging of several files for review. The authors should make sure that the uploaded supplementary data files are of sufficient quality.

4. p10, line 245, "Inhibition of windup by MitTx was almost reversible....", more correct would be "Inhibition of windup by MitTx was partially reversible....".

5. Fig. S9, the unit in the x-axis label should be s, not ms. In this figure, the resulting ASIC currents induced by the two pH patterns of A and D should be shown.

6. Overall it seems that under the conditions of the windup protocol, the ASIC currents are very low but still contribute importantly to the windup. This aspect should be discussed. Could there be any parallels between this function and the role of ASIC activity in LTP, where ASIC currents are also very small?

Reviewer #2: No further comments

Reviewer #3: The revised manuscript incorporated the recommendations and clarifies the points that were raised. The additional (supplementary) figures complement very well the information in the manuscript.

This is an interesting/relevant study properly combining computational and experimental approaches to assess the contribution of ASIC currents is action potentials windup in WDR neurons.

No additional revisions are recommended.

**********

Have the authors made all data and (if applicable) computational code underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data and code underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data and code should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data or code —e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: None

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example in PLOS Biology see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References:

Review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

PLoS Comput Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010993.r005

Decision Letter 2

Daniele Marinazzo

3 Mar 2023

Dear Dr. DEVAL,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Dual contribution of ASIC1a channels in the spinal processing of pain information by deep projection neurons revealed by computational modeling' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Computational Biology. 

Best regards,

Daniele Marinazzo

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Kim Blackwell

Academic Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

***********************************************************

PLoS Comput Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010993.r006

Acceptance letter

Daniele Marinazzo

29 Mar 2023

PCOMPBIOL-D-21-01920R2

Dual contribution of ASIC1a channels in the spinal processing of pain information by deep projection neurons revealed by computational modeling

Dear Dr DEVAL,

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology. Your manuscript is now with our production department and you will be notified of the publication date in due course.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, unless you have opted out, the early version of your manuscript will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting PLOS Computational Biology and open-access publishing. We are looking forward to publishing your work!

With kind regards,

Zsofia Freund

PLOS Computational Biology | Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge CB4 3DN | United Kingdom ploscompbiol@plos.org | Phone +44 (0) 1223-442824 | ploscompbiol.org | @PLOSCompBiol

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Effect of spinal application of mambalgin-1 and PcTx1 on WDR neuron activities evoked by Aβ and Aδ fibers.

    A, Typical recordings obtained following stimulation of a WDR neuron receptive field by 10 repetitive brushings (non-noxious stimulations), before (control) and after a 10-min application of mambalgin-1 (30μM) at the spinal cord level. B, The total number of AP evoked during the brushing protocol described in A are compared before (control 1 and 2, which represent two brushing experiments that were performed consecutively at 10 min intervals) and after applications of either mambalgin-1 or PcTx1 30μM (n = 11–12, p<0.05, one-way ANOVA tests followed by Dunnet’s mutiple comparison tests). C, Typical recordings showing the activity of a WDR neuron during a windup protocol (16 repetitive electrical stimulations at 1Hz). Only the recordings obtained at stimulation 1, 5, 10 and 15 are represented. The vertical dashed lines represent the time ranges where the activity of the WDR is considered to be evoked by Aδ or C fibres. D, Total number of AP evoked by Aδ during windup protocols before (control) after applications of either mambalgin-1 or PcTx1 (n = 13–14, *, p<0.01, paired t test).

    (PDF)

    S2 Fig. Characteristics of ASIC1a, ASIC1a/ASIC2a and ASIC1a/ASIC2b channels.

    A, Peak current ratios (pH6.6/pH5.0) obtained from whole-cell patch-clamp experiments performed in HEK293 cells transfected with either ASIC1a alone, ASIC1a+ASIC2a or ASIC1a+ASIC2b (n = 7–25, One-way ANOVA followed by a Tukey’s post hoc test with ****p<0.0001). B, Fluorescence ratio (F/F0) measured in HEK293 transfected cells loaded with the fluo4 calcium probe following a 5-seconds acidification of the extracellular medium from pH7.4 to pH6.0. The arrow indicates the time at which the pH6.0 acidification was applied (n = 88, 125, 35 and 175 for control, ASIC1a, ASIC1a/ASIC2a and ASIC1a/ASIC2b respectively, Two-way ANOVA followed by a Tukey’s post hoc test with ***p<0.001 and ****p<0.0001).

    (PDF)

    S3 Fig. Adapting the WDR neuron computational model.

    A, Initial model developed by Aguiar and colleagues [41]. B, Using Aguiar’s model allows us to reproduce the results on windup when NK1 receptor parameters are removed. C-D, Spiking time profiles obtained for the first (stim1) and the fifteenth (stim 15) of the windup protocol (repetitive stimulations at 1Hz). Experimental data (blues curves), representing the mean number of AP per 20ms as a function of time (data from 29–30 neurons), are compared to data predicted by the Aguiar model, with (upper gray marks) or without (upper black marks) the interneuron between C-fiber and WDR neuron.

    (PDF)

    S4 Fig. Testing the robustness of the model.

    Grid searches for the values of q and τ, the two least constrained parameters of the synaptic cleft pH model, for different models of τh. The time constant τ has no direct physiological meaning and is unconstrained. The proton current q is considered acceptable below the maximum 2mM/ms, which represents the effect of an outward current of 250pA/pF (as was observed in HV1-transfected HEK293 cells depolarized to +90mV in [56)) through a membrane of capacitance 2,4μF/cm2 as measured for spinal cord neurons by [57], into a synaptic cleft of 20nm width. We represent, on a q vs. τ plane, the zones in which (i) pH remains within a physiologically plausible range (ε7, red zone), (ii) windup matches experimental data (ε 180, yellow zone) and (iii) the number of spikes elicited by the last stimulation matches experimental data (ε22, blue zone). Conditions (ii) and (iii) together constrain the shape of the windup curve. Black dot represents our chosen model. The maximal ASIC conductance is g = 0.2nS for A, B, C. The colored lines mark the border of each zone, and the colors resulting from the overlap of several zones are shown in E. The red zone represents parameters sets for which the pH remains ε7 over 100 stimulations, in order to exclude parameter choices for which the pH only stays within the physiological range because the simulation is interrupted before pH drops further, rather than because the pH parameters are physiologically valid on the long run. Because the available experimental data for τh in the native homomeric model was insufficient to infer any functional form for τh as a function of pH, different functional forms were tested: (A), a Gaussian fit as described in the Methods to reproduce a hump-shaped τh as proposed for the heterologous model [42]; (B), an affine form τh = max (0, −a pH+b), with a = 160.4 and b = 1195.32. (C), a piecewise-affine form with a maximum at the same pH value as the m*h curve, τh=max(0,a1pHb1)ifpH7.37andτh=max(0,a2pH+b2)ifpH7.37, with a1 = 10.18, b1 = 49.92, a2 = -558.3 and b2 = 4143). D, is a similar grid search for the heteromeric model. The maximal ASIC conductance is g = 3nS (as observed earlier, the heteromeric models acts at higher conductances than the homomeric model). For all three functional forms of the homomeric model, as well as the heteromeric model, the zone in which the parameters respect physiological pH constraints and yield windup curves qualitatively matching experimental data, identified by the superposition of all three color zones (brownish-orange), is wide and includes several parameter sets. This suggests both computational and physiological robustness to synaptic cleft pH changes and precise ASIC dynamics. On the one hand, our modelling results do not rely heavily on the choice of the least constrained parameters such as a q, τ and the function τh. On the other hand, a single pH model is valid with different ASIC models, and each ASIC model is valid for a range of pH parameters, suggesting robustness to synaptic heterogeneity and differences of either pH dynamics or ASIC types.

    (PDF)

    S5 Fig. Effect of Apamin and Iberitoxin of the windup process.

    Part of Fig 5D only showing the effects of Apamin + IberioTx (2nd) compared to control (1st).

    (PDF)

    S6 Fig. Behavior of the two types of ASIC models under standard protocols.

    Simulation data representing the relative conductance obtained for the recovery from inactivation (A, C) and for the pH-dependent activation/inactivation (B, D) processes of native ASIC1a homomeric and ASIC1a/ASIC2 heteromeric models, which were elaborated with the type 1 and type 2 parameters, respectively. E, Relative conductance of ASIC channels of the two models in response to the synaptic cleft acidification modeled at the synapse (Fig 4B) during the simulation. Notice the different scales associated to the homomeric and heteromeric models, illustrating a difference of the conductance ranges over which the same qualitative behavior is observed. F, Relative ASIC conductance of the homomeric and heteromeric models when the channels are activated by a classical pH drop from pH7.4 to pH6.0 (blue) or 7.32 (orange).

    (PDF)

    S7 Fig. Effect of varying ASIC maximal conductance on calcium-related currents in the dendrite.

    In this figure, we represent the current amplitude of the iCaAN, iKCa and iCa,L currents in the WDR neuron dendrite during the simulation at medium (A, C; 0.2nS) and high (B, D; 1.4nS) conductances corresponding respectively to wind-up potentiation by ASICs and wind-up inhibition by ASICs. The dendritic calcium concentration and the membrane potential of the soma and dendrite are also shown. C and D are close-up views of A and B respectively, for a better comparison of the iCaAN current values. The higher ASIC conductance clearly correlates with higher calcium concentrations in the dendrite, as well as stronger activation of the hyperpolarizing KCa channels, which we postulate is the mechanism underlying windup inhibition by ASICs. Contrariwise, the increased calcium concentration in the dendrite does not cause much higher activation of the iCaAN channels (which would have the opposite effect). More fluctuations of the membrane potential in C lead to more current fluctuations, but currents fluctuate between roughly the same values the two conditions (i.e., C and D). This is because iCaAN channels are already close to saturation/full opening at the concentrations reached with the moderate ASIC conductance (gating variable m ~ = 0.78–0.92).

    (PDF)

    S8 Fig. Comparing ASIC currents to other dendritic currents of the WDR neuron model.

    This figure shows the transmembrane currents in the dendrite of the WDR model in order to evaluate how ASICs compare with other currents playing a role in windup. The simulation uses the native homomeric model with maximal conductance 0.2nS. A, The ASIC current (blue) and the sum of all other transmembrane dendritic currents (black) over the whole duration of the simulation. The ASIC current is slowly activating and remains a small contribution compared to the overall current. B, C, Close-ups of the same graphs with added details of each current: blue curve is the ASIC current, black curve is the total dendritic current, which is the sum of all other shown currents. iKCa, calcium-activated K+ currents. iCa,L, L-type calcium currents. iCaAN, calcium-activated nonspecific cationic currents. The AMPA and NMDA currents, shown in brown, pink, purple and red, clearly dominate, as expected, the input to the dendrite. The ASIC current, shown in blue, is a sustained and increasing current. Its dynamic is rather similar to that of the NK1 receptor associated currents (orange) although the ASIC current amplitude is slightly bigger; this may explain that at low to moderate conductances, ASICs participate to windup as NK1s do (as long as the associated calcium influx is not too big). The ASIC currents also have a much bigger amplitude than the calcium-activated non-specific currents iCaAN (light blue). The dynamics of the L-type calcium channels (light green), only activating briefly at spike times, is quite different from that of ASICs, which might also explain why the calcium influx from ASICs may inhibit windup although L-type calcium channels participate to windup generation according to Aguiar et al. [41].

    (PDF)

    S9 Fig. The contribution of ASICs to windup does not rely on the dynamics of our chosen pH model.

    This figure reproduces the results of Fig 4B, 4C and 4D for other choices of the pH parameters q and yielding very different synaptic cleft pH dynamics. A, E, evolution of the synaptic cleft pH for two other sets of parameters (compared to Fig 4B) in the validity zone defined by S4 Fig: the alternative 1 parameter set is (q = 1mM/ms, τ = 0.01ms) which results in a very fast acidification time course; the alternative 2 parameter set is (q = 0.05mM/ms, τ = 1ms) which contrariwise results in a very slow acidification time course. B, F, reproduction of Fig 4C for alternative 1 and alternative 2 parameter sets respectively: progressively increasing the ASIC1a maximal conductance potentiates windup, or, from the experimental point of view, inhibiting ASIC1a channels reduces windup. C, G, reproduction of Fig 4D for alternative 1 and alternative 2 parameter sets respectively: higher ASIC maximal conductances inhibit windup, but only if ASICs are permeable to calcium. D, H, ASIC conductance and current during the windup protocol with alternative 1 and alternative 2 parameter sets respectively for maximal conductance 0.2nS. The time course of the ASIC currents depends on the set of parameters, but not the time course of the windup. Overall, these qualitatively similar results with drastically differing pH time courses show that the effect of ASIC1a channels on windup is brought on by their own intrinsic dynamics rather than by the dynamics of the synaptic cleft acidification. Synaptic cleft acidification is required to activate ASICs, but the resulting windup follows its own time scale, independent of the time course of the acidification.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Answer to Reviewers comments_Vfinale.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Answer to reviewers_rev2.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    The experimental data are available in open access in Zenodo (https://zenodo.org/record/7657384). The code is available in ModelDB (http://modeldb.yale.edu/267666).


    Articles from PLOS Computational Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES