Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Sep 18;15(9):e0238156. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238156

Compound 21, a two-edged sword with both DREADD-selective and off-target outcomes in rats

Raphaël Goutaudier 1, Véronique Coizet 1, Carole Carcenac 1, Sebastien Carnicella 1,*
Editor: Gilberto Fisone2
PMCID: PMC7500623  PMID: 32946510

Abstract

Designer Receptors Exclusively Activated by Designer Drugs (DREADDs) represent a technical revolution in integrative neuroscience. However, the first used ligands exhibited dose-dependent selectivity for their molecular target, leading to potential unspecific effects. Compound 21 (C21) was recently proposed as an alternative, but in vivo characterization of its properties is not sufficient yet. Here, we evaluated its potency to selectively modulate the activity of nigral dopaminergic (DA) neurons through the canonical DREADD receptor hM4Di using TH-Cre rats. In males, 1 mg.kg-1 of C21 strongly increased nigral neurons activity in control animals, indicative of a significant off-target effect. Reducing the dose to 0.5 mg.kg-1 circumvented this unspecific effect, while activated the inhibitory DREADDs and selectively reduced nigral neurons firing. In females, 0.5 mg.kg-1 of C21 induced a transient and residual off-target effect that may mitigated the inhibitory DREADDs-mediated effect. This study raises up the necessity to test selectivity and efficacy of chosen ligands for each new experimental condition.

Introduction

Designer Receptors Exclusively Activated by Designer Drugs (DREADDs) are chemogenetic tools that represent one of the major breakthroughs of the last ten years in integrative neuroscience [1,2]. Combining the precision of genetics with pharmacology, DREADDs provide a remote, prolonged and reversible control of neuronal or extra-neuronal subpopulations via conditional expression and allow the study of complex phenomena in awake animals. As such, they were elegantly used to easily induce tonic modulation, affording an alternative to optogenetics which is more adapted for phasic modulation [3], and to study the implication of different neural system in various behaviors such as feeding, memory, pain or motivation (reviewed in [4]). Initially described as a “lock and key” system, DREADDs are G-protein-coupled receptors that rely on the combination of a mutated muscarinic receptors, that have lost their affinity for acetylcholine, and a designed drug which binds to the mutated receptor with potentially otherwise no pharmacological activity [5]. Two Designed Receptors were originally and are commonly used for DREADD modulation: hM3Dq, coupled to Gq protein which increases neuronal activity and hM4Di, coupled to Gi protein which decreases neuronal activity. A next generation of DREADDs deriving from other endogenous metabotropic and ionotropic receptors were developed over time [6]. Similarly, different DREADDs ligands have been developed. The first DREADD ligand was Clozapine-N-oxide (CNO), a derived metabolite of the atypical antipsychotic clozapine. Initially described to be devoid of endogenous activity at moderate doses [5], this ligand was widely used to activated DREADDs during the past decade. However, the selectivity of this compound depend on the dose (e.g., [7]), and it was observed that CNO induced behavioral off-target effects in both mice and rats which did not express DREADDs [8,9]. In addition, Gomez et al. [10], reported that CNO was not the real DREADDs activator since it was not able to cross the blood brain barrier (BBB) and was in fact back-metabolized in low doses of clozapine. However, behavioral investigations quickly showed that even low doses of clozapine induce anxiety-related behaviors in naïve animals [11,12], indicating that this molecule is not appropriated as a DREADDs ligand (see also [3]). All these observations together led to the necessity of developing new ligands. As such, a second generation of ligands was engineered leading to the creation of three new synthetic ligands: compound 21 (C21) developed by Chen et al. [13], JHU37152 and JHU37160 (JHUs) developed by Bonaventura et al. [14]. Compared to JHUs, C21 has been developed earlier and as such, has gained interest in the field. For instance, Thompson et al. [15], have demonstrated that C21 from 0.3 to 3 mg.kg-1 was sufficient to activate DREADDs in mice and to induce selective behavioral alterations. C21 appears therefore to be an interesting DREADDs activator. However, it remains to be fully characterized in other species and other experimental conditions, as caution is needed since designed ligands could have different outcomes depending on the doses, species, strains or gender used [3]. In the present study, we aimed at further document the in vivo properties of C21 by extending its DREADDs application to transgenic TH-Cre rats. Indeed, TH-Cre rats are frequently used in combination to DREADDs as they appear as a powerful tool for the investigation of tonic modulation of mesolimbic and nigrostriatal dopaminergic (DA) systems in motivated, cognitive and affective behaviors [1619]. However, no one has tested yet the potential efficiency and selectivity of C21 in this experimental model.

Materials and methods

Animals

29 males and 13 females TH-Cre rats (breeding at the Plateforme Haute Technologie Animal, La Tronche) were included in this study. They were housed in a 12h/12h reverse light cycle, with food and water ad libitum. At the beginning of the experiments, the males weighed between 240 and 430g and females weighed between 200g and 320g. All experimental protocols complied with the European Union 2010 Animal Welfare Act and the new French directive 2010/63, and were approved by the French national ethics committee no. 004.

Stereotaxic viral infusion

Animals were anesthetized with a mixed intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection of ketamine (Chlorkétam, 60 mg.kg-1, Mérial SAS, Lyon, France) and xylazine (Rompun, 10 mg.kg-1, Bayer Santé, Puteaux, France). Then local anesthesia was provided by a subcutaneous injection of lidocaïne (Lurocaïne, 8 mg. kg-1, Laboratoire Vetoquinol S.A., France) on the skull surface and animal were secured in a Kopf stereotaxic frame under a microbiological safety post (PSM). Coordinates for SNc injections were determined according to [20], adjusted to the body weight and set at, relative to bregma: -4.3 mm (AP), ±2.4 mm (ML), -7.9 mm (DV). Animals were infused bilaterally with 1 μl of AAV5-hSyn-DIO-hM4Di-mCherry (1012 particles.ml-1, Addgene, Watertown, Massachusetts, États-Unis, #44362-AAV5) or 1 μl of AAV5-hSyn-DIO-mCherry (1012 particles.ml-1, Addgene, #50459-AAV5). The virus was infused at a rate of 0.2 μL.min-1 using microinjection cannula (33-gauge, Plastic One, USA) connected to a 10 μL Hamilton syringe and a microinjection pump (Stoelting Co., Wood Dale, IL). After injection, the cannula remained in situ for 5 min before withdrawal to allow the injected solution to be absorbed into the parenchyma. The skin was sutured, disinfected, and the animal placed in a heated wake-up cage, before being replaced in its home-cage after complete awakening and monitored for a couple of days.

Reagent

C21 (Hello Bio, Bristol, UK) was dissolved in 0.9% saline and kept at -20°C before testing. All the injections were given intraperitoneally, at 0.5 or 1 mg.kg-1 (at a volume of 1 mL.kg-1). A vehicle solution (NaCl 0.9%) was prepared and kept in the same conditions.

In vivo extracellular electrophysiology

At least two weeks after viral infusion, we performed extracellular multiunit recordings to assess neuronal activity of SNc neurons. Rats were anesthetized continuously with isoflurane and body temperature was maintained at 37°C with a thermostatically controlled heating blanket. Two tungsten electrodes (Phymep, Paris, France), allowing recording of a neuronal population, were implanted bilaterally into the SNc using the coordinates determined according to [20], and set at: -4.3 mm (AP, bregma), ±2.3 mm (ML, bregma) and -6.5 mm (DV, brain surface). Coordinates between infusion and electrophysiology were slightly changed to avoid the area of mechanical injury induced by the injection. Extracellular voltage excursions were amplified, band-pass filtered (300 Hz–10 kHz), digitized at 10 kHz and recorded directly onto computer disc using a Micro 1401 data acquisition system (Cambridge Electronic Design [CED] Systems, Cambridge, UK) running CED data capture software (Spike 2). Once electrodes were implanted and signal stabilized, baseline (BL) without treatment was recorded during 10 minutes before i.p. administration of a vehicle solution (VEH—NaCl 0.9%). The VEH period of 20 minutes was followed by i.p. administration of C21 (1 mg.kg-1 or 0.5 mg.kg-1), for a recording period of 240 minutes. Then, the position of SNc recording sites were marked with a small lesion caused by passing 10 μA DC current for 1 min through the tungsten recording electrode. Multi-unit activity was normalized by the baseline activity of the first 10 minutes. Recordings with more than 25% of variation of the multi-unit activity between the baseline pre-injection and the vehicle periods were excluded from the study. One recording per hemisphere were performed. Recordings were excluded after histological and immunohistological analyses (see below) when the recording site was outside the SNc and/or when DREADDs or control virus expression in the SNc was absent.

As SNc contains of a majority of DA neurons but also a minority of GABA neurons [21], to decipher the nature of the neurons recorded we performed additional spike analysis, focusing on the action potential’s shape. In multi-unit recordings, DA neuronal extracellular signals are characterized by a triphasic spike, with a duration greater than 2 ms, and a duration measured from spike initiation to the maximal negative phase of the action potential greater than 1.1 ms [2224]. Only recording fulfilling these criteria where included in the study. In addition, we observed a low variability in the shape of the waveform average obtained from our recordings indicating that this average is from a highly homogeneous population of putative dopaminergic neurons with a long duration triphasic action potentials, and is unlikely to include GABA neurons with biphasic short-lasting spikes (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Representative example of the waveform average of recordings.

Fig 1

The total duration of the triphasic spike is indicated in blue. The duration, from spike initiation to the maximal negative phase of action potential, is indicated in green. Data are presented as the waveform average +/- SEM.

Tissue preparation and histological validation

At the end of the experiment, rats were deeply anesthetized by isoflurane saturation and transcardially perfused with 0.9% NaCl (100 mL) followed by 4% paraformaldehyde (300 mL, PFA) in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). After decapitation, brains were extracted and post- fixed for 24h in 4% PFA. They were then cryoprotected in 20% sucrose/PB for 24h and frozen in isopentane cooled to -50°C on dry ice. Coronal sections (30 μm) of mesencephalon were cut using a cryostat (Microm HM 525; Microm, Francheville, France). Placement of electrodes were verified by Cresyl violet staining and visualized with the ICS FrameWork computerized image analysis system (TRIBVN, 2.9.2 version, Châtillon, France), coupled to a light microscope (Nikon, Eclipse 80i) and a Pike F-421C camera (ALLIED Vision Technologies, Stadtroda, Germany) for digitalization. Meanwhile, floating coronal section of three levels of the mesencephalon were selected as previously described [25] for assessment of DREADDs expression.

TH-immunohistochemistry and DREADDs expression localization

To assess DREADDs expression in DA mesencephalic regions, immunostaining for tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) was performed. Free-floating 30 μm thick coronal sections were washed with TBS and incubated for 1 h in 0.3% Triton X-100 in TBS (TBST) and 3% normal goat serum (NGS). They were then incubated with primary monoclonal mouse anti-TH antibody (mouse monoclonal MAB5280, Millipore, France, 1/2500) diluted in TBST containing 1% NGS overnight (4°C). Then, slices were incubated with a green fluorescent conjugated goat anti-mouse Alexa 488 antibody (1/500, Invitrogen™, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA) for 1h30 at room temperature. They were finally mounted on superfrost glass slides, with Aqua-Poly/Mount (Polysciences, Inc., Germany). Fluorescent pictures of TH labelling and mCherry expression were taken using a slide scanner (Z1 Axioscan, Zeiss Göttingen, Germany), at x20 magnification and analyzed with ImageJ. DREADD expression was quantified for each hemisphere by comparing the number of TH-labeled-mCherry-positive neurons with the number of TH-labeled neurons within three areas: the lateral SNc (lSNc), the medial SNc (mSNc) and the Ventral Tegmental Area (VTA). We have also verified first that mCherry was only detected in TH-positive neurons. Fluorescent illustrations presented in this article were taken with a laser-scanning confocal microscope (LSM710, Zeiss,). Z-stacks of digital images were captured using ZEN software (Zeiss).

Data analyses

For DREADDs expression, data were expressed as the mean number of quantified hemispheres for which recordings were included +/- SEM (number of quantified hemispheres and animals for each group are detailed in figure legends). For extracellular electrophysiology, data were expressed as the mean number of recordings +/- SEM (number of included recordings and animals for each group are detailed in figure legends). Parametric analyses were performed after verification of the assumptions of normality (Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests) and sphericity (Bartlett's test). Data were analyzed by t-test, RM one-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVAs and RM two-way ANOVAs, depending on the experimental design, using GraphPad Prism 8 (summarized in S1 Table). As the electrophysiological recordings were long, some values were missing due to artefacts (3% of the data recorded in extracellular electrophysiology). In this case, data were analyzed by fitting a mixed model proposed by the statistical software. This mixed model uses a compound symmetry covariance matrix, and is fit using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML). When indicated, post hoc analyses were carried out with the Bonferroni’s correction procedure. Significance for p values was set at α = 0.05. Effect sizes for the ANOVAs were also reported using partial η2 values [26,27]. Determining these values from the mixed-model analysis was however not accessible.

Results

We thereby infused into the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNc) of male and female TH-Cre rats, a floxed virus encoding for the inhibitory DREADDs hM4Di coupled to mCherry (♂-hM4Di and ♀-hM4Di). Meanwhile, a floxed virus encoding only for mCherry was infused in control groups (♂-mCherry and ♀-mCherry) (Fig 2). With extracellular electrophysiology, we first verified that basal activity of the neuronal subpopulations recorded within the SNc were comparable between our different experimental groups, since DREADDs may have a constitutive activity [28]. We found neither differences between ♂-hM4Di and ♂-mCherry animals (23.6 events/s ± 1.9 and 21.2 events/s ± 2.9 respectively, t(39) = 0.65, p = 0.521) nor between ♀-hM4Di and ♀-mCherry animals (38.8 events/s ± 7.3 and 26.7 events/s ± 4.3 respectively, t(13) = 1.48, p = 0.164). We also verified that basal activity of this multi-unit recording remains stable over time in groups of mCherry and hM4Di animals only treated with saline (RM one-way ANOVAs report no effect of time: Fs < 0.98, p > 0.46, partial η2 < 0.12; S1 Fig).

Fig 2. hM4Di-mCherry and mCherry expression in mesencephalic DA neurons of TH-Cre rats.

Fig 2

(A) On the left, schema of the three levels of mesencephalon used for quantified viral expression with three areas: lateral SNc (lSNc), medial SNc (mSNc) and Ventral Tegmental Area (VTA). The black rectangle indicates the level at which representative images, on the right, were taken to illustrate TH immunostaining and hM4Di-mCherry or mCherry expression. (B-C) Percent of transgenes expression in the lSNc, mSNC and VTA for males (B) (hM4Di, orange, n = 18 hemispheres, 13 animals; mCherry, black, n = 23 hemispheres, 16 animals) or females (C) (hM4Di, red, n = 7 hemispheres, 7 animals; mCherry, grey, n = 8 hemispheres, 6 animals). A similar pattern of expression was observed between males and females with a gradient of expression from lSNc to the VTA (two-way ANOVAs: Fs > 18.83, p < 0.001, partial η2 > 0.49), in both transgene conditions (two-way ANOVAs: Fs < 2.45, p > 0.16, partial η2 < 0.06). For each area, the given percent of expression correspond to the mean expression of the three levels of mesencephalon. Scale bar: 200 μm. Data were expressed as the mean number of quantified hemispheres for which recordings were included +/- SEM.

Then, we tested the potential effect of two concentrations of C21, 1 mg.kg-1 and 0.5 mg.kg-1, on the neuronal activity of the SNc in ♂-mCherry or ♂-hM4Di animals (Figs 3 and S2). We first assessed the effect of 1 mg.kg-1 of C21 in ♂-mCherry animals (Fig 3B and 3D). We observed a robust and persistent increase in the activity of nigral neurons, indicating that, even within the recommended range of doses [15], C21 can have strong non-DREADDs mediated pharmacological effects. Importantly, decreasing the dose of C21 to 0.5 mg.kg-1 allowed to completely circumvent this unspecific effect on SNc neuronal activity (Mixed-effects analysis highlights a main effect of treatment: F(1, 13) = 16.08, p < 0.01; of the time: F(8, 98) = 6.38, p < 0.001; and treatment × time interaction: F(8, 98) = 5.44, p < 0.01; Fig 3D, left panel). Overall, a 100%-increase was observed between 90 to 180 minutes after the injection of C21 at 1 mg.kg-1 compared to vehicle, an effect that was absent at 0.5 mg.kg-1 (Two-way ANOVAs showed a main effect of the treatment: F(1, 13) = 17.45, p < 0.01, partial η2 = 0.57; of the transgene: F(1, 13) = 17.81, p < 0.01, partial η2 = 0.59; and treatment x transgene interaction: F(1, 13) = 15,74, p < 0.01, partial η2 = 0.55; Fig 3D, middle and right panel). We next tested whether the dose of 0.5 mg.kg-1 of C21, devoid of off-target effect in the SNc, was sufficient to activate the DREADDs in ♂-hM4Di animals and to produce significant in vivo chemogenetic effects. As shown on Fig 3C and 3E, 0.5 mg.kg-1 of C21 induced in ♂-hM4Di but not in ♂-mCherry animals, a significant reduction of SNc neuronal activity, as expected from the activation of an inhibitory receptor selectively expressed in a DA neuronal subpopulation. This decrease became evident 90 minutes after the injection of C21 and ended 120 minutes later (Mixed-effects analysis highlighted a main effect of transgene: F(1,17) = 5.89, p < 0.05; marginal effect of time F(8,130) = 1.97, p = 0.055 and no significant transgene x time interaction F(8,130) = 1.67, p = 0.113; Fig 3E, left panel). Overall, a 30%-decrease was observed between 90 to 180 minutes after injection of 0.5 mg.kg-1 of C21 compared to vehicle and the mCherry control condition (Two-way ANOVAs showed a main effect of the treatment: F(1, 17) = 6.52, p < 0.05, partial η2 = 0.28; of the transgene: F(1, 17) = 6.69, p < 0.05, partial η2 = 0.38; and treatment x transgene interaction: F(1, 17) = 10.26, p < 0.01, partial η2 = 0.37; Fig 3E, middle and right panel). Notably, we also observed a complete recovery of the basal activity in ♂-hM4Di rats at 240 minutes post-injection. This indicates that, consistently with the DREADDs approach, this effect was reversible, and not due to a loss of signals along time. These finding indicate that, in male TH-Cre rats, 0.5 mg.kg-1 of C21 is sufficient to potently activate hM4Di in TH-Cre rats, without inducing endogenous off-target effects.

Fig 3. Dose dependent effect of C21 on multi-unit activity of SNc neurons expressing hM4Di-mCherry or mCherry.

Fig 3

(A) Schema of the bilateral electrodes implantations. (B) Representative data obtained during recording of neuronal subpopulation within the SNc from male mCherry rat treated with 1 mg.kg-1 of C21. (C) Representative data obtained during recording of neuronal subpopulation within the SNc from male hM4Di rat treated with 0.5 mg.kg-1 of C21. (D-F) On the left, effect of C21 along time on SNc neuronal multi-unit activity, during vehicle (VEH, a 20-minutes interval) and C21 periods (30-minutes intervals), normalized to 10-minutes baseline recording. In the middle and on the right, mean neuronal multi-unit activity, during the VEH period and between the 90 and 180 minutes post-C21 injection intervals, normalized to baseline. (D) Effect of C21 in mCherry male rats treated with 1 (white, n = 6 recordings, 4 animals) or 0.5 (black, n = 9 recordings, 7 animals) mg.kg-1. (E) Effect of C21 in mCherry (black, n = 8 recordings, 7 animals) or hM4Di (orange, n = 10 recordings, 8 animals) male rats treated with 0.5 mg. kg-1. (F) Effect of C21 in mCherry (grey, n = 8 recordings, 6 animals) or hM4Di (red, n = 7 recordings, 7 animals) female rats treated with 0.5 mg.kg-1. Data were expressed as the mean number of recording sides +/- SEM. BL: baseline, VEH: vehicle. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

As brain responses may differ between males and females [29], we next investigated the effect of 0.5 mg.kg-1 of C21 in female TH-Cre rats. As in male, this dose of C21 selectively decreased the activity of nigral neurons in♀-hM4Di rats (Fig 3F). This effect was however not detected as significant (Fig 3F, left panel: Mixed-effects analysis report no significant effect of the transgene: F(1, 13) = 0.28, p = 0.605; neither of time: F(8, 95) = 1.88, p = 0.072; nor time x transgene interaction: F(8, 95) = 0.23, p = 0.977; Fig 3F, middle and right panel: Two-way ANOVAs report a marginal effect of treatment: F(1,13) = 3.63, p = 0.079, no significant effect of the transgene: F(1, 13) = 3.13, p = 0.1, or significant treatment x transgene interaction: F(1, 13) = 3.13, p = 0.1), consistent with lower effect sizes of DREADDs as compared to male (Fig 3F, middle and right panel: partial η2 = 0.22, partial η2 = 0.18, partial η2 = 0.19, for the treatment, the transgene an treatment x transgene interaction respectively). This is probably due to the fact that, in contrast to male, a residual unspecific effect of C21, highlighted by a clear transient increase of 169% of the activity at 60 min post-injection (Fig 2F), likely mitigated the following DREADDs-mediated effect. (Fig 3F, left panel). Therefore, detecting a statistically significant DREADDs-mediated effect may require a greater number of animals for female with this dose of C21.

Discussion

Here, we demonstrated that C21 possesses both specific and unspecific effect on rats depending on doses used. In males, at 0.5 mg.kg-1, C21 activated hM4Di with a potent in vivo effect, without inducing off-target effect. This led to a reversible inhibition of nigral neurons activity selectively in hM4Di-expressing animals. Conversely, at 1 mg.kg-1, C21 induced a robust and long-lasting increase of SNc neurons activity in hM4Di-lacking animals. In females, this unspecific effect was also transiently observed, in both hM4Di-expressing and hM4Di-lacking animal, with the dose of 0.5 mg.kg-1, meaning that precaution must be taken in studies using both genders. This is critical because scientists working on transgenic lines often used males and females to obtain larger cohorts (e.g., [10,14,28,30]). Relative potent affinity of C21 for some endogenous receptors may account for the off- target effect evidenced in the present study. Indeed, C21 may exhibit similar affinity for serotoninergic 5-HT2 Gi-coupled and histaminergic H1 Gq-coupled receptors than for hM4Di behaving potentially as a competitive antagonist of these receptors [3,7,15]. Given that 5-HT2 Gi-coupled receptors are expressed on SNc DA neurons [31,32], by blocking this inhibitory receptor, C21 can promote SNc neurons activity [33]. In addition, blocking H1 Gq-coupled receptors that are located on nigral GABAergic neurons can lead to a reduction of the GABAergic inhibition on nigral DA neurons and therefore enhance their activity [34,35]. Although these two hypotheses remain speculative and deserve further investigations, it appears not unlikely that, depending on the dose, C21 exhibits such off-target effect on SNc neuronal activity.

Finally, this study demonstrates that C21 can be a potent DREADDs activator in rats. It also clearly illustrates that, because DREADDs derive from endogenous receptors and rely on the use of pharmacological compounds, they are unlikely to be fully devoid of off-target effects, even if new ligands are proposed each year and help to maximize this approach. These effects will always depend on the dose, the species, the strains and the gender used. Therefore, regardless of the chosen ligand, a “model-dependent” approach must be adopted to assess the selectivity and efficiency of the ligand for every new experimental condition prior any behavioral experiment.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Basal neuronal activity and recording remain stable over time in animals treat with saline solution.

Effect of vehicle along time on SNc neuronal activity rate in rats expressing mCherry (n = 8 recordings, 5 animals) (A) or hM4Di (n = 8 recordings, 5 animals) (B). To keep the same experimental conditions, two saline injections were realized, one at the end of the 10-minutes baseline recording (VEH, a 20-minutes interval) and one at the end of the vehicle period corresponding to the time of C21 injection (30-minutes intervals). Data were expressed as the mean number of recording sides +/- SEM.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Location of recording sites within the SNc among the different groups studied.

Male expressing mCherry treated with 1 mg.kg-1 of C21 (A) or 0.5 mg.kg-1 of C21 (B). Male expressing hM4Di treated with 0.5 mg.kg-1 of C21 (C). Female expressing mCherry (D) or hM4Di (E) and treated with 0.5 mg.kg-1 of C21.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Summary of statistical analyses.

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Sabrina Boulet and Yvan Vachez for critical reading of the manuscript. The authors also would like to thank Jacques Brocard and the PIC GIN Platform for technical assistance in fluorescence microscopy and analysis, as well as the in vivo experimental platform.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (Inserm), the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-16-CE16-0002, to SC) and Grenoble Alpes University.

References

  • 1.Roth BL. DREADDs for Neuroscientists. Neuron. 2016;89: 683–694. 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.01.040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Campbell EJ, Marchant NJ. The use of chemogenetics in behavioural neuroscience: receptor variants, targeting approaches and caveats. Br J Pharmacol. 2018;175: 994–1003. 10.1111/bph.14146 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Goutaudier R, Carcenac C, Coizet V, Carnicella S. DREADDs: the power of the lock, the weakness of the key Favoring the pursuit of specific conditions rather than specific ligands. eNeuro. 2019; 0–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Whissell PD, Tohyama S, Martin LJ. The use of DREADDs to deconstruct behavior. Front Genet. 2016;7: 1–15. 10.3389/fgene.2016.00001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Armbruster BN, Li X, Pausch MH, Herlitze S, Roth BL. Evolving the lock to fit the key to create a family of G protein-coupled receptors potently activated by an inert ligand. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104: 5163–8. 10.1073/pnas.0700293104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Aldrin-Kirk P, Björklund T. Practical considerations for the use of DREADD and other chemogenetic receptors to regulate neuronal activity in the mammalian brain. Methods in Molecular Biology. 2019. 10.1007/978-1-4939-9065-8_4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Jendryka M, Palchaudhuri M, Ursu D, van der Veen B, Liss B, Kätzel D, et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic actions of clozapine-N-oxide, clozapine, and compound 21 in DREADD-based chemogenetics in mice. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 1–14. 10.1038/s41598-018-37186-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.MacLaren DAA, Browne RW, Shaw JK, Krishnan Radhakrishnan S, Khare P, Espana RA, et al. Clozapine N-Oxide Administration Produces Behavioral Effects in Long-Evans Rats: Implications for Designing DREADD Experiments. eNeuro. 2016;3 10.1523/ENEURO.0219-16.2016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Baerentzen S, Casado-Sainz A, Lange D, Shalgunov V, Tejada IM, Xiong M, et al. The chemogenetic receptor ligand Clozapine N-oxide induces in vivo neuroreceptor occupancy and reduces striatal glutamate levels. Front Neurosci. 2019;13: 187 10.3389/fnins.2019.00187 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gomez JL, Bonaventura J, Lesniak W, Mathews WB, Sysa-shah P, Rodriguez LA, et al. Chemogenetics revealed: DREADD occupancy and activation via converted clozapine. 2017;507: 503–507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mahler S V., Aston-Jones G. CNO Evil? Considerations for the Use of DREADDs in Behavioral Neuroscience. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018;43: 934–936. 10.1038/npp.2017.299 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ilg A-K, Enkel T, Bartsch D, Bähner F. Behavioral Effects of Acute Systemic Low-Dose Clozapine in Wild-Type Rats: Implications for the Use of DREADDs in Behavioral Neuroscience. Front Behav Neurosci. 2018;12 10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chen X, Choo H, Huang XP, Yang X, Stone O, Roth BL, et al. The first structure-activity relationship studies for designer receptors exclusively activated by designer drugs. ACS Chem Neurosci. 2015;6: 476–484. 10.1021/cn500325v [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bonaventura J, Eldridge MAG, Hu F, Gomez JL, Sanchez-Soto M, Abramyan AM, et al. High-potency ligands for DREADD imaging and activation in rodents and monkeys. Nat Commun. 2019;10: 4627 10.1038/s41467-019-12236-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Thompson KJ, Khajehali E, Jin J, Liu J, Krashes MJ, Roth BL, et al. DREADD Agonist 21 Is an Effective Agonist for Muscarinic-Based DREADDs in Vitro and in Vivo. ACS Pharmacol Transl Sci. 2018;1: 61–72. 10.1021/acsptsci.8b00012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mahler S V, Vazey EM, Beckley JT, Keistler CR, McGlinchey EM, Kaufling J, et al. Designer receptors show role for ventral pallidum input to ventral tegmental area in cocaine seeking. Nat Neurosci. 2014;17: 577–85. 10.1038/nn.3664 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Boekhoudt L, Voets ES, Flores-Dourojeanni JP, Luijendijk MC, Vanderschuren LJ, Adan RA. Chemogenetic Activation of Midbrain Dopamine Neurons Affects Attention, but not Impulsivity, in the Five-Choice Serial Reaction Time-Task in Rats. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2016; 1–11. 10.1038/npp.2015.306 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Beloate LN, Omrani A, Adan RA, Webb IC, Coolen LM. Ventral Tegmental Area Dopamine Cell Activation during Male Rat Sexual Behavior Regulates Neuroplasticity and D-Amphetamine Cross-Sensitization following Sex Abstinence. J Neurosci. 2016;36: 9949–9961. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0937-16.2016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Runegaard AH, Fitzpatrick CM, Woldbye DPD, Andreasen JT, Sørensen AT, Gether U. Modulating dopamine signaling and behavior with chemogenetics: Concepts, progress, and challenges. Pharmacol Rev. 2019;71: 123–156. 10.1124/pr.117.013995 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Paxinos G, Watson C. The Rat Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates Sixth Edition. Elsevier Acad Press; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Nair-Roberts RG, Chatelain-Badie SD, Benson E, White-Cooper H, Bolam JP, Ungless MA. Stereological estimates of dopaminergic, GABAergic and glutamatergic neurons in the ventral tegmental area, substantia nigra and retrorubral field in the rat. Neuroscience. 2008;152: 1024–1031. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.01.046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ungless MA, Grace AA. Are you or aren’t you? Challenges associated with physiologically identifying dopamine neurons. Trends in Neurosciences. 2012. 10.1016/j.tins.2012.02.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Coizet V, Dommett EJ, Redgrave P, Overton PG. Nociceptive responses of midbrain dopaminergic neurones are modulated by the superior colliculus in the rat. Neuroscience. 2006;139: 1479–1493. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2006.01.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Coizet V, Comoli E, Westby GWM, Redgrave P. Phasic activation of substantia nigra and the ventral tegmental area by chemical stimulation of the superior colliculus: An electrophysiological investigation in the rat. Eur J Neurosci. 2003;17: 28–40. 10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02415.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Drui G, Carnicella S, Carcenac C, Favier M, Bertrand A, Boulet S, et al. Loss of dopaminergic nigrostriatal neurons accounts for the motivational and affective deficits in Parkinson’s disease. Mol Psychiatry. 2014;19: 358–67. 10.1038/mp.2013.3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Magnard R, Vachez Y, Carcenac C, Boulet S, Houeto JL, Savasta M, et al. Nigrostriatal dopaminergic denervation does not promote impulsive choice in the rat: Implication for impulse control disorders in Parkinson’s disease. Front Behav Neurosci. 2018;12: 1–10. 10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Levine TR, Hullett CR. Eta Squared, Partial Eta Squared, and Misreporting of Effect Size in Communication Research. Human Communication Research. 2002. 10.1093/hcr/28.4.612 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Saloman JL, Scheff NN, Snyder LM, Ross SE, Davis BM, Gold MS. Gi-DREADD Expression in Peripheral Nerves Produces Ligand-Dependent Analgesia, as well as Ligand-Independent Functional Changes in Sensory Neurons. J Neurosci. 2016;36: 10769–10781. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3480-15.2016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Choleris E, Galea LAM, Sohrabji F, Frick KM. Sex differences in the brain: Implications for behavioral and biomedical research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018;85: 126–145. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.07.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Xia F, Richards BA, Tran MM, Josselyn SA, Takehara-Nishiuchi K, Frankland PW. Parvalbumin-positive interneurons mediate neocortical-hippocampal interactions that are necessary for memory consolidation. Elife. 2017;6: 1–25. 10.7554/elife.27868 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Fink KB, Göthert M. 5-HT receptor regulation of neurotransmitter release. Pharmacol Rev. 2007;59: 360–417. 10.1124/pr.107.07103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Cornea-Hébert V, Riad M, Wu C, Singh SK, Descarries L. Cornéa-Hébert et al. 1999.pdf. 1999;209: 187–209. 10.1088/1741-2560/10/2/026010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Di Giovanni G, De Deurwaerdére P, Di Mascio M, Di Matteo V, Esposito E, Spampinato U. Selective blockade of serotonin-2C/2B receptors enhances mesolimbic and mesostriatal dopaminergic function: A combined in vivo electrophysiological and microdialysis study. Neuroscience. 1999;91: 587–597. 10.1016/s0306-4522(98)00655-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Korotkova TM, Haas HL, Brown RE. Histamine excites GABAergic cells in the rat substantia nigra and ventral tegmental area in vitro. Neurosci Lett. 2002;320: 133–136. 10.1016/s0304-3940(02)00050-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Dringenberg HC, De Souza-Silva MA, Schwarting RKW, Huston JP. Increased levels of extracellular dopamine in neostriatum and nucleus accumbens after histamine H1 receptor blockade. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 1998;358: 423–429. 10.1007/pl00005274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Gilberto Fisone

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

24 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-14375

Compound 21, a two-edged sword with both DREADD-selective and off-target outcomes in rats

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Carnicella,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. In particular, it will be necessary to (1) unequivocally identify the recorded neurons as dopaminergic and (2) respond to the issues concerning statistical power and analyses. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 08 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gilberto Fisone

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The reviewers have

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data 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 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—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In the past decade, the neurosciences has enjoyed a fascinating development of new tools for remotely controlling neuronal activity in freely moving animals. The DREADD system has received a lot of interest because of its simple application to behavioral assays, making it a potentially wonderful technology accessible to many laboratories in the field. Recently, concerns have emerged about the specificity of the inert ligands used to activate the DREADD receptors, casting some doubt on the validity of the results obtained with the DREADD technology.

In the present study, Goutaudier et al have assessed the actions of a relatively new ligand (C21) in a well-characterized system for in vivo recordings: the midbrain dopamine system; and whether systemic treatment with C21 has the predicted effect on dopamine neurons expressing the inhibitory DREADD receptor hM4Di.

My major concern about this study is whether the authors in fact record from dopamine neurons or not. There is a huge literature on the firing rate of dopamine neurons and the basal firing rate reported is unambiguously between 2-6Hz, depending on the level of anesthesia. In contrast, Goutaudier et al recorded from cells that fire at >20Hz and most likely represent GABA producing interneurons in the midbrain. It is unclear to me why the authors have disregarded the well-established criteria for identifiying dopamine neurons.

Unfortunately, this intentional or unintentional mistake invalidates the conclusion of these experiments. The firing rate of interneurons within the midbrain may very well change as the DREADD receptor is activated specifically on TH-expressing dopamine neurons. This illustrate the complex synaptic circuit in the midbrain but not that C21 has unspecific effects.

Reviewer #2: The aim of this study was to assess the potency and the selectivity of the Compound 21 (C21) to activate the receptor hM4Di in nigral dopaminergic neurons of TH-Cre rats in vivo. For this, the authors investigate two different concentrations of Compound 21 (1 and 0.5mg/kg) in rats expressing m-cherry (control group) or the receptor hM4Di in both males and females. C21 induced increase in firing rate of nigral neurons at higher concentration in the control group of males that disappears when used at low concentration. In rats expressing the hM4Di receptor, C21 at low concentration induced the expected inhibitory effects. In contrast, C21 at low concentration still induce off-target effects in female control group. Main conclusion of the study is that control groups and animal gender should be always considered when planning chemogenetic studies.

I find the study of potential interest for scientist using chemogenetics tools for investigating behaviors and the underlying neural circuits with relevant information about off-targets effects that clearly can affect data interpretation, strength of the paper. The introduction presents the context and logically raises the main questions of the study and the results and methods sections are generally well organized, following a logic flow. Despite that, this study suffers a number of major and minor weaknesses that need to be addressed.

Major concern:

A) Small sample size. One major limitation in all experiments of this work is the small number of recordings from which the data are generated and conclusions are drawn. Considering the number of variables to compare (two different concentration of C21, control versus transgenic and males versus females), the firing values of the control groups and the variability of the firing between individual of the same group (e.g. different between males and females with the last group having a much larger variability) and the effect size, the number of recordings (the group that has the most is 8) are insufficient to classifying non-significant results as different. This is the case for the experiments on the female groups (both in the control group and the hM4Di-espressing group), one major result and conclusion of the paper. How the authors justify these sample size? Did they run any proper statistical power analysis on this study? Statistical power analysis should be provided to justify the sample sizes. If small sample sizes are justified by power analysis, then proper statistical tests should then be employed (see next point). If power analysis yielded larger sample sizes, then additional experiments should be conducted to achieve an appropriate power.

B) Statistics. Even though the authors indicated in the method section the type of statistical tests used in the paper, this reviewer was unable to locate which data set has been analyze with which statistical test. Further, multiple different types of tests were employed with no justification provided for why using these tests (parametric distribution, similar variability, ect). Third, no statistical power is reported for the statistical significances reported here. Statistical power should be reported whenever statistical significance is reported for every measure. Fourth, with the very small sample sizes used here, t-tests should not be used. Instead, exacts tests should have been used with statistical power reported when statistical significance is achieved. Exacts tests are the proper tests for small sample sizes.

C) The low resolution and the small size of the fonts of the two main figures make for this reviewer impossible to properly read graphs and numbers. The authors must submit figures with appropriate resolution and font size to facilitate data visualization.

Addressing these critical points will give solid base to the results of this study to draw very much needed conclusions.

Minor concerns:

-the general tone of the paper on the results presented here should be tone down. Sentence as ‘We demonstrated here for the first time, to our knowledge’ (e.g. line 163, line 183) should be simplified to ‘here, we demonstrated…or the results indicate…

-Lines 17-18. The introduction of the abstract should be smoother since tens of studies using CNO have been published and the off-targets effects are well defined. For example, the abstract may begin this way: Designer Receptors Exclusively Activated by Designer Drugs (DREADDs) represent a technical revolution in integrative neuroscience. However, the first used ligands exhibited dose-dependent selectivity for their molecular target, leading to unspecific effects.

-Lines 52-54. It is important to mention studies that have identified proper concentration of CNO to reduce off-targets effects.

-lines 80-81: the sentence ‘Before assessing the potential effects of 81 C21 on SNc neuronal activity by using extracellular electrophysiology (Figs 2 and S1)’ should be eliminated since these results will be described in the following sections.

-Line 88 and line 140: the use of the sentence ‘no effect of time whatever the transgene condition’ should be re

**********

6. 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

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment 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. Registration is free. 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Sep 18;15(9):e0238156. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238156.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 Jul 2020

We thank the Reviewers for their encouraging, thoughtful and helpful comments and apologize for some misunderstanding reveal in the light of their comments. Below, a point by point response to the Reviewers’ comments, including additional data and analyses.

Reviewer 1:

1. My major concern about this study is whether the authors in fact record from dopamine neurons or not. There is a huge literature on the firing rate of dopamine neurons and the basal firing rate reported is unambiguously between 2-6Hz, depending on the level of anesthesia. In contrast, Goutaudier et al recorded from cells that fire at >20Hz and most likely represent GABA producing interneurons in the midbrain. It is unclear to me why the authors have disregarded the well-established criteria for identifying dopamine neurons.

We apologize for the misunderstanding about the nature of the recorded neurons in this experiment. Indeed, we did not perform single unit recordings of dopaminergic neurons. The aim of this experiment was to evaluate the long-lasting effect of our injections (over 5 hours) which is technically more challenging when performing those unit recordings. This is why we performed multi-unit recordings, using tungsten electrodes, allowing recording of a neuronal population. The firing rate > 20 Hz is therefore due to a firing rate summation from multiple neurons. To avoid confusion, we have now replaced Hz by events/s.

Because the firing rate criteria cannot be used for neuronal identification as it is a summation of action potentials from different neurons, we used the action potential’s shape, which represents a second important criteria to indicate the nature of the neurons recorded. In multi-unit recordings, dopaminergic neuronal extracellular signals are characterized by a triphasic spike, with a duration greater than 2 ms (Coizet et al., 2006; Ungless and Grace, 2012).

We thus performed additional spike analysis indicating we are likely to record from a majority of putative dopamine neurons:

- The waveform average obtained from each of our recordings are characterized by a triphasic spike, with a duration greater than 2 ms (mean duration = 2.7 +/- 0.06 ms) (in the rebuttal Fig. 1). In multi-unit recordings, we previously showed that this waveform is highly reminiscent of dopaminergic neurons in opposition to GABA neurons, characterized by a biphasic spike with a duration less than 1.5 ms (Coizet et al., 2003).

- As illustrated below (in the rebuttal Fig. 1), there is a low variability in the shape of the waveform average obtained from our recordings (the red lines indicate the standard error, that appear very closed to the mean and difficult to distinguish from it). This indicates this average is from a highly homogeneous population of putative dopaminergic neurons with a long duration triphasic action potentials in majority, and is unlikely including GABA neurons with biphasic short-lasting spikes. This is coherent with the description of SNc, as an area containing a majority of dopamine neuron and a minority of GABA neurons (Nair-Roberts et al., 2008)

- Finally, the large majority of the waveform average fulfills the last criteria to identify dopaminergic neurons using electrophysiology suggested by Ungless and Grace: a duration of > 1.1 ms measured from spike initiation to the maximal negative phase of the action potential. This duration was 1.2 +/- 0.03 ms (mean ± SEM) in our experiment (Ungless and Grace, 2012).

Figure 1: Representative example of the waveform average realized on our recording. The total duration of the triphasic spike is indicated in blue. The duration from the spike initiation to the maximal negative phase of action potential is indicated in green. Data are presented as the waveform average +/- SEM

We had clarified this point, in different parts of the “Materials and methods” and “Figure Legend” sections of the manuscript (indicated in red). In addition, we replaced “Firing rate” by “Multi-unit activity” in Fig. 2 of the manuscript and elsewhere in the text.

Unfortunately, this intentional or unintentional mistake invalidates the conclusion of these DREADD receptor is activated specifically on TH-expressing dopamine neurons. This illustrate the complex synaptic circuit in the midbrain but not that C21 has unspecific effects.

The first part of the Reviewer’s comment pointed out whether or not we were recording DA neurons in this study. We hope this point is now clarified. The second part pointed out whether or not we observed unspecific effects with C21. In the manuscript, we compared, in male ♂-mCherry rats, two doses of C21 (0.5 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg). At 1 mg/kg, C21 induced a robust and long-lasting increase of SNc neurons compared to vehicle and the 0.5 mg/kg condition. Considering that C21, at 1 mg/kg, strongly modified the SNc neurons activity while animals do not express the DREADD, and that this effect disappear at 0.5 mg/kg or is absent in animals treated only with NaCl, it was therefore difficult to conclude anything other than C21 has, at 1 mg/kg in Long-Evans rats, unspecific effects.

To conclude on this unspecific effect, we also want to take this opportunity to remind that we never conclude on the type of neurons responsible for this effect. Rather, we proposed two main hypotheses by which the potential target of C21 could be directly localized on DA neurons or an alternative and indirect mechanism by which the target of C21 would be localized on GABA neurons. It is critical for us to not over-interpret the results but to warn scientist using C21 about possible side-effects of this compound, whatever are the underlying mechanisms.

Reviewer 2:

A) Small sample size. One major limitation in all experiments of this work is the small number of recordings from which the data are generated and conclusions are drawn. Considering the number of variables to compare (two different concentration of C21, control versus transgenic and males versus females), the firing values of the control groups and the variability of the firing between individual of the same group (e.g. different between males and females with the last group having a much larger variability) and the effect size, the number of recordings (the group that has the most is 8) are insufficient to classifying non-significant results as different. This is the case for the experiments on the female groups (both in the control group and the hM4Di-espressing group), one major result and conclusion of the paper. How the authors justify these sample size? Did they run any proper statistical power analysis on this study? Statistical power analysis should be provided to justify the sample sizes. If small sample sizes are justified by power analysis, then proper statistical tests should then be employed (see next point). If power analysis yielded larger sample sizes, then additional experiments should be conducted to achieve an appropriate power.

We apologize for a potential lack of clarity, but 8 is the maximum of animals use per group and not the maximum number of recordings. As 2 recordings were possible per animal (one per side), the number of recordings was between 7 and 10 which is in the range or even above the sample sizes usually published with this kind of techniques and statistical analysis (n = 4, Takasu et al., 2013; n = 8, Gremel and Costa, 2013; n = 6, Fifel et al., 2018). We have tried to indicate and explain in different sections of our manuscript (In the manuscript: Fig 1. – page 7, lines 146-147; Fig 2. – page 8, lines 164-168; Materials and Methods – page 11, line 203; page 12, lines 234-237; page 13, lines 249-250; pages 15, lines 297-301), the number of animals and recording used for each group, to be as transparent as possible.

We understand the point of the Reviewer. However, we did not run any a priori statistical power analysis as you need to inject in the analysis, the difference you expect to observe between our groups and we had no prediction about the effect we will obtain, especially for the off-target effect. In addition, estimation or computation of power remains controversial (for instance, Prism, the statistical software used for this study and frequently used in biology, decided to not calculate power for these reasons), especially as it is directed related to the p value (Goodman and Berlin, 1994; Hoenig and Heisey, 2001). This is why we have decided before the experiment, that we will calculate and provide partial η2 values when it will be possible, as an alternative and reliable indicator of the robustness or not, of our effects (Levine and Hullett, 2002), as we did recently (Magnard et al., 2018). This approach allowed us to found a strong effect size for the treatment x time interaction for male (in the manuscript: 0.44, page 6, line 117) but not for female (in the manuscript: 0.19, page 7, line 132).

To answer the question of the Reviewer, we ran with another software (SigmaStat) a power analysis on our results to give as estimation of the requested sample sizes. For the off-target effect in male (in the manuscript: Fig. 2D, middle panel), for an alpha set at 0.05, the power of the ANOVA was estimated to be 0.98, giving a sample size of 4 to detect the effect as significant with a power of 0.80, and confirms the robustness of this effect. For the DREADDs-mediated effect in male (in the manuscript: Fig. 2E, middle panel), the power was estimated to be 0.94, giving a sample size of 5. For the DREADDs-mediated effect in female (in the manuscript: Fig. 2F, middle panel), the power that was estimated was really low (0.11), and a minimum sample size of 15 will be necessary for a power of 0.80. See the results of the analyses for the sample sizes just below:

Off target effect, male (Fig. 2D):

Sample Size for ANOVA: jeudi, juin 25, 2020, 14:43:35

Data source: Data 1 in Notebook 1

Sample Size 4,000

Difference in Means 119,000

Standard Deviation 40,000

Number of Groups 4

Power 0,800

Alpha 0,0500

DREADDs-mediated effect, male (Fig. 2E):

Sample Size for ANOVA: jeudi, juin 25, 2020, 14:39:13

Data source: Data 1 in Notebook 1

Sample Size 5,000

Difference in Means 33,000

Standard Deviation 14,000

Number of Groups 4

Power 0,800

Alpha 0,0500

DREADDs-mediated effect, female (Fig. 2F):

Sample Size for ANOVA: jeudi, juin 25, 2020, 14:46:48

Data source: Data 1 in SampleSize-PLOSONE

Sample Size 15,000

Difference in Means 27,000

Standard Deviation 21,000

Number of Groups 4

Power 0,800

Alpha 0,0500

The objective and the message for the female was not to say that the effect is different than in male but, as written (in the manuscript: page 7, lines 133-136), and as it can be observed (in the manuscript: Fig. 2F, left panel), that a residual off-target effect may mitigated the DREADDs-mediated effect that we recognized to be also present in female. In order to clarify our message, we propose to add at the end of the results section: “Therefore, detecting a statistically significant DREADDs-mediated effect may require a greater number of animals for female with this dose of C21”.

For the last point, the use of parametric analyses appears justified as they are standardly used in the field with this range of sample sizes (e.g., Coizet et al., 2006; Fifel et al., 2018; Gremel and Costa, 2013). In addition, we have verified the assumptions of normality (Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests) and sphericity (Bartlett's test). We apologize for not reporting this point in the first version of the manuscript. This is now specified in the Data analyses section.

B) Statistics. Even though the authors indicated in the method section the type of statistical tests used in the paper, this reviewer was unable to locate which data set has been analyze with which statistical test. Further, multiple different types of tests were employed with no justification provided for why using these tests (parametric distribution, similar variability, ect). Third, no statistical power is reported for the statistical significances reported here. Statistical power should be reported whenever statistical significance is reported for every measure. Fourth, with the very small sample sizes used here, t-tests should not be used. Instead, exacts tests should have been used with statistical power reported when statistical significance is achieved. Exacts tests are the proper tests for small sample sizes.

We have now reported the type of test for each result in the corresponding section and completed the justification of their use in the Data analyses section (see also point A).

For the questions concerning statistical power and sample sizes, see also point A. As the distribution appear parametric, it seems justify to use t-tests to be in line with the ANOVA analyses. Again, t-tests are also standardly used in the field in publication with similar sample sizes (Coizet et al., 2006, 2003; Fifel et al., 2018; Gremel and Costa, 2013; Paul et al., 2017; Takasu et al., 2013). To confirm the statistically significance of our effects and ensure that we did not have incidentally increase our alpha risk above 5%, we however ran non-parametric tests. A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test to compare the period in which the dose of 1 mg/kg of C21 produced the increase in neuronal activity to the vehicle period (in the manuscript: Fig. 2D, right panel) found a significant and exact p value of 0.0313. A similar test to compare the period in which the dose of 0.5 mg/kg of C21 produced the decrease in neuronal activity to the vehicle period (in the manuscript: Fig. 2E, right panel) found a significant and exact p value of 0.0098. The results of the other test were non-significant, providing similar results as the ones obtained with parametric t-tests.

Taking together, the complementary analyses of point A and B consistently support our prior analyses, indicating that the off-target effect of 1 mg/kg of C21 is robust, and that it is easier to statistically detect the DREADDs-mediated effect of 0.5 mg/kg of C21 in male than in female.

C) The low resolution and the small size of the fonts of the two main figures make for this reviewer impossible to properly read graphs and numbers. The authors must submit figures with appropriate resolution and font size to facilitate data visualization.

We apologize for this technical issue that we hope we have fixed for the submission of the revised version of our manuscript.

Minor concerns:

-the general tone of the paper on the results presented here should be tone down. Sentence as ‘We demonstrated here for the first time, to our knowledge’ (e.g. line 163, line 183) should be simplified to ‘here, we demonstrated…or the results indicate…

-Lines 17-18. The introduction of the abstract should be smoother since tens of studies using CNO have been published and the off-targets effects are well defined. For example, the abstract may begin this way: Designer Receptors Exclusively Activated by Designer Drugs (DREADDs) represent a technical revolution in integrative neuroscience. However, the first used ligands exhibited dose-dependent selectivity for their molecular target, leading to unspecific effects.

-Lines 52-54. It is important to mention studies that have identified proper concentration of CNO to reduce off-targets effects.

-lines 80-81: the sentence ‘Before assessing the potential effects of 81 C21 on SNc neuronal activity by using extracellular electrophysiology (Figs 2 and S1)’ should be eliminated since these results will be described in the following sections.

-Line 88 and line 140: the use of the sentence ‘no effect of time whatever the transgene condition’ should be re

We thank the Reviewer for these suggestions. Modifications have been throughout the manuscript accordingly.

Reference:

Björklund A, Dunnett SB (2007) Dopamine neuron systems in the brain: an update. Trends Neurosci 30:194–202.

Coizet V, Comoli E, Westby GWM, Redgrave P (2003) Phasic activation of substantia nigra and the ventral tegmental area by chemical stimulation of the superior colliculus: An electrophysiological investigation in the rat. Eur J Neurosci 17:28–40.

Coizet V, Dommett EJ, Redgrave P, Overton PG (2006) Nociceptive responses of midbrain dopaminergic neurones are modulated by the superior colliculus in the rat. Neuroscience 139:1479–1493.

Fifel K, Meijer JH, Deboer T (2018) Circadian and Homeostatic Modulation of Multi-Unit Activity in Midbrain Dopaminergic Structures. Sci Rep 8:1–14.

Goodman SN, Berlin JA (1994) The use of predicted confidence intervals when planning experiments and the misuse of power when interpreting results. Ann Intern Med.

Gremel CM, Costa RM (2013) Orbitofrontal and striatal circuits dynamically encode the shift between goal-directed and habitual actions. Nat Commun.

Hoenig JM, Heisey DM (2001) The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. Am Stat.

Levine TR, Hullett CR (2002) Eta Squared, Partial Eta Squared, and Misreporting of Effect Size in Communication Research. Hum Commun Res.

Magnard R, Vachez Y, Carcenac C, Boulet S, Houeto JL, Savasta M, Belin D, Carnicella S (2018) Nigrostriatal dopaminergic denervation does not promote impulsive choice in the rat: Implication for impulse control disorders in Parkinson’s disease. Front Behav Neurosci 12:1–10.

Nair-Roberts RG, Chatelain-Badie SD, Benson E, White-Cooper H, Bolam JP, Ungless MA (2008) Stereological estimates of dopaminergic, GABAergic and glutamatergic neurons in the ventral tegmental area, substantia nigra and retrorubral field in the rat. Neuroscience 152:1024–1031.

Paul R, Choudhury A, Kumar S, Giri A, Sandhir R, Borah A (2017) Cholesterol contributes to dopamineneuronal loss in MPTP mouse model of Parkinson’s disease: Involvement of mitochondrial dysfunctions and oxidative stress. PLoS One 12:1–22.

Takasu NN, Pendergast JS, Olivas CS, Yamazaki S, Nakamura W (2013) In Vivo Monitoring of Multi-Unit Neural Activity in the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus Reveals Robust Circadian Rhythms in Period1-/- Mice. PLoS One 8:1–8.

Ungless MA, Grace AA (2012) Are you or aren’t you? Challenges associated with physiologically identifying dopamine neurons. Trends Neurosci.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Gilberto Fisone

11 Aug 2020

Compound 21, a two-edged sword with both DREADD-selective and off-target outcomes in rats

PONE-D-20-14375R1

Dear Dr. Carnicella,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.   

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Gilberto Fisone

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I encourage the authors to implement the last recommendations expressed by the referees (see Review Comments to the Author)

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Thank you for clarifying how the identification of the neurons are performed. I recommend that this information is added to the Figure 2. Although some readers are aware of these criteria, I believe it will guide a broader audience and avoid confusion if supplemental fig 3 is shown in the main part of the manuscript. My concern has been addressed in this version of the manuscript and I have no further comments.

Reviewer #2: The authors answered posivitely all reviewers comments. It may be usefull if the authors create a supplementary table with all statistical tests, significance and power analysis . I believe it is important to make this infomration accessible to the reader since the type of data and their interpretation crucially depend by the comparisosn of the different groups.

**********

7. 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

Acceptance letter

Gilberto Fisone

9 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-14375R1

Compound 21, a two-edged sword with both DREADD-selective and off-target outcomes in rats.

Dear Dr. Carnicella:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Gilberto Fisone

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Basal neuronal activity and recording remain stable over time in animals treat with saline solution.

    Effect of vehicle along time on SNc neuronal activity rate in rats expressing mCherry (n = 8 recordings, 5 animals) (A) or hM4Di (n = 8 recordings, 5 animals) (B). To keep the same experimental conditions, two saline injections were realized, one at the end of the 10-minutes baseline recording (VEH, a 20-minutes interval) and one at the end of the vehicle period corresponding to the time of C21 injection (30-minutes intervals). Data were expressed as the mean number of recording sides +/- SEM.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Location of recording sites within the SNc among the different groups studied.

    Male expressing mCherry treated with 1 mg.kg-1 of C21 (A) or 0.5 mg.kg-1 of C21 (B). Male expressing hM4Di treated with 0.5 mg.kg-1 of C21 (C). Female expressing mCherry (D) or hM4Di (E) and treated with 0.5 mg.kg-1 of C21.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Summary of statistical analyses.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES