Skip to main content
eLife logoLink to eLife
. 2023 Feb 7;12:e83176. doi: 10.7554/eLife.83176

Microglial motility is modulated by neuronal activity and correlates with dendritic spine plasticity in the hippocampus of awake mice

Felix Christopher Nebeling 1,, Stefanie Poll 1, Lena Christine Justus 1, Julia Steffen 1, Kevin Keppler 2, Manuel Mittag 1, Martin Fuhrmann 1,
Editors: Laura L Colgin3, Laura L Colgin4
PMCID: PMC9946443  PMID: 36749020

Abstract

Microglia, the resident immune cells of the brain, play a complex role in health and disease. They actively survey the brain parenchyma by physically interacting with other cells and structurally shaping the brain. Yet, the mechanisms underlying microglial motility and significance for synapse stability, especially in the hippocampus during adulthood, remain widely unresolved. Here, we investigated the effect of neuronal activity on microglial motility and the implications for the formation and survival of dendritic spines on hippocampal CA1 neurons in vivo. We used repetitive two-photon in vivo imaging in the hippocampus of awake and anesthetized mice to simultaneously study the motility of microglia and their interaction with dendritic spines. We found that CA3 to CA1 input is sufficient to modulate microglial process motility. Simultaneously, more dendritic spines emerged in mice after awake compared to anesthetized imaging. Interestingly, the rate of microglial contacts with individual dendritic spines and dendrites was associated with the stability, removal, and emergence of dendritic spines. These results suggest that microglia might sense neuronal activity via neurotransmitter release and actively participate in synaptic rewiring of the hippocampal neural network during adulthood. Further, this study has profound relevance for hippocampal learning and memory processes.

Research organism: Mouse

Introduction

Microglia are cells of the innate immune system in the central nervous system (CNS). Under physiological conditions, microglia are sessile, highly ramified, and plastic cells that constantly scan their environment with fine processes, an activity referred to as microglial motility (Davalos et al., 2005; Nimmerjahn et al., 2005). This remarkable degree of cellular plasticity enables microglia to detect and quickly react to even the subtlest changes of tissue homeostasis within their microenvironment – a process shown to be ATP-dependent (Davalos et al., 2005). While microglia have been linked to a number of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease (Heneka et al., 2014; Ransohoff, 2016), little is known about their physiological function under healthy conditions (Tay et al., 2017; Tremblay et al., 2011). During the discovery of microglial motility, the hypothesis was tested as to whether process motility related to neuronal activity, yet interfering with neuronal activity in vivo using tetrodotoxin (TTX) and bicuculline led to inconsistent findings (Nimmerjahn et al., 2005). These results may have been confounded by the use of anesthetics like isoflurane, although there is no current consensus on the impact of anesthesia on microglial motility in vivo.

Under fentanyl/midazolam/dexmedetomidine (Stowell et al., 2019) or isoflurane (Liu et al., 2019) anesthesia in vivo, cortical microglia increased their process area and surveillance territory. However, contradictory effects have been described while using isolflurane anesthesia, showing decreased microglia motility in response to isoflurane in acute slice preparations (Madry et al., 2018). Further, a recent study also described microglia motility being positively correlated to neuronal activity in vivo in the cortex (Hristovska et al., 2022). These diverging findings might in part be due to different means of preparation, specimen age, and/or brain region specificity, as microglia display a high degree of region-dependent diversity (Grabert et al., 2016). Evidence from Ca2+ imaging in zebrafish suggests a reciprocal relationship between microglial motility and neuronal activity, with decreased Ca2-transient frequencies upon microglial contact with neurons (Li et al., 2012). Further evidence for a dependency of microglial process motility on neuronal activity has been derived from studies investigating the relationship of dendritic spine formation and elimination using two-photon in vivo imaging. Lowering neuronal activity by inducing hypothermia and applying TTX reduced the frequency of microglial contacts with dendritic spines in the visual and somatosensory cortex, although microglial motility was not directly measured in this particular study (Wake et al., 2009). Moreover, in the visual cortex microglial motility was reduced in mice kept in darkness, whereas it increased in mice re-exposed to light after a dark period (Tremblay et al., 2010). The same study found that microglial contact rate increased before dendritic spines were eliminated during a critical period of developmental plasticity, suggesting a role for microglia in shaping post-synapses. During early development in the mouse cortex, microglial contacts at dendrites also induced the formation of new dendritic filopodial spines in awake, but not anesthetized mice (Miyamoto et al., 2016). Additionally, removal of microglia from the brain of adult mice reduced motor learning-induced/BDNF-dependent formation of new dendritic spines in the motor cortex (Parkhurst et al., 2013).

An important brain region involved in learning and memory processing is the hippocampus. Whether hippocampal microglia have similar functions in dendritic spine formation and elimination as in the cortex remains unresolved. Yet, recent data from in vitro studies showed a relationship of long-term potentiation and spine contact rates with microglia in the hippocampus (Pfeiffer et al., 2016). Further, pre-synapses – but not post-synapses – were eliminated by trogocytosis (non-apoptotic uptake of membrane components by immune cells), while filopodial spine formation was induced by microglia during development in hippocampal slice cultures (Weinhard et al., 2018). Additional in vitro experiments indicated that microglial responses to neuronal stimulation in the hippocampus were only detectable during early post-natal stages and absent during adulthood (Logiacco et al., 2021). Together, these results suggest a role for microglia in promoting synapse stability and formation.

The interplay between microglia and synapses is of particular interest, as microglia are by far the most plastic cells in the CNS. By engaging with synapses, microglia have the potential to enhance and weaken synaptic transmission, as well as affect structural plasticity of spines in healthy and disease conditions. Whereas microglia have been shown to be critical for synaptogenesis and synaptic integrity during developmental stages (Miyamoto et al., 2016; Schafer et al., 2012; Stevens et al., 2007; Tremblay et al., 2010), little is known about their contribution to structural plasticity in the hippocampus during adulthood. Thus, it is critical to understand the nature and functional properties of microglia-synapse interactions, especially during adulthood, as the role of microglia in CNS homeostasis might differ between CNS development and adulthood (Mosser et al., 2017). Microglial fine process motility has not been examined in vivo in the hippocampus up until now, and recent findings implicate a more heterogeneous role of microglia throughout different brain regions than previously assumed (Grabert et al., 2016). It is therefore important to elucidate whether microglial motility in the hippocampus is different from the cortex. For that reason, we set out to investigate microglial motility under healthy conditions and in the absence of anesthesia in the hippocampus of awake, adult mice while examining to what extent baseline surveillance of microglia is dependent on neuronal activity. Additionally, we address the question of whether microglia play a role in dendritic spine formation and elimination during adulthood, supporting lifelong structural plasticity of spines in the hippocampus.

Results

Microglial motility correlates with neuronal activity in hippocampal CA1

To address the relationship of neuronal activity and microglial motility in the hippocampus in vivo, we used mice expressing green fluorescent protein (GFP) in microglia (knock in of gfp into the Cx3cr1 [chemokine C-X3-C motif receptor 1] locus [Jung et al., 2000]) and yellow fluorescent protein (YFP) in neurons (Thy1-YFP-H mice; Feng et al., 2000). Mice were heterozygous for both alleles (Thy1-YFPtg/wt::Cx3cr1-GFPki/wt) and between 7 and 10 months of age. Of note, Cx3cr1-GFPki/wt microglia are haploinsufficient for the fractalkine receptor (CX3CR1). However, in an elaborated transcriptome analysis of mice with complete loss or haploinsufficiency of CX3CR1 compared to the wildtype (WT) condition, major differences were found at a younger age (2 months), whereas WT and heterozygous mice cluster closer together in older mice 1–2 years of age (Gyoneva et al., 2019). To access the hippocampus, we unilaterally removed parts of the somatosensory cortex and implanted a metal tube, sealed with a glass cover-slip at the bottom (Gu et al., 2014). After at least 4 weeks of recovery, two-photon in vivo imaging began (Figure 1a and b). Microglial fine process motility was consecutively recorded (with 3-week intervals between imaging experiments/treatment conditions) in the dorsal hippocampus of the same mice under anesthesia, then in awake conditions running on a circular treadmill, and finally in awake conditions with topical TTX application (Figure 1a). Microglia motility was measured by acquiring z-stacks spanning 100 µm in the stratum radiatum (SR) of the dorsal hippocampus (Figure 1b). Microglial process turnover rate was calculated as previously described (Fuhrmann et al., 2010). The lost and gained proportion of microglia processes between imaging time points was calculated in a two-channel color overlay image (Figure 1c; Methods). Under isoflurane anesthesia (1.0% isoflurane in oxygen), microglia showed reduced fine process motility compared to the awake condition (60.2% ± 2.7% anesthesia vs. 69.9% ± 2.8% awake; Figure 1d; Figure 1—videos 1 and 2). Isoflurane acts primarily by prolonging GABAergic transmission, thus inhibiting neuronal activity (Goltstein et al., 2015; Noda and Takahashi, 2015; Vahle-Hinz et al., 2007). We confirmed that 1% isoflurane anesthesia significantly reduced Ca2+ event rate as a marker of neuronal activity by more than 50% in hippocampal CA1 neurons (Figure 1—figure supplement 1, Figure 1—videos 3 and 4). These results led to the hypothesis that microglial motility and neuronal activity are connected. To address this question, we topically applied TTX (50 µM), a potent blocker of voltage-gated sodium channels, to inhibit action potential firing in the hippocampus. This pharmacological manipulation significantly decreased microglial motility in awake mice, even below the levels of these same mice under anesthesia (Figure 1d; 69.9% ± 2.8% awake vs. 52,8±1.2% awake plus TTX). These results suggest a positive relationship between microglial motility and neuronal activity in the dorsal CA1 region of the hippocampus in vivo.

Figure 1. Increased microglial motility in the hippocampus of awake mice.

Experimental paradigm of repetitive microglia imaging in dorsal CA1 (stratum radiatum [SR]) in the same mice under varying conditions. (b) Schematic of the accessible hippocampal layers in CA1 through a chronic hippocampal cranial window. CX3CR1-GFP::thy-1-YFP-H transgenic mice allowed for simultaneous visualization of microglia (green) and neurons (magenta). (c) Representative image of a microglia cell and its processes in an awake mouse imaged in CA1, SR. Subsequent time points (0, 5 min) were superimposed (Δt=5 min) to measure gained (green arrow), lost (red arrow), and stable (yellow area) processes. (d) Turnover rate of microglia fine processes (i.e. motility) at varying conditions (n=6 mice ‘anesthesia’, ‘awake’; n=4 ‘awake+tetrodotoxin [TTX]’); one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test, F(2,13) = 10.22; p=0.0291 (anesthesia vs. awake), p=0.0014 (awake vs. awake+TTX). Error bars: SEM. Scale bars: (b) 100 μm, (c) 10 μm, 2 μm; *p<0.05, **p<0.01.

Figure 1.

Figure 1—figure supplement 1. Isoflurane anesthesia decreases neuronal activity in the hippocampus.

Figure 1—figure supplement 1.

(a) Exemplary image of Ca2+ imaging (GCaMP6m) in CamKII+ cells of the CA1 region in the dorsal CA1 of the hippocampus in an awake mouse averaged over 60 s at 30 Hz sampling rate. (b) Ca2+ imaging under isoflurane anesthesia (1% in O2). (c) Exemplary traces of changes in somatic GCaMP6m fluorescence in 10 cells over 60 s in an awake mouse. (d) Fluorescence changes under anesthesia. (e) Comparison of average Ca2+ responses in both conditions. Data shown for three mice and 50–100 cells per recording in two different fields of views, respectively. Paired t-test, p=0.0435; *p<0.05. Error bars: SEM.
Figure 1—figure supplement 2. Examples of microglia in CA1 under anesthesia, awake, and tetrodotoxin (TTX)-treated conditions.

Figure 1—figure supplement 2.

(a–c) Exemplary in vivo images of microglia from stratum radiatum (SR) of dorsal CA1 under (a) isoflurane anesthesia, (b) awake, and (c) awake but after topical TTX treatment. We did not observe deramification under conditions (b) and (c). Scale bar: 5 µm.
Figure 1—video 1. Microglial motility in an anesthetized mouse.
Download video file (417.5KB, mp4)
Microglia fine process motility recorded in the hippocampus of a mouse under isoflurane anesthesia (1% in O2) using two-photon microscopy over 45 min. Z-stacks were acquired 5 min apart each spanning 100 µm starting under the CA1 cell layer. For analysis, a maximum intensity projection of 25 µm was created for each time point. Scale bar: 10 μm.
Figure 1—video 2. Microglial motility in an awake mouse.
Download video file (404.8KB, mp4)
Microglia fine process motility recorded in the hippocampus of an awake mouse head-fixed on a circular treadmill using two-photon microscopy. Z-stacks were taken 5 min apart each spanning 100 µm starting under the CA1 cell layer. For analysis a maximum intensity projection of 25 µm was created for each time point. Scale bar: 10 μm.
Figure 1—video 3. Calcium imaging of CA1 pyramidal neurons under isoflurane anesthesia.
Download video file (8.7MB, mp4)
Exemplary video of Ca2+ imaging (GCaMP6m) in CamKII+ cells in the CA1 region of the hippocampus in an anesthetized mouse (isoflurane, 1% in O2) over 60 s. Scale bar: 50 µm.
Figure 1—video 4. Calcium imaging of CA1 pyramidal cells in an awake mouse.
Download video file (10.3MB, mp4)
Exemplary video of Ca2+ imaging (GCaMP6m) in CamKII+ cells in the CA1 region of the hippocampus of an awake mouse over 60 s. Scale bar: 50 µm.

Modulating CA3 to CA1 input is sufficient to change microglial motility in CA1

In order to further investigate the relationship between microglial motility and neuronal activity, we carried out neuronal silencing experiments with chemogenetic tools. First, we aimed to exclude the effect of TTX application directly on microglial sodium channels, independent of neuronal activity modulation. Under physiological conditions, microglia express a limited number of voltage-gated sodium channels (Persson et al., 2014), however a direct effect of TTX on microglia could not be excluded entirely in the previous experiment.

Thus, we sought to simultaneously silence CA1 pyramidal neurons and their inputs from CA3 neurons via the Schaffer collaterals (Figure 2—figure supplement 1a) by injecting two adeno-associated viruses (AAVs) to target these neuronal populations – one expressing Cre-recombinase under the neuron-specific Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II (CamKII) promoter (AAV9-CamKII-Cre), and another expressing a loxP-flanked version of an inhibitory G-protein coupled receptor (hM4D(Gi)) under the neuronal synapsin I promoter tagged with the fluorescent reporter mCherry (AAV2-hsyn-DIO-hM4D(Gi)- mCherry, Krashes et al., 2011). The inhibitory G-protein coupled receptor hM4D(Gi) and the excitatory G-protein coupled receptor hM3(Gq) are DREADDs (designer receptor exclusively activated by designer drugs), that upon binding of the drug clozapine N-oxide (CNO), lead to silencing or activation of transfected neurons, respectively (Armbruster et al., 2007; Stachniak et al., 2014). DREADDs are routinely used as a tool to alter neuronal activity (Zhu and Roth, 2014). We confirmed inhibitory DREADD expression by post hoc immunohistological stainings of transfected hippocampi (Figure 2—figure supplement 2b–d). We analyzed microglial motility in the same awake mice with and without CNO application (Figure 2—figure supplement 1e, f). CNO-mediated silencing of CA3 and CA1 neurons significantly reduced microglial motility (Figure 2—figure supplement 1g; 71.2%±1.5% vehicle vs. 58.7%±1.8% CNO).

Next, we specifically silenced or activated CA3 input to CA1 and measured microglial motility in CA1 of awake mice (Figure 2). As before, we injected two AAVs – one expressing Cre-recombinase under the neuron-specific Ca2+/CamKII promoter (AAV9-CamKII-Cre, Addgene), and another loxP-flanked version of either an inhibitory or excitatory G-protein coupled receptor (hM4D(Gi)/hM3(Gq)) under the neuronal synapsin I promoter tagged with the fluorescent reporter mCherry AAV2-hsyn-DIO-hM4D(Gi)-mCherry (Krashes et al., 2011), AAV2-hSyn-DIO-hM3(Gq) into the CA3 region of the hippocampus (Figure 2a and e). DREADD expression was quantified by post hoc immunohistological stainings of transfected hippocampi. In respective CA3 regions, 74% of neurons expressed hM4D(Gi) (Figure 2b–d) or 68% of neurons expressed hM3D(Gq) (Figure 2f–h). To validate the DREADD system, we co-injected AAV9-CamKII-Cre alongside AAV1.Syn.Flex.GCaMP6m and AAV2-hSyn-DIO-hM3D(Gq) (Figure 2—figure supplement 2). This facilitates the visualization of Schaffer collaterals in SR and the measurement of CA3 axonal Ca2+ event frequency in awake head-fixed mice (Figure 2—figure supplement 2a–f). CNO-mediated activation of hM3D(Gq)-expressing CA3 neurons significantly increased axonal Ca2+ event frequency compared to vehicle injections, suggesting effective DREADD expression and agonist delivery (Figure 2—figure supplement 2g; Figure 2—videos 1 and 2). We then analyzed microglial motility in awake mice with and without CNO-mediated silencing or activation of CA3 input to CA1 (Figure 2i). Inhibition of CA3 input to CA1 neurons via the Schaffer collaterals significantly decreased microglial motility in the SR (Figure 2j and k; 66.1%±3% vehicle vs. 54.3 ± 3% CNO). Conversely chemogenetic activation of hM3D(Gq) transfected CA3 neurons significantly increased microglial motility (Figure 2j and l; 56.6% ± 1.8% vehicle vs. 66.6%±2.2% CNO). These data indicate that manipulation of CA3 input to CA1 is sufficient to alter microglial motility in the SR of CA1.

Figure 2. Increasing or decreasing CA3 input to CA1 reciprocally changes microglial motility.

(a, e) Adeno-associated virus (AAV) injections into the CA3 region of the hippocampus with CamKII-driven Cre-recombinase expression in neurons. This allows for the expression of loxP-flanked hM4D(Gi) (a) or hM3D(Gq) (e) under human synapsin1 promoter in CA3 neurons. (b, c) Representative images of hM4D(Gi) expression in the hippocampus (b), zoom on CA3 (c). (d) Quantification of hM4D(Gi)-DREADD (designer receptor exclusively activated by designer drug) transfected cells, on average 74% of cells in CA3 were co-expressing NeuN and mCherry/hM4D(Gi) (n=4 mice, 2410 cells were counted in total). (f, g) Representative images of hM3D(Gq) expression in the hippocampus (f), zoom on CA3 (g). (h) Quantification of hM3D(Gq)-DREADD transfected cells, on average 68% of cells in CA3 were co-expressing NeuN and mCherry/hM3D(Gq) (n=4 mice, 1749 cells were counted in total). (i) The dorsal CA1 region (stratum radiatum [SR]) of the same mice was imaged awake twice with a 1-week interval. Imaging started 40 min after i.p. injection of either vehicle (dimethyl sulfoxide [DMSO]) or clozapine N-oxide (CNO). (j) Exemplary images of microglia fine process turnover after vehicle and CNO injections under both hM4D(Gi) and hM3D(Gq) conditions in CA1, SR. (k) Microglia fine process turnover rate of DMSO- and CNO-treated mice that were injected with an inhibitory DREADD, hM4D(Gi) (n=4 mice, unpaired t-test, two-tailed, p=0.0326). (l) Microglia fine process turnover rate of DMSO- and CNO-treated mice that were injected with an excitatory DREADD, hM3D(Gq) (n=4 mice, unpaired t-test, two-tailed, p=0.0167). Error bars: SEM. Scale bars: (j) 5 μm, (c,g) 50 µm, (b,f) 500 μm, 2 μm; *p<0.05, ***p<0.001.

Figure 2.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1. Microglial motility in awake mice depends on neuronal activity.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1.

(a) Injection of two adeno-associated viruses (AVVs) into the CA1 and CA3 region of the hippocampus with CamKII-driven Cre-recombinase expression in neurons (first AAV). This allows for the recombination of loxP-flanked hM4D(Gi) and expression of the DREADD (designer receptor exclusively activated by designer drug) under human synapsin1 promoter (hSyn) in these neurons (second AAV). (b,c) Representative images of hM4D(Gi) expression in the hippocampus (b), zoom on CA1+CA3 (c). (d) Quantification of hM4D(Gi)-DREADD transfected cells in CA1 and CA3, on average 61% of cells were co-expressing Nissl and mCherry/hM4D(Gi) (n=5 mice, 970 cells were counted in total). (e) The same mice were imaged awake twice with a time interval of at least 1 week between imaging sessions. Imaging started 40 min after i.p. injection of either vehicle or clozapine N-oxide (CNO). (f) Example images in stratum radiatum of dorsal CA1 of microglia fine process turnover after vehicle and CNO injections under hM4D(Gi) conditions (CA1 and CA3 transfected). (g) Turnover rate of microglia fine processes in vehicle- and CNO-treated mice; n=5 mice, paired t-test, two-tailed, p=0.0048. Error bars: SEM. ***p<0.001. Scale bars: (f) 5 μm, (c) 50 µm, (b) 500 μm,.
Figure 2—figure supplement 2. Elevated Ca2+ event frequency in Schaffer collaterals following DREADD (designer receptor exclusively activated by designer drug) activation.

Figure 2—figure supplement 2.

(a) Schematic illustrating stereotactic injections into the CA3 region of the hippocampus with a combined injection of AAV9-CamKII0.4-Cre-SC40 together with AAV1-Syn-Flex-GCaMP6m and a AAV2-hSyn-DIO-hM3D(Gq)-DREADD. (b) Mice were implanted with a chronic hippocampal window and then imaged under awake conditions on a linear treadmill after vehicle and clozapine N-oxide (CNO) injections. (c, d) Exemplary image of GCaMP6m labeled axonal fibers in stratum radiatum (SR) of CA1 deriving from CA3 neurons with application of vehicle (c) or CNO (d). regions of interest (ROIs) (yellow) for analysis are depicted in the two pictures in the lower panel of (c, d). (e, f) ΔF/F Ca2+ traces of axonal ROIs from (c, d) recorded over 120 s from GCaMP6m-expressing CA3 axons. (g) Comparison of average Ca2+ event frequency between vehicle and CNO treatment. Data shown as average over four mice with a total of n=1641 axonal ROIs included and five to eight fields of views per mouse and condition. Mann-Whitney test; p=0.043; *p<0.05. Error bars: SEM. Scale bar: 50 µm (b).
Figure 2—video 1. Ca2+ imaging of Schaffer collaterals in CA1 of vehicle-treated hM3D(Gq)-expressing CA3 neurons in awake mice.
Download video file (48.2MB, mp4)
Imaging of axonal fibers in stratum radiatum (SR) after a co-injection of AAV9-CamKII0.4-Cre-SC40 together with AAV1-Syn-Flex-GCaMP6m and a AAV2-hSyn-DIO-hM3D(Gq)-DREADD into the CA3 cell layer. Video shown for about 100 s of acquisition time in the control (vehicle condition, 40 min after injection). Scale bar: 50 µm.
Figure 2—video 2. Ca2+ imaging of Schaffer collaterals in CA1 of clozapine N-oxide (CNO)-treated hM3D(Gq)-expressing CA3 neurons in awake mice.
Download video file (45.3MB, mp4)
Imaging of axonal fibers in stratum radiatum (SR) after a co-injection of AAV9-CamKII0.4-Cre-SC40 together with AAV1-Syn-Flex-GCaMP6m and AAV2-hSyn-DIO-hM3D(Gq)-DREADD into the CA3 cell layer. Video shown for about 100 s of acquisition time in the control (CNO condition, 40 min after injection). Scale bar: 50 µm.

Spine stability correlates with microglial contact rate

CA3 input to CA1 via Schaffer collaterals is an important pathway of the hippocampus involved in spatial information processing and learning. CA3 axons form synapses with dendritic spines of CA1 neurons in the SR and their stimulation can lead to long-term synaptic plasticity (Luscher and Malenka, 2012; Takeuchi et al., 2014). Microglia have been shown to increase their process length and prolong their contacts with dendritic spines in hippocampal slices during long-term potentiation in situ (Pfeiffer et al., 2016). Since microglial motility was related to CA3 activity, we hypothesized that altered microglial motility would correlate with structural plasticity changes of dendritic spines in vivo. First, we investigated whether any differences existed in structural plasticity of dendritic spines in anesthetized and awake mice (Figure 3). To do so, we acquired z-stacks containing radial oblique dendrites in the SR of the hippocampus. Repetitive imaging sessions were carried out, first under anesthesia and then under awake conditions on a treadmill with a 2-day interval between imaging sessions (Figure 3a and b). Here, we observed a significant increase in spine density and significantly higher fractions of gained vs. lost spines 2 days after awake imaging (Figure 3c–f). These results underscore the structural plasticity of dendritic spines in the hippocampus even during adulthood. Moreover, a substantial fraction of dendritic spine turnover was spatially clustered along the dendrites of CA1 pyramidal neurons (i.e. within 4 µm along the same dendrite; 55% of observed turnover, see Figure 3—figure supplement 1a-c). Similar findings have previously been reported for dendrites of excitatory neurons in the hippocampus, somatosensory, motor, visual, and retrosplenial cortices (Bloss et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2012; Frank et al., 2018; Fu et al., 2012).

Figure 3. Increased structural plasticity of dendritic spines in the hippocampus of awake mice.

(a) Mice were imaged twice with a 2-day interval, first in anesthesia and subsequently awake on a spinning disk. (b) We acquired z-stacks containing radial oblique dendrites in stratum radiatum of dorsal CA1 in the hippocampus. Exemplary images of two dendrites acquired with a 2-day interval in anesthesia (left panel) or awake (right panel). Blue arrows indicate stable, red arrows lost, and green arrows gained spines. (c) No changes of spine density after imaging in anesthesia (1.09 ± 0.01 μm–1 at d0 vs. 1.07 ± 0.02 μm–1 at d2; paired t-test, p=0.1235). (d) Elevated spine density after awake imaging (1.04 ± 0.03 μm–1 to 1.12±0.05 μm–1; paired t-test, p=0.0462). (e) Similar turnover of dendritic spines was detectable between anesthetized and awake mice (5.55 ± 0.64% anesthesia vs. 6.23 ± 1.17% awake; paired t-test, p=0.6692). (f) Turnover of dendritic spines differentiated into fractions of lost and gained spines under both conditions. In awake mice, the fraction of gained spines was elevated (10.35 ± 2.19% in awake mice and 5.06 ± 0.68% in anesthetized mice; p=0.039). The fractions of gained and lost spines were comparable under anesthetized conditions (gained: 5.06 ± 0.68% vs. lost: 6.61 ± 0.92%; p=0.4095). The fraction of lost spines was similar in awake compared to anesthetized mice (f; 2.7 ± 0.73% awake vs. 6.61 ± 0.92% anesthesia; p=0.1496), under awake conditions we found more gained compared to lost spines (gained: 10.35 ± 2.19% and lost 2.7 ± 0.73%; p=0.0037), ordinary one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparisons test, F(3,12) = 6.23. Data from four mice; n.s. not significant, *pP<0.05, **p<0.01. Error bars: SEM.

Figure 3.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1. Clustered structural plasticity of spines associated with microglia contact frequency.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1.

(a) Schematic illustrating clustered spine turnover quantification. Three different classes of clustered events (within a distance of 4 µm) were defined. Lost: If two neighboring spines were lost; balanced: if one spine is lost and another one gained; gained: if two spines were gained. (b) Approximately 55% of all observed events of structural plasticity in CA1 (stratum radiatum [SR]) were clustered both in anesthesia (52.26%) and awake (57.74%) conditions. (c) Analysis of clustered events with respect to their class (see (a): lost, balanced, gained). In awake mice, the fraction of clustered gained spines (85.71%) is larger than in anesthetized mice (26.67%). (d) Microglia contact rates as calculated in Figure 3a preceding a clustered or a solitary event (unpaired t-test, p=0.0365; *p<0.05). Error bars: SEM.
Figure 3—figure supplement 2. Increased structural plasticity of dendritic spines in the hippocampus of awake mice, statistics over dendrites.

Figure 3—figure supplement 2.

No changes of spine density after imaging in anesthesia (1.09 ± 0.04 μm–1 at d0 vs. 1.07 ± 0.04 μm–1 at d2; Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test, p=0.2759). (b) Elevated spine density after awake imaging (1.04 ± 0.03 μm–1 to 1.12 ± 0.03 μm–1; paired t-test, p<0.0001). (c) Similar turnover of dendritic spines was detectable between anesthetized and awake mice (5.64 ± 0.55% anesthesia vs. 6.23 ± 0.79% awake; unpaired t-test, p=0.5377). (d) Turnover of dendritic spines differentiated into fractions of lost and gained spines under both conditions. In awake mice the fraction of gained spines was elevated (10.35 ± 1.35% in awake mice and 5.18 ± 0.84% in anesthetized mice; p=0.0036). These fractions were comparable under anesthetized conditions (gained: 5.18 ± 0.84% vs. lost: 6.7 ± 1.02%; p=0.7079). The fraction of lost spines was decreased in awake compared to anesthetized mice (Figure 3f; 2.7 ± 0.81% awake vs. 6.7 ± 1.02% anesthesia; p=0.0359), ordinary one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparisons test, F(3,62) = 9.58. Data from four mice with spine turnover averaged over dendrites; n=17 loss+17 gain in anesthesia and n=16 loss+16 gain in awake mice respectively (a–d); n.s. not significant, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. Error bars: SEM.

After identifying altered structural plasticity of dendritic spines in awake and anesthetized mice, we next investigated whether microglia were involved in synaptogenesis and synapse elimination. This has been shown in other organisms and brain regions in vivo, and the hippocampus in vitro (Miyamoto et al., 2016; Parkhurst et al., 2013; Sipe et al., 2016; Stevens et al., 2007; Tremblay et al., 2010; Weinhard et al., 2018). Here, we analyzed the interaction of microglia with individual dendritic spines and shafts in the SR of the hippocampus in vivo (Figure 4—video 1). Theoretically, after being contacted by microglia, a dendritic spine might remain stable, be lost, or conversely, microglial dendrite contact may be followed by new spine formation (Figure 4a). To investigate these possibilities, we carried out one 45 min time-lapse imaging (5 min frame rate), followed by another imaging session 2 days later to correlate microglial contact rate with subsequent loss or gain of dendritic spines (Figure 4b). Indeed, we observed both spine loss (Figure 4c–e) and spine formation (Figure 4f–h) linked to prior microglia-dendrite contact. Relative to anesthetized conditions, microglia had significantly higher contact rate with dendritic spines under awake conditions (Figure 4i; 5.31±0.16 hr–1 in anesthesia vs. 7.33±0.21 hr–1 awake). However, there was no significant difference in contact with the dendritic shaft by microglia between awake and anesthetized conditions (Figure 4j; 5.55±0.16 hr–1 in anesthesia vs. 6.22±0.36 hr–1 awake).

Figure 4. Microglia contact frequency is associated with spine stability in the hippocampus.

(a) Schematic illustrating the analysis between microglia contacts and spine stability in stratum radiatum of dorsal CA1: direct spine contacts (circle) can lead to a stable (blue arrow) or lost spine (red arrow) as analyzed 2 days later, whereas contacts of the dendritic shaft (dashed circle) can lead to a gained spine (green arrow) or no change/no spine gain (orange). (b) The same mice were imaged four times after implantation of the hippocampal window. First in anesthesia and 48 hr later two visualize potential changes of dendritc spines and then again under awake conditions, followed by relocalization 48 hr later. (c) Overview image of a dendrite in stratum radiatum (SR) at two consecutive time points 48 hr apart. (d) Zoom image from (c) illustrating a dendritic segment with distinctive dendritic spines. Note the lost spine after 2 days (red arrow). (e) Time-lapse of microglia processes (green) interacting with the dendrite and spines (magenta) in the hippocampus of an awake CX3CR1-GFP::thy-1-YFP-H mouse; the circle mark individual microglia contacts of spines. (f–h) Analog illustration as depicted in c–e for a gained spine example (green arrow in g). (i, j) Direct microglia contacts (h) and contacts along the dendritic shaft (i) in anesthetized vs. awake mice paired t-test (h, i); p=0.0105 (h), p=0.1452 (i). (k, l) Contact rate in anesthesia (j) and awake (k) at dendritic spines that are either stable (blue) or lost (red) and contacts at the dendritic shaft where either a spine was gained (green) after 48 hr or at random locations along the dendrite where no spine gain was detectable (orange). One-way ANOVA with Sidak’s multiple comparison test (j, k); F(3,12)=80.8 (j) and F(3,12)=73.91 (k); spine contacts averaged over n=4 mice (h–k); *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. Error bars: SEM.

Figure 4.

Figure 4—figure supplement 1. Microglia contact frequency associated with spine stability in the hippocampus, statistics over dendrites.

Figure 4—figure supplement 1.

(a, b) Direct microglia contacts (a) and contacts along the dendritic shaft (b) in anesthetized vs. awake mice unpaired t-test (a,b); p<0.0001 (a), p=0.0964 (b). (c, d) Contact rate in anesthesia (c) and awake (d) at dendritic spines that are either stable (blue) or lost (red) and contacts at the dendritic shaft where either a spine was gained (green) after 48 hr or at random locations along the dendrite where no spine gain was detectable (orange). One-way ANOVA with Sidak’s multiple comparison test (c,d); F(3,59)=20.88 (c) and F(3,51)=103.7 (d); Spine contacts averaged over dendrites with n=17 stable, 16 loss, 14 gain, 16 d. Shaft in anesthesia and n=16 stable, 9 loss, 14 gain, and 16 d. Shaft awake in n=4 mice (a–d); n.s. not significant, ***p<0.0001. Error bars: SEM.
Figure 4—video 1. Microglia interacting with dendrites and spines in the hippocampus of an awake mouse.
Download video file (285.7KB, mp4)
Microglia (green) engage in contact with the dendritic shaft and individual dendritic spines (magenta). Regions of colocalization of microglia and neuronal structures appear white. Z-stacks were taken 5 min apart each. Scale bar: 5 μm.

Next, we investigated whether the fate of spines (gained, lost, stable) was influenced by the microglial contact rate in the preceding imaging session. Interestingly, the contact frequency of both gained (Figure 4k; stable 5.14±0.16 hr–1 vs. gained 9.93±0.15 hr–1) and lost (Figure 4k; stable spines: 5.31±0.16 hr–1 vs. lost spines 8.37±1.12 hr–1) spines was significantly increased compared to stable spines, indicating that microglial contact frequency is positively associated with structural plasticity of dendritic spines. Moreover, microglial contacts were more frequent at sites on the dendritic shaft where spines were gained, compared to dendritic segments where no new spines were detectable (Figure 4k; dendritic shafts without spine gain 5.55±0.16 hr–1 vs. dendritic shafts with spine gain 9.93±0.15 hr–1). These effects were conserved in awake mice, yet the overall frequency of contacts was increased in line with our previous findings (Figure 4l; stable spines 7.33±0.21 hr–1, lost spines 11.45±0.27 hr–1, gained spines 10.55±0.31 hr–1, dendritic shaft 6.22±0.36 hr–1). Finally, microglial contacts of dendritic spines were significantly higher where spine turnover occurred in clusters (Figure 3—figure supplement 1d), suggesting microglia might facilitate spatial reorganization of dendritic spines in the hippocampus.

In summary, these data show that microglial contact frequency of spines was increased in mice under awake relative to anesthetized conditions, corresponding to increased microglial motility in response to CA3 input/neuronal activity. Furthermore, the turnover (gain and loss) of dendritic spines correlated with higher microglial contact frequency on hippocampal CA1 neurons of adult mice.

Discussion

In this work we set out to investigate different functional properties of microglia in the hippocampus of mice in vivo, by means of two-photon microscopy. We detected elevated motility of microglia fine processes in awake mice compared to the same mice under anesthetized conditions. We further demonstrated a modulation of microglial motility via CA3 to CA1 input using both pharmacological and chemogenetic approaches. Further, we elucidated the role of microglia in maintaining or destabilizing synapses through an association between microglial contacts of dendritic spines and their stability. Here, lost spines and dendritic stretches with a newly appearing spine were contacted more frequently by microglia in a preceding imaging session than stable spines. Reducing neuronal activity by anesthesia reduced microglia-spine interaction, but did not affect the aforementioned relationship between contact and turnover. Furthermore, clustered events of spine gain or loss were associated with higher microglial contact frequency. These results form the basis for future work unraveling whether microglia-mediated synaptic structural plasticity is involved in hippocampus-dependent behavior, such as spatial navigation, learning, and memory.

Microglial process motility

Recent findings indicate that there is considerable effect on microglia by the volatile narcotic isoflurane via THIK-1 channels, which reduces microglial scanning activity in vitro in the hippocampus (Madry et al., 2018). Here, we investigate microglial motility in the hippocampus in vivo, where we observed reduced microglial fine process motility in anesthetized mice compared to awake conditions. Our data suggest that this decreased microglial motility may be due to reduced neuronal activity. Applying TTX to the hippocampus reduced microglial motility in awake mice. However, in previous studies no such effect of TTX on microglial process motility was detectable in hippocampal slices or the cortex in vivo (Hines et al., 2009; Nimmerjahn et al., 2005; Wake et al., 2009). In these previous experiments, neuronal activity might have already been reduced by the use of anesthetics (Nimmerjahn et al., 2005; Wake et al., 2009) or been altered in the preparation of slice cultures (Hines et al., 2009), where neuronal activity and connectivity is no longer intact. Another difference between past in vivo studies and the current one is the analyzed brain region. Our study has been carried out in the SR of the hippocampus, whereas former studies investigated the somatosensory cortex. Region-specific microglia mRNA expression profiles could contribute to the motility difference between cortex and hippocampus (Grabert et al., 2016). Furthermore, TTX is a potent blocker of voltage-gated sodium channels and may directly affect microglia, as they express TTX-sensitive sodium channels. TTX application in vitro reduces microglial phagocytosis and lamellipodia formation (Black et al., 2009; Persson et al., 2014). To avoid a potential direct modulatory effect of TTX on microglial motility, we chose a chemogenetic approach to specifically silence or excite hippocampal neurons in vivo. In our study, silencing CA3 neurons (and their input to CA1 via Schaffer collaterals) reduced microglial motility in the SR of the CA1. Conversely, increasing the firing rate of CA3 neurons increased microglial motility in the SR. In contrast to our observations in the hippocampus, isoflurane anesthesia increased microglial arborization and motility in the cortex in vivo (Liu et al., 2019), while other studies identified increased arborization alone (area coverage by microglia) (Sun et al., 2019; Umpierre et al., 2020). Stowell et al. showed effects on microglial arborization under a mixture of fentanyl, midazolam, and dexmedetomidine arguing for a noradrenergic regulation of microglial surveillance (Stowell et al., 2019). Other non-isoflurane anesthetics had the opposite effect on microglial motility; both ketamine/xylazine or pentobarbital administration decreased microglial motility (Hristovska et al., 2020). Thus, consensus on the impact of anesthetics on microglia behaviors has not been achieved, however our data clearly indicate that neuronal activity and neurotransmitter release regulate microglial motility. Different neurotransmitters might have different effects. Whether our and previous findings indicate brain region-dependent diversity of microglia (Grabert et al., 2016) remains to be analyzed.

By activating or inactivating neurons in the CA3 region using DREADDs, glutamatergic output is altered. We found that a CNO-mediated increase (hM3Gq) or decrease (hM4Di) in CA3 neuronal activity corresponded to increased (hM3Gq) or decreased (hM4Di) microglial motility in the hippocampus, respectively, suggesting that glutamate may regulate microglial motility in the region. This notion is supported by work showing increased microglial motility in the cortex upon glutamatergic stimulation in slices and in vivo (Eyo et al., 2014). The response of microglia to increased extracellular glutamate might be due to a co-release of ATP and subsequent activation of microglial P2YR12 receptors (Eyo et al., 2014). Alternatively, there might be an indirect effect of synaptically released glutamate on microglia via astrocytes, that detect glutamate and subsequently release GABA, which in turn acts on microglia via GABAB receptors (Logiacco et al., 2021). The exact molecular mechanism underlying the microglial response to glutamate remains to be determined.

Based on our results, we conclude that microglial motility is modulated by CA3 input to CA1 in adult mice in vivo, potentially via glutamate release from Schaffer collaterals in the SR. It should be noted that baseline motility was not abolished, but attenuated following pharmacological and chemogenetic manipulation, suggesting additional regulatory mechanisms for microglial motility in this context. These findings argue for a relationship of glutamate release and microglial motility in the hippocampus.

Microglial contact rates of dendritic spines are increased in awake mice

Until now, few studies have investigated changes in hippocampal synaptic connectivity in vivo by analyzing structural plasticity of dendritic spines. The first study to do so investigated structural plasticity of spines in the hippocampus over hours, detecting only minor changes (Mizrahi et al., 2004). In comparison, by investigating structural plasticity over weeks, we and others demonstrated synaptic rewiring in adult mice (Attardo et al., 2015; Gu et al., 2014) given that the majority of dendritic spines carry post-synaptic densities and form synapses (Cane et al., 2014; Runge et al., 2020; Trachtenberg et al., 2002). In addition to excitatory neurons, a subset of inhibitory neurons also exhibit structural plasticity of dendritic spines (Schmid et al., 2016), supporting the view that synapses in the hippocampus are constantly emerging or eliminated. This capacity might facilitate hippocampal adaptation to altered external stimuli and/or different environments. The structural plasticity of dendritic spines in the hippocampus might still be underestimated, as recent studies using super-resolution approaches revealed high turnover rates of dendritic spines in this region – although analysis lasted only days to weeks (Pfeiffer et al., 2018). It is important to note that all previous studies have been carried out under anesthesia. Here, we demonstrate structural plasticity of dendritic spines on apical dendrites of CA1 pyramidal neurons in awake mice, offering the potential for future studies to combine this kind of imaging with defined sensory stimuli or behavioral tasks. Indeed, awake mice, meaning imaged under awake conditions while being on a treadmill for 1 hr, exhibited a higher spine density after 2 days compared with anesthetized mice. We suspect the increase observed in our study to be transient, as permanent increases in spine formation were not observed in previous studies (Attardo et al., 2015; Gu et al., 2014; Pfeiffer et al., 2018). Although mice were habituated, it is possible that the 1 hr awake imaging is similar to an enriched environment, which induced a dendritic spine increase in the hippocampus (Rampon et al., 2000) and the cortex (Jung and Herms, 2014). Additionally, isoflurane, a volatile anesthetic, can influence dendritic spine characteristics and synaptic transmission (Platholi et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2021). In vitro, isoflurane reduced spine density, likely by reducing F-actin in spines (Kaech et al., 1999; Platholi et al., 2014), while in vivo isoflurane potentiated glutamatergic synaptic transmission in mice, but did not impact spine density or turnover (Antila et al., 2017). However, Yang et al. found that the fraction of gained spines and thus overall spine turnover was slightly increased under repetitive isoflurane anesthesia (Yang et al., 2021).

In order to integrate our findings on microglial motility with structural plasticity of dendritic spines, we examined the interaction of microglial processes with dendritic spines. While microglia have traditionally been studied in the context of immune and inflammatory processes (Deczkowska et al., 2018; Prinz and Priller, 2014), growing evidence shows the importance of microglia for normal CNS maturation, function, and homeostasis (Mosser et al., 2017; York et al., 2018). A compelling idea is that microglia may actively contribute to structural plasticity of pre- and post-synapses. This hypothesis derives from studies showing the necessity of normal microglia function for synaptic integrity and learning-dependent synapse formation (Bessis et al., 2007; Lim et al., 2013; Miyamoto et al., 2016; Paolicelli et al., 2011; Parkhurst et al., 2013; Pfeiffer et al., 2016; Reshef et al., 2017; Rice et al., 2015; Rogers et al., 2011; Schafer et al., 2012; Sipe et al., 2016; Stevens et al., 2007; Tremblay et al., 2010; Weinhard et al., 2018). Yet, studies directly monitoring microglia synapse interaction are sparse (Lowery et al., 2017; Miyamoto et al., 2016; Pfeiffer et al., 2016; Tremblay et al., 2010; Wake et al., 2009; Weinhard et al., 2018) and have been performed either in the cortex under anesthesia, during early development, or in slice cultures. Microglia-synapse interaction has not yet been assessed in the hippocampus of adult awake mice. Here, in the hippocampus, we observed higher contact rates of microglia with dendritic spines than was described for cortical areas or slice cultures. We found that the average contact rate of microglia with stable spines was increased in awake compared to anesthetized conditions. The lower microglial contact rates of dendritic spines observed in previous studies may be due to the use of anesthesia or the nature of in vitro approaches, which cannot fully replicate the complexity of the in vivo environment.

Microglial contact rate associated with stability of dendritic spines

Structural plasticity of dendritic spines involves two main events: (1) the loss of existing spines and (2) the emergence of new spines, called spinogenesis. We investigated both spine loss and spinogenesis in relation to previous microglial contacts. Microglia are important players during early CNS development, particularly for removal of supernumerary synapses (Paolicelli et al., 2011; Schafer et al., 2012; Stevens et al., 2007), but their role in synapse loss in the adult brain is not well understood. Our time-lapse imaging revealed an association between microglial contacts and the loss of dendritic spines. However, whether microglia actively phagocytose dendritic spines, as suggested by previous studies (Paolicelli et al., 2011; Sipe et al., 2016; Tremblay et al., 2010), or induce retraction into the dendrite remains unclear. Interestingly, Weinhard et al., 2018, showed in an in vitro model of early development that microglia do not phagocytose post-synaptic synapses, but refine pre-synaptic boutons and axons (Weinhard et al., 2018). The mechanism of microglia-mediated spine loss in the hippocampus in vivo remains to be investigated.

We also analyzed the formation of new spines along dendritic shaft segments that received microglial interaction during a preceding imaging session. Similar to the results for spine loss, we found an association between localized dendritic spine formation and prior dendritic contact by microglia, consistent with previous studies showing microglial regulation of synaptogenesis (Miyamoto et al., 2016; Parkhurst et al., 2013; Reshef et al., 2017; Weinhard et al., 2018). As microglia display high brain region-dependent diversity (Grabert et al., 2016), there is an unmet demand for functional studies of microglia in distinct brain regions, especially in the hippocampus. Here, we provide evidence for a link between microglia-dendrite interactions and new spine formation in the adult hippocampus. Due to the resolution limit of two-photon microscopy (~400 nm in x,y-plane), all microglial contacts of dendritic spines measured in this study are putative contacts. To ultimately resolve microglia spine contacts, super-resolution imaging (Fuhrmann et al., 2022; Pfeiffer et al., 2018) or electron microscopy (Tremblay et al., 2010) would be necessary.

Mechanisms for microglia-mediated spine loss presumably involve phagocytosis or trogocytosis, as discussed above. However, during our 45 min time-lapse imaging we did not detect a single spine loss or gain, suggesting two separate timelines, where microglial contacts and motility take place on the second to minute timescale (Lowery et al., 2017; Tremblay et al., 2010) and structural dendritic spine plasticity happens within the subsequent hours to days (Attardo et al., 2015; Gu et al., 2014; Mizrahi et al., 2004; Pfeiffer et al., 2018). The mechanisms that reconcile microglial contact rate with structural plasticity of dendritic spines remain to be discovered. In hippocampal brain slices derived from early post-natal, but not adult hippocampi, microglia respond to electrical stimulation of Schaffer collaterals via Ca2+ elevations in the somata and processes (Logiacco et al., 2021). Potentially the microglial response to increased levels of glutamate might be due to activity-induced glutamate uptake and the subsequent release of GABA by astrocytes; this might function as a relay station between synapses and microglia, triggering a microglial response through the activation of GABAB receptors on microglia (Logiacco et al., 2021). Another potential modulatory candidate of the microglia-synapse interaction is norepinephrine. Upon norepinephrine binding to β2-AR, microglial contacts with dendritic spines are significantly reduced in the mouse visual cortex (Stowell et al., 2019). While there is some preliminary evidence for the mechanism underlying microglia-mediated spine loss, the mechanism by which microglia might induce spinogenesis upon contacts with the dendritic shaft remains unresolved. In our study, we found that glutamatergic input is sufficient to modulate microglial motility in SR. Here, input from CA3 neurons via the Schaffer collaterals might direct microglial processes toward CA1 dendrites and facilitate structural plasticity. These changes may require subtle, local alterations of actin polymerization, which is the basis for the emergence of new dendritic spines and memory formation (Basu and Lamprecht, 2018). A potential link between microglial contacts and spinogenesis is elevated intracellular dendritic Ca2+ following microglial contacts, at least during early development (Miyamoto et al., 2016), which may drive accumulation of actin (Oertner and Matus, 2005). In developing organotypic slice cultures, microglial contacts induced filopodial outgrowth from the spine-head (Weinhard et al., 2018). In our study, we demonstrated an association between putative microglial contacts with the dendritic shaft and subsequent spine outgrowth within the adult hippocampus in vivo, supporting microglia-mediated structural plasticity of dendritic spines not only during development, but throughout the entire lifespan. Microglial involvement in structural synaptic plasticity may yield promising interventional approaches for microglial manipulation in neurological diseases, where synaptic plasticity is impaired, including Alzheimer’s disease (Hoffmann et al., 2013; Schmid et al., 2016), major depressive disorder (Duman et al., 2016), and schizophrenia (Druart et al., 2021).

Clustering of dendritic spines and microglial contact rates

Activation of clustered synapses generates relatively large post-synaptic potentials, not correlated with the total number of single synapses (Palmer et al., 2014; Wilson et al., 2016), but instead described by a nonlinear model of signal transduction (Kastellakis et al., 2015; Larkum and Nevian, 2008), thereby facilitating information transfer and increasing signal propagation efficiency. Memory is commonly theorized to be stored in small and overlapping distributed neuronal populations, in which these synaptic clusters on dendritic branches code for associated information about time, space, and context (Cai et al., 2016; Kastellakis et al., 2015; Rashid et al., 2016; Rogerson et al., 2014; Silva et al., 2009). Previous studies show preferential turnover of spatially clustered dendritic spines in excitatory cells in the hippocampus, somatosensory, motor, visual, and retrosplenial cortex (Bloss et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2012; Frank et al., 2018; Fu et al., 2012). Accordingly, we observed that approximately 55% of dendritic spine turnover was spatially clustered. Microglia-contacted spines emerged or disappeared in clusters more frequently than single gained or lost spines, suggesting microglial involvement in clustered turnover of hippocampal dendritic spines.

Limitations

Finally, we would like to address the limitations of of this study. First, CX3CR1-GFP mice were haploinsufficient for the Cx3cr1 gene, which means that our findings cannot be transferred to WT animals. Another potential caveat is the hippocampal window implantation procedure, which requires removal of cortical tissue. To our knowledge, no method exists allowing non-invasive access to SR in CA1 of the dorsal hippocampus for in vivo imaging with subcellular resolution in adult mice. Neuronal activity as measured by a cfos-staining upon contextual fear conditioning was unchanged comparing mice with or without a hippocampal window (Gu et al., 2014). We have shown that microgliosis and astrogliosis decreased to contralateral hemisphere levels 3 weeks after hippocampal window implantation. However, we cannot exclude a longer-lasting inflammatory molecular signature in microglia independent of morphological changes. Another potential caveat is the use of CNO, which can have off-target effects via conversion to clozapine (Manvich et al., 2018; Martinez et al., 2019). Here, our diverse virus combinations in distinct hippocampal sub-regions led to different results, arguing against a side effect of CNO in our experiments. Cre-expression via AAVs in cell cultures was neurotoxic during development (Forni et al., 2006) and in dopaminergic neurons in adult mice (Erben et al., 2022; Rezai Amin et al., 2019). We cannot exclude an influence of AAV-Cre in our study, although finding opposite effects with inhibiting and activating DREADDs and the same AAV-Cre argue against it.

In summary, our study supports the hypothesis of microglia-mediated spine formation and elimination in the hippocampus of adult mice. Furthermore, our data demonstrate a link between microglial motility and neuronal activity. Microglial motility might be partially regulated via synaptically released glutamate. This has implications for in vivo studies of microglia under anesthesia. Moreover, we propose a link between microglia-spine interaction and structural plasticity of dendritic spines in the hippocampus of adult mice. A deeper understanding of the function and underlying mechanisms of microglia-synapse interactions has potential to uncover novel therapeutic strategies for many neurological and psychiatric diseases.

Methods

Animals

Mice were housed in the animal facility of the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases. They were group-housed and separated by gender with a day/night cycle of 12 hr. Water and food was accessible ad libidum. All procedures were performed in accordance with an animal protocol approved by the DZNE and the government of North-Rhine-Westphalia. CX3CR1-GFP knock-in mice carry the international name: B6.129P-CX3CR1tm1Litt/J (Stock: 5582) Jackson Laboratory. The mouse line expresses GFP in monocytes, dendritic cells, NK cells, and microglia in the brain. The Gfp gene is introduced as a knock-in into the allele of the Cx3cr1 gene (chemokine C-X3-C motif receptor 1). These mice were first described by Jung et al., 2000. YFP-H mice (B6.Cg-TgN(Thy1-YFP-H)2Jrs, Stock: 3782, Jackson Laboratory) express YFP, a spectral variant of GFP. The protein is expressed in pyramidal cells of the hippocampus and lamina V, stratum pyramiale internum of the cortex. Moreover, YFP expression is found on the surface of sensory neurons in dorsal root ganglia, neurons in retinal ganglia, and mossy fibers in the cerebellum. This mouse line was first described by Feng et al., 2000. Littermates of both sexes were randomly assigned to groups and derived from a heterozygous crossing of CX3CR1-GFP and Thy1-YFP-H. They were used for experiments at an age of 7–10 months. Notably, heterozygous mice are haploinsufficient for the fractalkine receptor (CX3CR1).

Hippocampal window implantation

To access the dorsal region of the hippocampus, mice were unilaterally implanted with a hippocampal window as described before (Gu et al., 2014). Surgical tolerance and anesthesia were established with an i.p. injection of ketamine/xylazine (0.13/0.01 mg/g body weight). To prevent edema and excessive inflammation of brain tissue, dexamethasone was administered (0.2 mg/kg s.c.). For analgesia, buprenorphine (0.05 mg/kg s.c.) was injected shortly before the surgery. After surgery, the analgesic was applied three times daily for 3 consecutive days to prevent post-interventional pain and related stress reactions. Surgeries were performed 4–6 weeks prior to the first imaging session in order to allow the animal to recover from the procedure and to let the reactive gliosis and inflammation subside. This and all procedures described were in accordance with the intern regulations of the DZNE and animal experimental protocols approved by the government of North Rhine Westphalia (84-02.04.2017.A098).

In vivo imaging in anesthetized and awake mice

Mice were anesthetized using 5% isoflurane, which was subsequently reduced to 1% after the righting reflex had subsided. The mouse was fixed to a custom-made head-holder and mounted under the microscope on a heating plate (37°C) to keep the body temperature at optimum. Images were acquired with a Nikon 16× water immersion objective (NA 0.8) with a working distance of 3 mm. For awake imaging, we used a spinning disk made of styrofoam (r=10 cm, h=7 cm), or a custom-made linear treadmill, which allowed for imaging of running, head-fixed mice that control the speed of the spinning disk, or the treadmill independently. Prior to imaging, animals were habituated to the experimenter on 5 consecutive days. Next, mice were placed on the treadmill (same as during imaging sessions) and head-fixed for approximately 1 hr for 3–5 days. Following this, time-lapse images were acquired at 100 × 100 μm2 in x, y-direction with a pixel size of 0.088 μm/pixel. The z-steps were 1 µm spaced for anesthetized recordings and spanned 100 µm.

The acquired z-stacks started in the CA1 pyramidal layer spanning 100 µm deep into SR. To allow for the correction of motion artifacts, oversampling in z was performed. Z-step sizes were set to 0.2 µm/step achieving an oversampling of 5× per micrometer. This allowed to manually remove any distorted or out of focus frames by carefully scrolling through each z-stack individually. Due to this oversampling and subsequent image removal, stable maximum intensity projections could be generated similar to anesthetized conditions. Time-lapse images were acquired every 5 min for a period of 45 min. Image acquisition was carried out on an upright TrimScope II (LaVision Biotech) equipped with a Ti:Sa laser (Cameleon Ultra II, Coherent) that was tuned to 920 nm to allow for simultaneous excitation of GFP and YFP with a maximum output power of 50 mW to prevent photo damage. GFP fluorescence was acquired with a 480/40 BP filterset. YFP was separated from GFP by a 510 LP filter and detected using a 535/30 BP filterset.

TTX application

A 50 μM TTX solution in NaCl (0.9%) was prepared and stored at –20°C. In order to topically apply TTX on the hippocampus, the hippocampal window was removed under anesthesia. Subsequently the TTX solution was administered with a pipette onto the alveus and incubated for 30 min. After the incubation, a new, sterile hippocampal window was implanted. The anesthetized mouse was head-fixed under the microscope and imaging started after the narcotic had worn off.

AAV injections

AAV injections for DREADD delivery were performed 1 week prior to the implantation of the hippocampal window. Mice were anesthetized as described before with ketamine/xylazine. The bregma was carefully exposed by removing parts of the skin with an incision over the skull midline. Small holes (⌀300 μm) were drilled relative to the bregma (see positions below) and the dura was opened. Mice received unilateral stereotactic injections of an AAV2-hsyn-DIO-hM4D(Gi)-mCherry or AAV2-hsyn-DIO-hM3(Gq)-mCherry (gift from Bryan Roth, Addgene plasmid #50474) and an AAV9-CamKII-Cre (pENN.AAV.CamKII 0.4.Cre.SV40 was a gift from James M Wilson (Addgene viral prep # 105558-AAV9)) into the CA1 and CA3 region or the CA3 region alone of the right dorsal hippocampus. Coordinates for CA1 injections relative to bregma: AP –1.90 mm ML +1.50 mm DV –1.10 mm. Injections into CA3: AP –2.00 mm ML +2.50 mm DV –2.08 mm. The needle was left at the sites of injections for 10 min in total during which 0.5 µL of virus were administered at a speed of 0.1 µL/min allowing the virus to diffuse into the tissue. The skin over the skull was reattached by suturing and mice were given 1 week to recover before surgeries were performed. Analgesic regimen was performed with three times daily application of temgesic (0.05 mg/kg body weight) for 3 consecutive days.

Application of DREADDs to modulate neuronal activity

For silencing or activating neuronal activity in the hippocampus, mice received unilateral stereotactic injections of an AAV2-hsyn-DIO-hM4D(Gi)-mCherry or AAV2-hsyn-DIO-hM3(Gq)-mCHerry together with a CamKII-Cre AAV (pENN.AAV.CamKII 0.4.Cre.SV40 was a gift from James M Wilson [Addgene viral prep # 105558-AAV9]) into the CA1 and CA3 region of the right dorsal hippocampus 1 week prior to window implantations. In order to activate DREADDs, mice were injected intraperitoneally with 3 µg/g body weight CNO dissolved in 1% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) (López et al., 2016) 40 min prior to the imaging session. As a control, the same mice received the solvent (1% DMSO) as vehicle injections only.

Histology

The viral expression in the injected mice was immunohistologically validated. Mice were transcardially perfused with PBS, pH 7.4. The brains were removed and fixed overnight in 4% PFA. One hundred μm of free-floating slices were permeabilized in 0.5% Triton X-100 for 1 hr. Subsequently, slices were incubated with a mCherry antibody (1:10,000, rat serum, Thermo Fisher Scientific, M11217) in a blocking reagent (4% normal goat serum, 0.4% Triton 1%, and 4% BSA in PBS) over night at room temperature. After washing the samples three times with PBS, a secondary antibody was administered (Alexa Fluor 594 goat anti-rat, 1:400, Invitrogen, A11007) in 5% normal goat serum/BSA and incubated for 2 hr at room temperature. During the last 30 min of incubation, Nissl staining was carried out (Invitrogen, N21473, 1:200). Afterward slices were washed three times with PBS, mounted with Dako Mounting Medium, and covered with a glass cover-slip. Alternatively, a NeuN staining was performed to visualize neurons in the hippocampus using a NeuN primary antibody (1:1000, MABN140, rabbit, Sigma-Aldrich, secondary Alexa Fluor 405 goat anti-rabbit, A31556, 1:400on).

Confocal microscopy

For confocal imaging a Zeiss LSM700 microscope was used in combination with either a 20× air objective (NA 0.8) or a 10× air objective (NA 0.3). Nissl fluorescence was acquired with a 435/455 BP filterset and excitation filter at 405 nm. Alexa Fluor 594 was excited at 555 nm and detected with a long-pass filter (LP 560 nm). The pinhole was set to 1 airy unit. Additionally, we performed semi-automated imaging using Axio Scan.Z1 (ZEISS) to visualize transfection rates of DREADDs in neurons (Plan.Apochromat 20×/0.8; 0.325 × 0.325 × 5 µm3).

Microglial motility analysis

To separate GFP and YFP, linear unmixing was performed with the unmixing tool in ZEN2010 (ZEISS). Subsequently, z-stacks were median filtered. Individual microglia cells were identified by scrolling through the stacks at each time point and then cropped using ImageJ. Z-stacks spanning around 25 μm in depth were extracted from the original z-stack. The oversampling in z-direction allowed removing distorted pictures from the z-stack by manually scrolling through the stack and deleting individual slices. The stacks were registered by applying the ImageJ ‘StackReg’ plugin (Thévenaz et al., 1998). Finally, a maximum intensity projection was carried out, resulting in a 2D projection of the cell and its branches. All recorded time points were merged into one stack and subsequently aligned using the StackReg plugin again. The time points were pseudocolored in red and green resulting in a picture in which red areas account for lost microglia branches, green for newly gained branches, and yellow pixels resembling stable parts. The turnover rate (TOR) of individual microglia processes was calculated as the number (absolute pixel value) of lost, Nlost (red), and newly gained, Ngained (green) pixels divided by the sum of all pixels within a determined region of interest (ROI).

TOR= (Ngained+Nlost)(Ngained+Nlost+Nstable)

The ROI around a microglial cell was manually drawn in ZEN2010 according to the branching pattern displayed by individual cells. To specifically measure process turnover, we subtracted all pixels representing the cell body for each measurement consistently. Analysis was carried out blind to the experimenter condition with one exception: We could not blind the comparison of awake vs. anesthetized recordings, because the higher motion was visible in the oversampled raw data and the same person did the motion correction and motility analysis.

Analysis of Ca2+ events

ROIs of axonal segments were manually drawn. For each ROI, the ΔF/F was calculated by subtracting the baseline fluorescence F0 from the signal and dividing the value by F0:

ΔF/F= (FF0)F0

F0 was defined as the mean of the smallest 20% of all values of a time series. In order to derive an approximation of the neuronal activity from the Ca2+-transient frequency, we inferred the underlying spiking activity from the ΔF/F traces. For spike inference, the constrained foopsi algorithm from the freely available CaImAn toolbox (Giovannucci et al., 2019) was used.

Dendritic spine counting, clusters, and microglial contacts

Protrusions emerging laterally from a dendrite with a threshold of 0.4 μm in size were counted as spines independent of their individual shape. In each animal four to six radial oblique dendrites were chosen randomly for further analysis with a length spanning 20–60 μm. Spines were identified by manually scrolling through the z-stack of subsequent time points. If a spine fell below the threshold of 0.4 μm it was counted as lost. Newly formed protrusion larger than 0.4 μm were counted as new spines. We counted 4455 spines in anesthetized mice and 5365 spines in awake mice. The spine density in vivo was determined similarly as described before (Fuhrmann et al., 2007; Gu et al., 2014; Holtmaat et al., 2005). The gained and lost fraction (Fgained and Flost) of spines was calculated by dividing the number of gained spines (Ngained) and the number of lost spines (Nlost) by the number of present spines (Npresent; Fgained = 100 * Ngained/Npresent; Flost = 100 * Nlost/Npresent). The general turnover of dendritic spines was calculated as (Nlost + Ngained)/2*(Nstable + Nlost + Ngained). For the visualization of putative microglia contacts with dendritic spines, the GFP channel (microglia) and YFP channel (dendrites/spines) were merged. Putative physical contacts of microglial processes and dendritic spines were counted by manually scrolling through the z-stack. If fluorescence of both channels was colocalized this was counted as a contact. For this the fluorescent signals had to be not more than ≤0.4 μm away from each other in the same focal plane and detectable in ≥2 focal planes. Each individual spine was checked for microglial contacts. For every time point during imaging sessions (z-stacks were spaced by 5 min each), putative contacts were analyzed. Number of analyzed spines are provided in Table 1. For our analyses, we included all spines visible along the dendritic segment. If a spine was newly formed (spine gain), the dendritic point from which the new spine emerged was measured, which then was subsequently used to measure microglial contacts at the dendritic shaft at d0 with the same parameters mentioned above used for spine contacts. To measure baseline contact rates at the dendritic shaft, each dendrite was subdivided into 1 μm segments. Randomly, five of these segments were tested for microglia interaction (Urbaniak and Plous, 2013). For exemplary pictures in the figures, microscopy images were median-filtered and z-projected using ImageJ.

Table 1. Mouse number and gender used in the experiments.

Mouse number Figure 4 #Spines analyzed for contacts, anesthesia #Spines analyzed for contacts, awake
1. 157 152
2. 133 110
3. 125 125
4. 130 145

Previous studies already showed preferential turnover of dendritic spines in spatial clusters along dendrites of excitatory cells in the somatosensory, motor, visual, and retrosplenial cortex (Chen et al., 2012; Frank et al., 2018; Fu et al., 2012). Taking into consideration that by means of two-photon microscopy the detectable spine densities of apical pyramidal neurons in the hippocampus (∼1.1 μm−1) (Gu et al., 2014) exceed those found in the cortex (∼0.4 μm−1) (Holtmaat et al., 2005; Keck et al., 2008; Knott et al., 2006) and is obviously still underestimated (Pfeiffer et al., 2018), we applied a stricter definition of spatial clustering than described before. Chen et al. showed spatial turnover in clusters of 10 μm on dendrites in the neocortex (Chen et al., 2012). Modified from this study we defined clusters as events of synaptic turnover happening within a maximum range of 4 μm to each other, accounting for the higher spine densities in the hippocampus. We defined three different classes of clustered events: lost, balanced, and gained (Figure 3—figure supplement 1a). If two or more spines were either gained or lost in proximity of less than 4 µm, they were classified as a ‘gained’ or ‘lost’ clustered event. If one spine was lost and another one gained within the 4 µm distance, the event was classified ‘balanced’.

Statistics

Quantifications, statistical analysis, and graph preparation were carried out using GraphPad Prism 5 and 7 (GraphPad Software Inc, La Jolla, CA, USA). Mice were assigned to experimental groups in an age and sex balanced manner (Table 2). Initial group sizes were calculated using G*Power (Version 3.1, University Düsseldorf, http://www.gpower.hhu.de/). Here, the primary statistical analysis method was the t-test based on the error of the first kind (0.05), second kind (0.2), biologically relevant difference (0.3) and effect size (1.5: Cohen’s d). To test for normal distribution of data, D’Agostino and Pearson omnibus normality test was used for sample sizes of n>6 and the Shapiro-Wilk normality test for n<6. Statistical significance for groups of two normally distributed data sets paired or unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-tests were applied. If no normal distribution was evident, Mann-Whitney test for groups of two was used. One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s or Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test were performed on data sets larger than two, if normally distributed. For comparison of more than two not normally distributed data sets the Kruskal-Wallis test was performed with Dunn’s correction for multiple comparisons. If not indicated differently, data are represented as mean ± SEM. Figures were prepared with Illustrator CS5 Version 15.0.1 (Adobe).

Table 2. Number of spines analyzed for contacts.

Figure Condition Total number of mice Number of male mice Number of female mice
Figure 1d Anesthesia 6 4 2
Figure 1d Awake 6 4 2
Figure 1d TTX 4 3 1
Figure 1, Figure 1—figure supplement 1e Ca2+, CA1, An vs. Aw 3 3 0
Figure 2k CA3, hM4D(Gi) 4 2 2
Figure 2l CA3, hM3D(Gq) 4 1 3
Figure 2, Figure 2—figure supplement 1g CA1 + CA3, hM4D(Gi) 5 2 3
Figure 2, Figure 2—figure supplement 2g CA3, Ca2+, hM3D(Gq) 3 0 3
Figure 3c–f Structural plasticity, An vs. Aw 4 2 2
Figure 3, Figure 3—figure supplement 1 Cluster 4 2 2
Figure 4i–l Microglial contact rates 4 2 2

Material availability

All generated materials or mouse lines will be made available upon request.

Material and correspondence

Materials are available on request. All correspondence should be directed to Martin Fuhrmann.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the ERC-CoG MicroSynCom 865618, the DZNE, grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 1089C01, B06), ERA-NET grants MicroSynDep, Microshiz. We thank P Thevenaz and Erik Meijering for the development of the ImageJ plugins 'stackreg' and 'TurboReg'. We acknowledge Bryan Roth for depositing the Addgene plasmid #44362. pENN.AAV.CamKII 0.4.Cre.SV40 was a gift from James M Wilson (Addgene viral prep # 105558-AAV9). We thank the animal and light microscopy facility of the DZNE for constant support. We thank Emily Handley, Andrew Boyce for careful reading of the manuscript, and Eleonora Ambrad Giovannetti for feedback on illustrations.

Funding Statement

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Contributor Information

Felix Christopher Nebeling, Email: felix.nebeling@dzne.de.

Martin Fuhrmann, Email: martin.fuhrmann@dzne.de.

Laura L Colgin, University of Texas at Austin, United States.

Laura L Colgin, University of Texas at Austin, United States.

Funding Information

This paper was supported by the following grants:

  • European Research Council ERC-CoG MicroSynCom 865618 to Manuel Mittag, Martin Fuhrmann.

  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SFB1089, C01 to Martin Fuhrmann, Stefanie Poll.

  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SFB1089, B06 to Julia Steffen, Martin Fuhrmann.

  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SPP2395 to Martin Fuhrmann.

  • ERA-NET NEURON MicroSynDep to Felix Christopher Nebeling, Martin Fuhrmann.

  • ERA-NET NEURON MicroSchiz to Felix Christopher Nebeling, Stefanie Poll, Martin Fuhrmann.

Additional information

Competing interests

No competing interests declared.

No competing interests declared.

Author contributions

Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing.

Resources, Investigation, Visualization.

Investigation, Methodology.

Resources, Investigation, Methodology.

Resources, Methodology.

Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology.

Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing.

Ethics

This and all procedures described were in accordance with the intern regulations of the DZNE and animal experimental protocols approved by the government of North Rhine Westphalia (84-02.04.2017.A098).

Additional files

MDAR checklist

Data availability

Data related to the manuscript are available according to the FAIR principles via Dryad.

The following dataset was generated:

Furhmann M. 2023. Data from: Microglial motility is modulated by neuronal activity and correlates with dendritic spine plasticity in the hippocampus of awake mice. Dryad Digital Repository.

References

  1. Antila H, Ryazantseva M, Popova D, Sipilä P, Guirado R, Kohtala S, Yalcin I, Lindholm J, Vesa L, Sato V, Cordeira J, Autio H, Kislin M, Rios M, Joca S, Casarotto P, Khiroug L, Lauri S, Taira T, Castrén E, Rantamäki T. Isoflurane produces antidepressant effects and induces trkb signaling in rodents. Scientific Reports. 2017;7:7811. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08166-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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. PNAS. 2007;104:5163–5168. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0700293104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Attardo A, Fitzgerald JE, Schnitzer MJ. Impermanence of dendritic spines in live adult CA1 hippocampus. Nature. 2015;523:592–596. doi: 10.1038/nature14467. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Basu S, Lamprecht R. The role of actin cytoskeleton in dendritic spines in the maintenance of long-term memory. Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience. 2018;11:143. doi: 10.3389/fnmol.2018.00143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bessis A, Béchade C, Bernard D, Roumier A. Microglial control of neuronal death and synaptic properties. Glia. 2007;55:233–238. doi: 10.1002/glia.20459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Black JA, Liu S, Waxman SG. Sodium channel activity modulates multiple functions in microglia. Glia. 2009;57:1072–1081. doi: 10.1002/glia.20830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bloss EB, Cembrowski MS, Karsh B, Colonell J, Fetter RD, Spruston N. Single excitatory axons form clustered synapses onto CA1 pyramidal cell dendrites. Nature Neuroscience. 2018;21:353–363. doi: 10.1038/s41593-018-0084-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cai DJ, Aharoni D, Shuman T, Shobe J, Biane J, Song W, Wei B, Veshkini M, La-Vu M, Lou J, Flores SE, Kim I, Sano Y, Zhou M, Baumgaertel K, Lavi A, Kamata M, Tuszynski M, Mayford M, Golshani P, Silva AJ. A shared neural ensemble links distinct contextual memories encoded close in time. Nature. 2016;534:115–118. doi: 10.1038/nature17955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cane M, Maco B, Knott G, Holtmaat A. The relationship between PSD-95 clustering and spine stability in vivo. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2014;34:2075–2086. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3353-13.2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen JL, Villa KL, Cha JW, So PTC, Kubota Y, Nedivi E. Clustered dynamics of inhibitory synapses and dendritic spines in the adult neocortex. Neuron. 2012;74:361–373. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Davalos D, Grutzendler J, Yang G, Kim JV, Zuo Y, Jung S, Littman DR, Dustin ML, Gan WB. Atp mediates rapid microglial response to local brain injury in vivo. Nature Neuroscience. 2005;8:752–758. doi: 10.1038/nn1472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Deczkowska A, Keren-Shaul H, Weiner A, Colonna M, Schwartz M, Amit I. Disease-Associated microglia: a universal immune sensor of neurodegeneration. Cell. 2018;173:1073–1081. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Druart M, Nosten-Bertrand M, Poll S, Crux S, Nebeling F, Delhaye C, Dubois Y, Mittag M, Leboyer M, Tamouza R, Fuhrmann M, Le Magueresse C. Elevated expression of complement C4 in the mouse prefrontal cortex causes schizophrenia-associated phenotypes. Molecular Psychiatry. 2021;26:3489–3501. doi: 10.1038/s41380-021-01081-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Duman RS, Aghajanian GK, Sanacora G, Krystal JH. Synaptic plasticity and depression: new insights from stress and rapid-acting antidepressants. Nature Medicine. 2016;22:238–249. doi: 10.1038/nm.4050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Erben L, Welday JP, Murphy R, Buonanno A. Toxic and phenotypic effects of aav_cre used to transduce mesencephalic dopaminergic neurons. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2022;23:9462. doi: 10.3390/ijms23169462. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Eyo UB, Peng J, Swiatkowski P, Mukherjee A, Bispo A, Wu LJ. Neuronal hyperactivity recruits microglial processes via neuronal NMDA receptors and microglial P2Y12 receptors after status epilepticus. Journal of Neuroscience. 2014;34:10528–10540. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0416-14.2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Feng G, Mellor RH, Bernstein M, Keller-Peck C, Nguyen QT, Wallace M, Nerbonne JM, Lichtman JW, Sanes JR, Miller FD. Imaging neuronal subsets in transgenic mice expressing multiple spectral variants of GFP. Neuron. 2000;28:41–51. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)00084-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Forni PE, Scuoppo C, Imayoshi I, Taulli R, Dastru W, Sala V, Betz UA, Muzzi P, Martinuzzi D, Vercelli AE. High levels of Cre expression in neuronal progenitors cause defects in brain development leading to microencephaly and hydrocephaly. Journal of Neuroscience. 2006;26:9593–9602. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2815-06.2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Frank AC, Huang S, Zhou M, Gdalyahu A, Kastellakis G, Silva TK, Lu E, Wen X, Poirazi P, Trachtenberg JT, Silva AJ. Hotspots of dendritic spine turnover facilitate clustered spine addition and learning and memory. Nature Communications. 2018;9:422. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02751-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fu M, Yu X, Lu J, Zuo Y. Repetitive motor learning induces coordinated formation of clustered dendritic spines in vivo. Nature. 2012;483:92–95. doi: 10.1038/nature10844. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fuhrmann M., Mitteregger G, Kretzschmar H, Herms J. Dendritic pathology in prion disease starts at the synaptic spine. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2007;27:6224–6233. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5062-06.2007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fuhrmann M, Bittner T, Jung CKE, Burgold S, Page RM, Mitteregger G, Haass C, LaFerla FM, Kretzschmar H, Herms J. Microglial CX3CR1 knockout prevents neuron loss in a mouse model of alzheimer’s disease. Nature Neuroscience. 2010;13:411–413. doi: 10.1038/nn.2511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fuhrmann M, Gockel N, Arizono M, Dembitskaya Y, Nägerl UV, Pennacchietti F, Damenti M, Testa I, Willig KI. Super-resolution microscopy opens new doors to life at the nanoscale. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2022;42:8488–8497. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1125-22.2022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Giovannucci A, Friedrich J, Gunn P, Kalfon J, Brown BL, Koay SA, Taxidis J, Najafi F, Gauthier JL, Zhou P, Khakh BS, Tank DW, Chklovskii DB, Pnevmatikakis EA. Caiman an open source tool for scalable calcium imaging data analysis. eLife. 2019;8:e38173. doi: 10.7554/eLife.38173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Goltstein PM, Montijn JS, Pennartz CMA. Effects of isoflurane anesthesia on ensemble patterns of Ca2+ activity in mouse V1: reduced direction selectivity independent of increased correlations in cellular activity. PLOS ONE. 2015;10:e0118277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Grabert K, Michoel T, Karavolos MH, Clohisey S, Baillie JK, Stevens MP, Freeman TC, Summers KM, McColl BW. Microglial brain region-dependent diversity and selective regional sensitivities to aging. Nature Neuroscience. 2016;19:504–516. doi: 10.1038/nn.4222. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gu L, Kleiber S, Schmid L, Nebeling F, Chamoun M, Steffen J, Wagner J, Fuhrmann M. Long-Term in vivo imaging of dendritic spines in the hippocampus reveals structural plasticity. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2014;34:13948–13953. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1464-14.2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Gyoneva S, Hosur R, Gosselin D, Zhang B, Ouyang Z, Cotleur AC, Peterson M, Allaire N, Challa R, Cullen P, Roberts C, Miao K, Reynolds TL, Glass CK, Burkly L, Ransohoff RM. cx3cr1-deficient microglia exhibit a premature aging transcriptome. Life Science Alliance. 2019;2:e201900453. doi: 10.26508/lsa.201900453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Heneka MT, Kummer MP, Latz E. Innate immune activation in neurodegenerative disease. Nature Reviews. Immunology. 2014;14:463–477. doi: 10.1038/nri3705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hines DJ, Hines RM, Mulligan SJ, Macvicar BA. Microglia processes block the spread of damage in the brain and require functional chloride channels. Glia. 2009;57:1610–1618. doi: 10.1002/glia.20874. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hoffmann NA, Dorostkar MM, Blumenstock S, Goedert M, Herms J. Impaired plasticity of cortical dendritic spines in P301S tau transgenic mice. Acta Neuropathologica Communications. 2013;1:82. doi: 10.1186/2051-5960-1-82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Holtmaat AJGD, Trachtenberg JT, Wilbrecht L, Shepherd GM, Zhang X, Knott GW, Svoboda K. Transient and persistent dendritic spines in the neocortex in vivo. Neuron. 2005;45:279–291. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hristovska Ines, Verdonk F, Comte J-C, Tsai ES, Desestret V, Honnorat J, Chrétien F, Pascual O. Ketamine/Xylazine and barbiturates modulate microglial morphology and motility differently in a mouse model. PLOS ONE. 2020;15:e0236594. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hristovska I, Robert M, Combet K, Honnorat J, Comte JC, Pascual O. Sleep decreases neuronal activity control of microglial dynamics in mice. Nature Communications. 2022;13:6273. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-34035-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Jung S, Aliberti J, Graemmel P, Sunshine MJ, Kreutzberg GW, Sher A, Littman DR. Analysis of fractalkine receptor CX (3) CR1 function by targeted deletion and green fluorescent protein reporter gene insertion. Molecular and Cellular Biology. 2000;20:4106–4114. doi: 10.1128/MCB.20.11.4106-4114.2000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Jung CKE, Herms J. Structural dynamics of dendritic spines are influenced by an environmental enrichment: an in vivo imaging study. Cerebral Cortex. 2014;24:377–384. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhs317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kaech S, Brinkhaus H, Matus A. Volatile anesthetics block actin-based motility in dendritic spines. PNAS. 1999;96:10433–10437. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.18.10433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kastellakis G, Cai DJ, Mednick SC, Silva AJ, Poirazi P. Synaptic clustering within dendrites: an emerging theory of memory formation. Progress in Neurobiology. 2015;126:19–35. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2014.12.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Keck T, Mrsic-Flogel TD, Vaz Afonso M, Eysel UT, Bonhoeffer T, Hübener M. Massive restructuring of neuronal circuits during functional reorganization of adult visual cortex. Nature Neuroscience. 2008;11:1162–1167. doi: 10.1038/nn.2181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Knott GW, Holtmaat A, Wilbrecht L, Welker E, Svoboda K. Spine growth precedes synapse formation in the adult neocortex in vivo. Nature Neuroscience. 2006;9:1117–1124. doi: 10.1038/nn1747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Krashes MJ, Koda S, Ye C, Rogan SC, Adams AC, Cusher DS, Maratos-Flier E, Roth BL, Lowell BB. Rapid, reversible activation of AgRP neurons drives feeding behavior in mice. Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2011;121:1424–1428. doi: 10.1172/JCI46229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Larkum ME, Nevian T. Synaptic clustering by dendritic signalling mechanisms. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 2008;18:321–331. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2008.08.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Li Y, Du X, Liu C, Wen Z, Du J. Reciprocal regulation between resting microglial dynamics and neuronal activity in vivo. Developmental Cell. 2012;23:1189–1202. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2012.10.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Lim S-H, Park E, You B, Jung Y, Park A-R, Park SG, Lee J-R, Groc L. Neuronal synapse formation induced by microglia and interleukin 10. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:e81218. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Liu YU, Ying Y, Li Y, Eyo UB, Chen T, Zheng J, Umpierre AD, Zhu J, Bosco DB, Dong H, Wu L-J. Neuronal network activity controls microglial process surveillance in awake mice via norepinephrine signaling. Nature Neuroscience. 2019;22:1771–1781. doi: 10.1038/s41593-019-0511-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Logiacco F, Xia P, Georgiev SV, Franconi C, Chang YJ, Ugursu B, Sporbert A, Kühn R, Kettenmann H, Semtner M. Microglia sense neuronal activity via GABA in the early postnatal hippocampus. Cell Reports. 2021;37:110128. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.110128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. López AJ, Kramár E, Matheos DP, White AO, Kwapis J, Vogel-Ciernia A, Sakata K, Espinoza M, Wood MA. Promoter-Specific effects of DREADD modulation on hippocampal synaptic plasticity and memory formation. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2016;36:3588–3599. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3682-15.2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Lowery RL, Tremblay ME, Hopkins BE, Majewska AK. The microglial fractalkine receptor is not required for activity-dependent plasticity in the mouse visual system. Glia. 2017;65:1744–1761. doi: 10.1002/glia.23192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Luscher C, Malenka RC. Nmda receptor-dependent long-term potentiation and long-term depression (ltp/ltd) Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology. 2012;4:a005710. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a005710. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Madry C, Kyrargyri V, Arancibia-Cárcamo IL, Jolivet R, Kohsaka S, Bryan RM, Attwell D. Microglial ramification, surveillance, and interleukin-1β release are regulated by the two-pore domain K+ channel THIK-1. Neuron. 2018;97:299–312. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.12.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Manvich DF, Webster KA, Foster SL, Farrell MS, Ritchie JC, Porter JH, Weinshenker D. The DREADD agonist clozapine N-oxide (CNO) is reverse-metabolized to clozapine and produces clozapine-like interoceptive stimulus effects in rats and mice. Scientific Reports. 2018;8:3840. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-22116-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Martinez VK, Saldana-Morales F, Sun JJ, Zhu PJ, Costa-Mattioli M, Ray RS. Off-target effects of clozapine-N-oxide on the chemosensory reflex are masked by high stress levels. Frontiers in Physiology. 2019;10:521. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.00521. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Miyamoto A, Wake H, Ishikawa AW, Eto K, Shibata K, Murakoshi H, Koizumi S, Moorhouse AJ, Yoshimura Y, Nabekura J. Microglia contact induces synapse formation in developing somatosensory cortex. Nature Communications. 2016;7:12540. doi: 10.1038/ncomms12540. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Mizrahi A, Crowley JC, Shtoyerman E, Katz LC. High-Resolution in vivo imaging of hippocampal dendrites and spines. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2004;24:3147–3151. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5218-03.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Mosser CA, Baptista S, Arnoux I, Audinat E. Microglia in CNS development: shaping the brain for the future. Progress in Neurobiology. 2017;149–150:1–20. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2017.01.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Nimmerjahn A, Kirchhoff F, Helmchen F. Resting microglial cells are highly dynamic surveillants of brain parenchyma in vivo. Science. 2005;308:1314–1318. doi: 10.1126/science.1110647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Noda T, Takahashi H. Anesthetic effects of isoflurane on the tonotopic map and neuronal population activity in the rat auditory cortex. The European Journal of Neuroscience. 2015;42:2298–2311. doi: 10.1111/ejn.13007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Oertner TG, Matus A. Calcium regulation of actin dynamics in dendritic spines. Cell Calcium. 2005;37:477–482. doi: 10.1016/j.ceca.2005.01.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Palmer LM, Shai AS, Reeve JE, Anderson HL, Paulsen O, Larkum ME. Nmda spikes enhance action potential generation during sensory input. Nature Neuroscience. 2014;17:383–390. doi: 10.1038/nn.3646. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Paolicelli RC, Bolasco G, Pagani F, Maggi L, Scianni M, Panzanelli P, Giustetto M, Ferreira TA, Guiducci E, Dumas L, Ragozzino D, Gross CT. Synaptic pruning by microglia is necessary for normal brain development. Science. 2011;333:1456–1458. doi: 10.1126/science.1202529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Parkhurst CN, Yang G, Ninan I, Savas JN, Yates JR, Lafaille JJ, Hempstead BL, Littman DR, Gan WB. Microglia promote learning-dependent synapse formation through brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Cell. 2013;155:1596–1609. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.11.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Persson AK, Estacion M, Ahn H, Liu S, Stamboulian-Platel S, Waxman SG, Black JA. Contribution of sodium channels to lamellipodial protrusion and Rac1 and ERK1/2 activation in ATP-stimulated microglia. Glia. 2014;62:2080–2095. doi: 10.1002/glia.22728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Pfeiffer T, Avignone E, Nägerl UV. Induction of hippocampal long-term potentiation increases the morphological dynamics of microglial processes and prolongs their contacts with dendritic spines. Scientific Reports. 2016;6:32422. doi: 10.1038/srep32422. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Pfeiffer T, Poll S, Bancelin S, Angibaud J, Inavalli VK, Keppler K, Mittag M, Fuhrmann M, Nägerl UV. Chronic 2P-STED imaging reveals high turnover of dendritic spines in the hippocampus in vivo. eLife. 2018;7:e34700. doi: 10.7554/eLife.34700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Platholi J, Herold KF, Hemmings HC, Halpain S. Isoflurane reversibly destabilizes hippocampal dendritic spines by an actin-dependent mechanism. PLOS ONE. 2014;9:e102978. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102978. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Prinz M, Priller J. Microglia and brain macrophages in the molecular age: from origin to neuropsychiatric disease. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience. 2014;15:300–312. doi: 10.1038/nrn3722. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Rampon C, Tang YP, Goodhouse J, Shimizu E, Kyin M, Tsien JZ. Enrichment induces structural changes and recovery from nonspatial memory deficits in CA1 NMDAR1-knockout mice. Nature Neuroscience. 2000;3:238–244. doi: 10.1038/72945. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Ransohoff RM. How neuroinflammation contributes to neurodegeneration. Science. 2016;353:777–783. doi: 10.1126/science.aag2590. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Rashid AJ, Yan C, Mercaldo V, Hsiang H-LL, Park S, Cole CJ, De Cristofaro A, Yu J, Ramakrishnan C, Lee SY, Deisseroth K, Frankland PW, Josselyn SA. Competition between engrams influences fear memory formation and recall. Science. 2016;353:383–387. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf0594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Reshef R, Kudryavitskaya E, Shani-Narkiss H, Isaacson B, Rimmerman N, Mizrahi A, Yirmiya R. The role of microglia and their CX3CR1 signaling in adult neurogenesis in the olfactory bulb. eLife. 2017;6:e30809. doi: 10.7554/eLife.30809. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Rezai Amin S, Gruszczynski C, Guiard BP, Callebert J, Launay JM, Louis F, Betancur C, Vialou V, Gautron S. Viral vector-mediated Cre recombinase expression in substantia nigra induces lesions of the nigrostriatal pathway associated with perturbations of dopamine-related behaviors and hallmarks of programmed cell death. Journal of Neurochemistry. 2019;150:330–340. doi: 10.1111/jnc.14684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Rice RA, Spangenberg EE, Yamate-Morgan H, Lee RJ, Arora RPS, Hernandez MX, Tenner AJ, West BL, Green KN. Elimination of microglia improves functional outcomes following extensive neuronal loss in the hippocampus. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2015;35:9977–9989. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0336-15.2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Rogers JT, Morganti JM, Bachstetter AD, Hudson CE, Peters MM, Grimmig BA, Weeber EJ, Bickford PC, Gemma C. Cx3Cr1 deficiency leads to impairment of hippocampal cognitive function and synaptic plasticity. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2011;31:16241–16250. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3667-11.2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Rogerson T, Cai DJ, Frank A, Sano Y, Shobe J, Lopez-Aranda MF, Silva AJ. Synaptic tagging during memory allocation. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience. 2014;15:157–169. doi: 10.1038/nrn3667. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Runge K, Cardoso C, de Chevigny A. Dendritic spine plasticity: function and mechanisms. Frontiers in Synaptic Neuroscience. 2020;12:36. doi: 10.3389/fnsyn.2020.00036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Schafer DP, Lehrman EK, Kautzman AG, Koyama R, Mardinly AR, Yamasaki R, Ransohoff RM, Greenberg ME, Barres BA, Stevens B. Microglia sculpt postnatal neural circuits in an activity and complement-dependent manner. Neuron. 2012;74:691–705. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.03.026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Schmid LC, Mittag M, Poll S, Steffen J, Wagner J, Geis H-R, Schwarz I, Schmidt B, Schwarz MK, Remy S, Fuhrmann M. Dysfunction of somatostatin-positive interneurons associated with memory deficits in an Alzheimer’s disease model. Neuron. 2016;92:114–125. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.08.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Silva AJ, Zhou Y, Rogerson T, Shobe J, Balaji J. Molecular and cellular approaches to memory allocation in neural circuits. Science. 2009;326:391–395. doi: 10.1126/science.1174519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Sipe GO, Lowery RL, Tremblay MÈ, Kelly EA, Lamantia CE, Majewska AK. Microglial P2Y12 is necessary for synaptic plasticity in mouse visual cortex. Nature Communications. 2016;7:10905. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10905. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Stachniak TJ, Ghosh A, Sternson SM. Chemogenetic synaptic silencing of neural circuits localizes a hypothalamus→midbrain pathway for feeding behavior. Neuron. 2014;82:797–808. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.04.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Stevens B, Allen NJ, Vazquez LE, Howell GR, Christopherson KS, Nouri N, Micheva KD, Mehalow AK, Huberman AD, Stafford B, Sher A, Litke AM, Lambris JD, Smith SJ, John SWM, Barres BA. The classical complement cascade mediates CNS synapse elimination. Cell. 2007;131:1164–1178. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.10.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Stowell RD, Sipe GO, Dawes RP, Batchelor HN, Lordy KA, Whitelaw BS, Stoessel MB, Bidlack JM, Brown E, Sur M, Majewska AK. Noradrenergic signaling in the wakeful state inhibits microglial surveillance and synaptic plasticity in the mouse visual cortex. Nature Neuroscience. 2019;22:1782–1792. doi: 10.1038/s41593-019-0514-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Sun W, Suzuki K, Toptunov D, Stoyanov S, Yuzaki M, Khiroug L, Dityatev A. In vivo two-photon imaging of anesthesia-specific alterations in microglial surveillance and photodamage-directed motility in mouse cortex. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2019;13:421. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00421. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Takeuchi T, Duszkiewicz AJ, Morris RGM. The synaptic plasticity and memory hypothesis: encoding, storage and persistence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 2014;369:20130288. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Tay TL, Savage JC, Hui CW, Bisht K, Tremblay M-È. Microglia across the lifespan: from origin to function in brain development, plasticity and cognition. The Journal of Physiology. 2017;595:1929–1945. doi: 10.1113/JP272134. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Thévenaz P, Ruttimann UE, Unser M. A pyramid approach to subpixel registration based on intensity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing. 1998;7:27–41. doi: 10.1109/83.650848. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Trachtenberg JT, Chen BE, Knott GW, Feng G, Sanes JR, Welker E, Svoboda K. Long-Term in vivo imaging of experience-dependent synaptic plasticity in adult cortex. Nature. 2002;420:788–794. doi: 10.1038/nature01273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Tremblay MÈ, Lowery RL, Majewska AK. Microglial interactions with synapses are modulated by visual experience. PLOS Biology. 2010;8:e1000527. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Tremblay M-È, Stevens B, Sierra A, Wake H, Bessis A, Nimmerjahn A. The role of microglia in the healthy brain. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2011;31:16064–16069. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4158-11.2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Umpierre AD, Bystrom LL, Ying Y, Liu YU, Worrell G, Wu LJ. Microglial calcium signaling is attuned to neuronal activity in awake mice. eLife. 2020;9:e56502. doi: 10.7554/eLife.56502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Urbaniak GC, Plous S. Social Psychology Network; 2013. http://www.randomizer.org/ [Google Scholar]
  92. Vahle-Hinz C, Detsch O, Siemers M, Kochs E. Contributions of GABAergic and glutamatergic mechanisms to isoflurane-induced suppression of thalamic somatosensory information transfer. Experimental Brain Research. 2007;176:159–172. doi: 10.1007/s00221-006-0604-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Wake H, Moorhouse AJ, Jinno S, Kohsaka S, Nabekura J. Resting microglia directly monitor the functional state of synapses in vivo and determine the fate of ischemic terminals. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2009;29:3974–3980. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4363-08.2009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Weinhard L, di Bartolomei G, Bolasco G, Machado P, Schieber NL, Neniskyte U, Exiga M, Vadisiute A, Raggioli A, Schertel A, Schwab Y, Gross CT. Microglia remodel synapses by presynaptic trogocytosis and spine head filopodia induction. Nature Communications. 2018;9:1228. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03566-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Wilson DE, Whitney DE, Scholl B, Fitzpatrick D. Orientation selectivity and the functional clustering of synaptic inputs in primary visual cortex. Nature Neuroscience. 2016;19:1003–1009. doi: 10.1038/nn.4323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Yang W, Chini M, Pöpplau JA, Formozov A, Dieter A, Piechocinski P, Rais C, Morellini F, Sporns O, Hanganu-Opatz IL, Wiegert JS. Anesthetics fragment hippocampal network activity, alter spine dynamics, and affect memory consolidation. PLOS Biology. 2021;19:e3001146. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. York EM, Bernier LP, MacVicar BA. Microglial modulation of neuronal activity in the healthy brain. Developmental Neurobiology. 2018;78:593–603. doi: 10.1002/dneu.22571. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Zhu H, Roth BL. Silencing synapses with dreadds. Neuron. 2014;82:723–725. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.05.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Editor's evaluation

Laura L Colgin 1

This work provides insights into the use of anesthetics in measuring cellular dynamics, regional differences in plasticity, and neuronal activity regulation of microglia dynamics. It is an important contribution to understanding hippocampal microglia plasticity in adulthood.

Decision letter

Editor: Laura L Colgin1
Reviewed by: Ania K Majewska2

In the interests of transparency, eLife publishes the most substantive revision requests and the accompanying author responses.

Decision letter after peer review:

[Editors’ note: the authors submitted for reconsideration following the decision after peer review. What follows is the decision letter after the first round of review.]

Thank you for submitting your work entitled "Microglia motility depends on neuronal activity and promotes structural plasticity in the hippocampus" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Senior Editor. The reviewers have opted to remain anonymous.

Our decision has been reached after consultation between the reviewers. Based on these discussions and the individual reviews below, we regret to inform you that your work will not be considered further for publication in eLife.

All reviewers agreed that the authors attempted to address a key question in the field of microglia motility and its association with the formation and elimination of spines in hippocampal pyramidal cells. The experiments performed by the authors are highly challenging and the reviewers were impressed by the author's technical ability to get that far in microglia imaging. Despite the enthusiasm for the work, the reviewers agreed on several major concerns that question the novelty of the influence of anesthetics on microglia motility. They were further concerned about the strength of data showing that neuronal activity influences microglia motility and, finally, they were not convinced on the effects of isoflurane on microglia motility knowing that isoflurane blocks THIK-1, which is essential for basal microglial process motility. The reviewer's therefore strongly recommended to use DREADD-mediated silencing instead isoflurane or TTX. The reviewer's had also technical concerns. The removal of the cranial window for TTX application raised concerns regarding the complications of the surgery. Moreover, the specificity of high concentrations of TTX were questioned. Finally, microglia-spine interactions may indeed, as stated by the authors, promote structural plasticity both for the individual spines, and for the dendritic segments contacted. However, the evidence for this is only correlative. A demonstration of a requirement for microglial contacts for such neuronal plasticity is not provided in the study. Therefore, the authors should modify their conclusions accordingly. Due to the time constrains of the revision phase (2 months) we propose that the authors should take their time to improve the manuscript as they see fit, based on these recommendations. It would be possible to send it back to eLife in the future as a new submission, should the authors choose to go that route. The individual reviews are included in their entirety below.

Reviewer #1:

By applying 2-Photon imaging of microglia and dendritic spines of CA1 Pyramidal cells dendrites in stratum radiatum, the authors show that (1) microglia mobility is higher in non-anaesthetized to anaesthetizes mice in vivo. (2) The motility depended on neuronal activity as shown by TTX application. (3) Microglia motility was associated with the formation of new spines and the elimination of existing spines. Stable spines were less frequently contacted by microglia. The authors therefore assume that microglia motility is associated with synaptic rewiring and neuronal connectivity.

1. Although the work is interesting the statement that microglia motility is associated with synapse formation and rewiring is bit too far stretched because no data on synapse labelling were provided.

2. Imaging micro glia extensions is under non-anaesthetized conditions a challenge due to motion artefacts and the required motion correction. Please explain in detail how motion correction was performed.

3. The DREADD experiments are interesting but evidence for changes in neuronal activity using the technique is required.

4. Although motility of microglia is an interesting topic, the question remains under which particular conditions the interaction between microglia and dendrite may support the formation of new spines and what conditions need to be met to induce a loss of spines. Since motility is dependent on neuronal activity the question emerges whether extracellular accumulation of glutamate or GABA, released from nearby synapses, may induce one or the other effect in spine dynamics.

Reviewer #2:

This manuscript by Nebeling et al. is well written and it set out to address in the most direct and relevant way some key questions in the field:

1. Do microglia contribute to neuronal structural plasticity in the adult brain, and if so in what way?

It appears that microglia-spine interactions may promote structural plasticity both for the individual spines, and for the dendritic segments contacted. However, the evidence for this is only correlative, and as such it only implies a functional role; a demonstration of a requirement for microglial contacts for such neuronal plasticity is not provided, so the authors should modify their conclusions accordingly.

2. Are microglial process dynamics driven by neuronal activity?

Though some prior studies in different model systems have implied this was the case, this is indeed the first direct demonstration that this is indeed the case for the adult mammalian brain, and in particular in the hippocampus, a highly plastic and relevant brain region. However, the presentation of these important results is really limited to a couple bar graphs, and no original imaging data is provided to convince the reader of the strength of these important in vivo imaging observations. In addition, the removal of the hippocampal window in order to apply TTX locally and then replace the window and image through it within the same day raises concerns regarding the complications of the surgery, additional injury, bleeding etc. Proper sham procedures and evaluation of microglial responses after only vehicle solution was applied and window was replaced would be essential for validating this experimentally challenging protocol.

3. What is the functional significance of these interactions between microglial processes and dendritic spines for the neuronal network?

The in vivo imaging approach the authors used is ideal for providing such answers and the authors attempt to provide several important answers in this way. The main finding is that anesthetics affect not only spine stability in the hippocampus (it was previously shown in the cortex), but also microglia interactions with them. The finding that anesthesia reduces microglia process motility is also not novel overall, this study only confirms it also happens in the hippocampus.

Clearly, the manuscript lacks a molecular mechanism that might explain how microglia may affect neuronal plasticity or how neuronal activity can regulate microglial process motility. Understandably, these are big questions that many in the field are trying to address with very little success to date. This study although descriptive is still very important as it offers novel insight and the first direct in vivo characterization of microglia spine interactions in the adult brain, and does so using elegant in vivo manipulations and challenging experiments. But in the absence of such mechanisms perhaps the authors should at least discuss how their data fit with proposed molecular mechanisms that have been explored in different settings such as in development and offer their perspective of those mechanisms possible relevance in the adult hippocampus.

The following points also need to be addressed:

There is no demonstration that the DREADD affected neurons are the ones being imaged. Sup. Figure S4 is not properly called out in the results (S2 is mentioned instead). Still, in S4 the overlay of mCherry fluorescence with Nissl poorly demonstrates the success of the injections, a NeuN immunostaining would have been more effective. The labeling of the figure overlaps with the image, which should not happen.

Most importantly, Figure 2 does not demonstrate any representative data to evaluate how the authors appreciated the result that was quantified in the bar graph. Representative images for each condition should be presented along with the quantification. It would be great if the authors could demonstrate that they indeed imaged M4+ neurons.

Figure 3: The low power images in b and e are very small and hard to appreciate. Orange arrows are described in the legend but absent in the figure. In d and g, no information is provided about when (at which time point) these timelapse images were acquired. It is also hard to appreciate what is considered to be a lost and what a gained spine in these images, as the structural changes are tiny. All the labeling inside these pictures is tiny and very hard to read at the full figure size.

In figure S2 the removal of background signal is not described anywhere in the methods. Some of the protrusions are very faint and hard to tell if they are more than background noise, especially the top red and green ones. Also the bottom green one seems to be preexisting on d0, that only grew in size by d2. The authors should pick better representative data that clearly show what the authors claim.

In Supplementary movie legends, there is no information about the z-depth of these stacks. If the z-depths are not extensive like it would appear, then more frequent sampling data if available would be more effective in showing the microglia process motility. This would be more informative, but not necessary if such data are not available.

The results regarding the clustering of spines on page 6 are poorly described.

The data showed an association of microglia contacts of dendritic spines with spine plasticity not stability as is stated in the discussion

In Methods: information that is missing and should be provided:

1. The specific lenses used for imaging the hippocampus in vivo.

2. The depth of z-stacks (how much oversampling).

3. Temgesic is not an active ingredient.

4. Doses should be provided in an equivalent way throughout (for example mg/g of BW).

5. The total length of dendrites sampled is not well explained or justified. If a few small segments per mouse are selected, then the selection criteria need to be explained. 20μm is too short and if they are selected based on how obvious changes on them appear, that can introduce sampling bias. The authors should address how they avoid introducing such biases in their analyses.

6. The gained and lost fraction is a simple percentage calculation and it should just be called that, no formula is necessary. On the contrary, the calculation of the "general turnover of dendritic spines" is not explained; what does this formula actually calculate?

7. The explanation of the dendritic shaft versus contact base sampling is very confusing and the reader cannot understand how the analysis was performed.

8. The TOR needs to be better explained in the methods: what does "the number of red and green pixels" mean? are red and green pixels added and then divided by total number of red green and yellow pixels? if this is done in "specified ROIs how are those picked? why is this not done for the entire process tree of each cell? Are cell body pixels always subtracted or only sometimes?

Reviewer #3:

In this report, Fuhrmann and colleagues sought to address the role of microglia in hippocampal synaptic connectivity. The research question is unambiguously important as persuasive data could locate microglia in a crucial position for hippocampal connectivity, and provide evidence favoring their involvement in higher cognitive functions under physiological conditions. The paper's title "Microglia motility depends on neuronal activity and promotes structural plasticity in the hippocampus" implies that this standard has been met. There are features of innovation in the research study, including use of two-photon imaging to visualize hippocampal microglial process motility and relation of processes to neuronal elements. Collection of these data was achieved by removing overlying cortical elements, an approach which hasn't been widely, if ever, applied to this research question. Additionally, the authors used DREADDs to silence neurons in the experiments shown in Figure 2, providing encouraging if preliminary data supporting their hypothesis.

Unfortunately, most of the data in this study come from multiply confounded experiments:

1. Isoflurane effect on microglial motility per se, independent of effect on neuronal activity: Isoflurane also blocks microglial THIK-1 which is essential for basal microglial process motility (Attwell Neuron 2018). How does one overcome the effect of isoflurane on microglial motility to reach the conclusions articulated in the text? Can the experiments be done using DREADD-mediated silencing instead?

2. TTX effect on Na+ channels of microglia: How specific is TTX at this high concentration? Any effect on microglial Na+ channels?

In that regard, two papers from a prominent group of NaV channel researchers, show effects of TTX on microglia at submicromolar concentrations:

"Contribution of sodium channels to lamellipodial protrusion and Rac1 and ERK1/2 activation in ATP-stimulated microglia." Persson AK…Waxman SG, Black JA. Glia. 2014 Dec;62(12):2080-95. doi: 10.1002/glia.22728. Epub 2014 Jul 18. PMID: 25043721

"Sodium channel activity modulates multiple functions in microglia." Black JA, Liu S, Waxman SG. Glia. 2009 Aug 1;57(10):1072-81. doi: 10.1002/glia.20830.

3. Effect of Cx3cr1 haploinsufficiency: need to specify that microglial haploinsufficiency for Cx3cr1 precludes generalizing observations to WT microglia.

All these experiments (Figures 1, 3) should be deleted in favor of those shown in Figure 2 using DREADDs to silence neurons and WT rather than Cx3cr1-haploinsufficient microglia. The conclusions are unchanged.

[Editors’ note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

Thank you for resubmitting your work entitled "Microglial motility is modulated by neuronal activity and correlates with dendritic spine plasticity in the hippocampus of awake mice" for further consideration by eLife. Your revised article has been evaluated by Laura Colgin (Senior Editor).

The manuscript has been improved but there are some remaining issues that need to be addressed, as outlined below:

The general recommendations to authors are to: (1) better discuss the limitations of their techniques, (2) better discuss potential caveats of their study, (3) put their work in the context of more of the existing literature, (4) re-do some of the statistics, and (5) include histology to show the extent of damage that is done to the tissue after implantation and imaging, if available; alternatively, caveats associated with a lack of histology could be mentioned. Other minor text revisions are recommended to provide missing details and to improve clarity. Please refer to the individual reviews below for details.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

The authors have improved the manuscript and have added new data and analyses as well as raw data, and methodological details according to the reviewers' suggestions. They have also toned down the conclusions from their study to refrain from causality statements and underscore correlative relationships. They discuss their results in the context of prior studies and highlight similarities and possible explanations for differences. The study is of value to the field in its current state.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Nebeling et al. seek to: (1) characterize microglial motility under healthy conditions and in the absence of anesthesia in the hippocampus of awake, adult mice; (2) examine to what extent baseline surveillance of microglia is dependent on neuronal activity; and (3) address the question of whether microglia play a role in dendritic spine formation and elimination in the hippocampus during adulthood. To do this, the authors used appropriate experimental approaches – all experiments were conducted using hippocampal cranial window preparations (as described in previous work) and two-photon microscopy to image the same mice under different experimental conditions. They also used the DREADD system to modulate input from CA3 to CA1 to determine how changes in neuronal activity regulate microglia dynamics. Lastly, they monitored both microglia and dendritic spines and measured rates of spine turnover, microglia-dendritic spine contact, and microglia-dendritic shaft contact. The authors found that CA3 to CA1 input is sufficient to modulate microglial process motility, more dendritic spines emerged in awake compared to anesthetized mice, and microglial contact rates of individual dendritic spines and dendrites were associated with the stability, removal, or emergence of dendritic spines. This work provides impressive new information on the use of anesthetics in measuring cellular dynamics, regional differences in plasticity, and neuronal activity regulation of microglia dynamics. Overall, it is an important contribution to understanding hippocampal microglia plasticity in adulthood.

1) It is interesting that there is a significant increase in dendritic spines density and significantly higher fractions of gained to lost spines in awake mice (Figure 3). This suggests that over time, more and more spines are being formed throughout adulthood in the hippocampus rather than being maintained through a balance in formation and loss of spines over time. The authors explain this in one sentence on line 360: "We interpret the increased spine density after awake imaging most likely being a response to an enriched environment, which has been shown to induce a dendritic spine increase in the hippocampus (Rampon et al., 2000) and the cortex (Jung and Herms, 2014)". While it is certainly possible that 1 hour of being on a treadmill (is this what the authors mean by enriched environment?) could temporarily effect spine gain, it seems to me much more likely that the authors are measuring a stress-induced effect and not really comparing anesthetized to awake conditions. This appears all the more likely given that the authors did not describe any head-fixation habituation/awake training in the methods. It is standard for mice to undergo several training sessions to habituate to head restraint before collecting experimental data because head fixation is stressful (see references below). If the mice used in these studies underwent habituation, please add this to your methods. If not, this needs to be thoroughly discussed as a possible confound of the findings in the Discussion section. It would be preferable to have some measure of stress signaling (cortisol ELISA) after both imaging sessions, but I realize this would require more difficult experiments so at the very least please discuss this possibility and the caveats of the current approach. Furthermore, if the running apparatus (treadmill or foam running wheel) is not consistent between training and imaging, this could further impact your results. In any case, some of the statements made in the manuscript seem disingenuous, like that on line 217: "Here, we observed a significant increase in spine density, as well as significantly higher fractions of gained compared to lost spines in awake mice (Figure 3c-f). These results underscore the rewiring potential of hippocampal synaptic connectivity in awake mice during adulthood". And 359: "Indeed, awake mice exhibited a higher spine density after two days compared with anesthetized mice". These kinds of statements suggest that there is something inherent in awake mice that induces gain of spines as compared to anesthetized mice. Given that mice are anesthetized for a very short period of imaging over two days and the majority of spine gain occurs in the awake condition in both sets of comparisons, it seems overblown to make statements about spine turnover under anesthesia vs. wakefulness. The statements on microglia-spine contact and the outcome 2 days later are fine but please refrain from inferring remodeling in circuits based on these experiments.

a. Examples of habituation period prior to imaging with head fixation:

i. Giovannucci, A. et al. Automated gesture tracking in head-fixed mice. J. Neurosci. Methods 300, 184-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2017.07.014 (2018).

ii. Chettih, S. N., McDougle, S. D., Ruffolo, L. I. and Medina, J. F. Adaptive timing of motor output in the mouse: the role of movement oscillations in eyelid conditioning. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 5, 72. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2011.00072 (2011).

iii. Stowell, R. D., Sipe, G. O., Dawes, R. P., Batchelor, H. N., Lordy, K. A., Whitelaw, B. S., … and Majewska, A. K. (2019). Noradrenergic signaling in the wakeful state inhibits microglial surveillance and synaptic plasticity in the mouse visual cortex. Nature neuroscience, 22(11), 1782-1792.

b. Examples of how stress can influence data collected with head restraint:

i. Juczewski, K., Koussa, J. A., Kesner, A. J., Lee, J. O., and Lovinger, D. M. (2020). Stress and behavioral correlates in the head-fixed method: stress measurements, habituation dynamics, locomotion, and motor-skill learning in mice. Scientific reports, 10(1), 1-19.

2) A more detailed description of microglia contact analysis should be provided. The number of spines analyzed for contacts should be included (was this the same numbers as the turnover analysis?). Once a contacted spine was identified, were neighboring spines that were not contacted also included in the analysis? If not, when comparing contacted versus non-contacted spines, any difference in turnover could be due to the probability of contact/physical limits of the microglia rather than a property of the spine itself. It is also important to mention that these contacts are putative, and that electron microscopy would be needed to fully resolve contact.

3) It is unclear to me why analysis in Figure 1-2 uses animals as the statistical n while in Figure 3-4 dendrites are used (is this true for Figure 4 – it was not clear). At the very least, please provide supplementary figures that show the analysis averaged per animal so the reader can evaluate any animal-based trends in the data. Please list the # of spines/mouse/day imaged.

4) The authors chose to only use one main methodology for their experiments- in vivo imaging using two-photon microscopy utilizing a hippocampal cranial window preparation- which is an appropriate method to measure cellular dynamics. The experiments are technically challenging. However, the authors could do more to discuss the limitations of using their techniques and put their work in the context of the literature.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

The authors address an important question in the field-how do microglia in the hippocampus respond to local neuronal activity? They show that microglial motility increases in response to activity. The most convincing piece of evidence is the DREADD data, which was added in response to the comments of previous reviewers. These data are novel and will improve our understanding of memory disorders and neurodegeneration, where hippocampal microglia likely play a role.

However, as previous reviewers pointed out, the experimental design is not optimal, which is not an easy problem to mitigate. The authors seem to have addressed some of the concerns by mentioning important caveats and moderating some of the claims. However, this resulted in the loss of significance of some of conclusions.

Strengths:

1. The new DREADD experiment addresses an important question in the field-how do microglia in the hippocampus respond to local neuronal activity? The authors now show causal evidence that microglial motility increases in response to activity. Their data are novel and will improve our understanding of memory disorders and neurodegeneration, where hippocampal microglia likely play a role (but see caveats below).

2. While some of the isoflurane vs. anesthetized data are perhaps not entirely novel, they still contribute to reconciling the findings from previous publications in the field.

Weaknesses:

1. The window implantation may result in increased inflammation in the hippocampus, and will certainly trigger inflammatory responses in the cortex. Moreover, it is possible that inflammation is present in some mice but not others, depending on how much tissue was removed during the implantation surgery and whether hippocampal tissue was damaged.

2. The experimental timeline is another potential concern, given the issues with inflammation discussed in the previous point. Is there a reason for the 3-week interval between anesthesia, awake and TTX experiments in Figure 1? Since the interval between imaging sessions is quite long, could it be that the time from surgery affects the inflammatory response in the 3 different conditions? Along the same lines, could the 1-week wait time between baseline and CNO experiments in Figure 2 be excessive? Were the experiments counterbalanced so that some mice received CNO in the first session, while others received it in the second session?

3. The TTX experiments are difficult to interpret due to the acute injury response from the TTX injection, which could potentially induce microglia migration in the area adjacent to the lesion.

4. Another potential confound is the AAV-mediated over-expression of Cre recombinase, which can have toxic effects.

5. I am not sure that the statistics in Figure 3 and Figure 4 are appropriate. The measurements from different dendrites are not truly independent observations since some were collected in the same mouse (i.e. the data is nested).

Suggested approach to mitigate weaknesses:

Weakness 1: The authors could discuss this caveat and quantify neuroinflammatory markers such as GFAP, microglial density and possibly microglial morphology (although from the images shown microglial do not appear to be ameboid). The non-implanted hemisphere or non-implanted tissue can be used as controls.

Weakness 3: This is already addressed in the text in response to the previous reviewers but it is nevertheless a weakness that reduces the significance of the data.

Weakness 4: Mention caveat in text

Weakness 6: It seems to me that a multilevel statistical model should be used (even more so since the number of dendrites imaged per mouse seems to be variable).

eLife. 2023 Feb 7;12:e83176. doi: 10.7554/eLife.83176.sa2

Author response


[Editors’ note: the authors resubmitted a revised version of the paper for consideration. What follows is the authors’ response to the first round of review.]

Reviewer #1:

By applying 2-Photon imaging of microglia and dendritic spines of CA1 Pyramidal cells dendrites in stratum radiatum, the authors show that (1) microglia mobility is higher in non-anaesthetized to anaesthetizes mice in vivo. (2) The motility depended on neuronal activity as shown by TTX application. (3) Microglia motility was associated with the formation of new spines and the elimination of existing spines. Stable spines were less frequently contacted by microglia. The authors therefore assume that microglia motility is associated with synaptic rewiring and neuronal connectivity.

1. Although the work is interesting the statement that microglia motility is associated with synapse formation and rewiring is bit too far stretched because no data on synapse labelling were provided.

We thank the reviewer for the valuable comment. We have modified the corresponding text passages accordingly and more precisely use “dendritic spines” instead of “synapses”. However we think monitoring dendritic spines is a good surrogate marker to draw conclusions about post-synapses as the majority (~80%, in adults) contain PSD-95 which corresponds to mature excitatory synapses (Runge et al., 2021, Cane et al. 2014).

2. Imaging micro glia extensions is under non-anaesthetized conditions a challenge due to motion artefacts and the required motion correction. Please explain in detail how motion correction was performed.

We have incorporated a detailed section in the material and methods section. In brief, stable image quality was achieved by oversampling in the z dimension by a factor of 5x compared to imaging of microglia under anesthetized conditions. This allows for the exclusion of distorted images generated by movement of the animal.

3. The DREADD experiments are interesting but evidence for changes in neuronal activity using the technique is required.

To address this point, we have performed ca2+-imaging of axonal fibers (Schaffer collaterals) in str. radiatum of the hippocampus (new Figure 2 —figure supplement 2, Figure 2 – Video 1+2). CA3 neurons were co-transfected with a CaMKII-Cre, a loxP flanked GCaMP6m and a loxP flanked hM3D(Gq) DREADD. Mice were imaged awake on a linear treadmill upon vehicle and CNO application. We found increased axonal ca2+-event frequencies upon hM3D(Gq) activation via CNO administration. Our data is in line with previous experiments showing the effect of DREADD activation on neuronal activity (Alexander et. al 2009, Roth 2016). We are therefore confident that our DREADD experiments indeed change neuronal activity.

4. Although motility of microglia is an interesting topic, the question remains under which particular conditions the interaction between microglia and dendrite may support the formation of new spines and what conditions need to be met to induce a loss of spines. Since motility is dependent on neuronal activity the question emerges whether extracellular accumulation of glutamate or GABA, released from nearby synapses, may induce one or the other effect in spine dynamics.

Thank you for this valuable and important comment. In a follow up project we are currently actually investigating these mechanisms. However, we think it is out of the scope of the current manuscript to provide this mechanism. We therefore elaborate this important point in the discussion. “Potentially the microglial response to increased levels of glutamate might be due to activity-induced glutamate uptake and the subsequent release of GABA by astrocytes; this might function as a relay station between synapses and microglia, triggering a microglial response through the activation of GABAB receptors on microglia (Logiacco et al., 2021).”

Reviewer #2:

This manuscript by Nebeling et al. is well written and it set out to address in the most direct and relevant way some key questions in the field:

1. Do microglia contribute to neuronal structural plasticity in the adult brain, and if so in what way?

It appears that microglia-spine interactions may promote structural plasticity both for the individual spines, and for the dendritic segments contacted. However, the evidence for this is only correlative, and as such it only implies a functional role; a demonstration of a requirement for microglial contacts for such neuronal plasticity is not provided, so the authors should modify their conclusions accordingly.

We thank the reviewer for the valuable comment. We modified our conclusion throughout the manuscript not claiming causality anymore, instead describing the correlation between microglia contacts and structural plasticity.

2. Are microglial process dynamics driven by neuronal activity?

Though some prior studies in different model systems have implied this was the case, this is indeed the first direct demonstration that this is indeed the case for the adult mammalian brain, and in particular in the hippocampus, a highly plastic and relevant brain region. However, the presentation of these important results is really limited to a couple bar graphs, and no original imaging data is provided to convince the reader of the strength of these important in vivo imaging observations. In addition, the removal of the hippocampal window in order to apply TTX locally and then replace the window and image through it within the same day raises concerns regarding the complications of the surgery, additional injury, bleeding etc. Proper sham procedures and evaluation of microglial responses after only vehicle solution was applied and window was replaced would be essential for validating this experimentally challenging protocol.

We agree that the removal and consecutive application of TTX represents a difficult experiment that has certain drawbacks. To support the results of the pharmacologic TTX experiment, we performed a more specific chemo-genetic experiment using DREADDs to alter neuronal activity, while imaging microglia dynamics at the same time. These experiments revealed a positive correlation between neuronal activity and microglia activity in the hippocampus of adult mice. Furthermore, we provide original data (see Figure 1 – Video 1+2, and new Figure 2 + Figure 2 —figure supplement 1) to support our graphs.

3. What is the functional significance of these interactions between microglial processes and dendritic spines for the neuronal network?

The in vivo imaging approach the authors used is ideal for providing such answers and the authors attempt to provide several important answers in this way. The main finding is that anesthetics affect not only spine stability in the hippocampus (it was previously shown in the cortex), but also microglia interactions with them. The finding that anesthesia reduces microglia process motility is also not novel overall, this study only confirms it also happens in the hippocampus.

Given that microglia have distinct region-dependent transcriptional identities that vary significantly e.g. between cortex and hippocampus (Grabert et al., 2016), investigating microglial properties like their baseline motility in different brain regions can give further valuable insights into their brain region-dependent functional properties. As such our study is novel also in the light of recent findings that microglial motility in the cortex might actually be differentially regulated than in the hippocampus (Stowell et al., 2019). We are convinced that our findings concerning the hippocampus are novel and are therefore of interest for the neuroscientific community.

Clearly, the manuscript lacks a molecular mechanism that might explain how microglia may affect neuronal plasticity or how neuronal activity can regulate microglial process motility. Understandably, these are big questions that many in the field are trying to address with very little success to date. This study although descriptive is still very important as it offers novel insight and the first direct in vivo characterization of microglia spine interactions in the adult brain, and does so using elegant in vivo manipulations and challenging experiments. But in the absence of such mechanisms perhaps the authors should at least discuss how their data fit with proposed molecular mechanisms that have been explored in different settings such as in development and offer their perspective of those mechanisms possible relevance in the adult hippocampus.

We fully agree that the discovery of a molecular mechanism would have been a great add to our manuscript as well as for field. To properly represent the importance of identifying a mechanism, we elaborate on this in the discussion. E.g. we discuss the probability auf neurotransmitter modulation of microglia-spine interaction.

The following points also need to be addressed:

There is no demonstration that the DREADD affected neurons are the ones being imaged. Sup. Figure S4 is not properly called out in the results (S2 is mentioned instead). Still, in S4 the overlay of mCherry fluorescence with Nissl poorly demonstrates the success of the injections, a NeuN immunostaining would have been more effective. The labeling of the figure overlaps with the image, which should not happen.

We thank the reviewer for the valuable comment. We provide new histological examinations of DREADD transfected neurons and implemented the statistical analysis alongside representative images for the new conditions applied (also please see next point, Figure 2, Figure 2 —figure supplement 1).

Most importantly, Figure 2 does not demonstrate any representative data to evaluate how the authors appreciated the result that was quantified in the bar graph. Representative images for each condition should be presented along with the quantification. It would be great if the authors could demonstrate that they indeed imaged M4+ neurons.

We now included representative data in example images. Furthermore, we measured the transfection rate of neurons by DREADDs (hM4Di+hM3Dq) and show the corresponding data in Figure 2.

Figure 3: The low power images in b and e are very small and hard to appreciate. Orange arrows are described in the legend but absent in the figure. In d and g, no information is provided about when (at which time point) these timelapse images were acquired. It is also hard to appreciate what is considered to be a lost and what a gained spine in these images, as the structural changes are tiny. All the labeling inside these pictures is tiny and very hard to read at the full figure size.

We have improved figure 3 (now termed Figure 4) and implemented a better exemplary picture for the loss of a dendritic spine.

In figure S2 the removal of background signal is not described anywhere in the methods. Some of the protrusions are very faint and hard to tell if they are more than background noise, especially the top red and green ones. Also the bottom green one seems to be preexisting on d0, that only grew in size by d2. The authors should pick better representative data that clearly show what the authors claim.

We thank the reviewer for careful reading. The images were median filtered and z-projected.

This is described in Material and Methods now. We have improved Figure S2 (now termed Figure 3) and provided a better exemplary image.

In Supplementary movie legends, there is no information about the z-depth of these stacks. If the z-depths are not extensive like it would appear, then more frequent sampling data if available would be more effective in showing the microglia process motility. This would be more informative, but not necessary if such data are not available.

We have provided information of respective z-profiles for this data.

The results regarding the clustering of spines on page 6 are poorly described.

The data showed an association of microglia contacts of dendritic spines with spine plasticity not stability as is stated in the discussion

We improved the description how the analysis of spine clustering was carried out.

Furthermore, we thank the reviewer for careful reading. We revised the section and

clarify that microglia contacts of dendritic spines is associated with spine plasticity.

In Methods: information that is missing and should be provided:

1. The specific lenses used for imaging the hippocampus in vivo.

Nikon 16x NA0.8, WD 3.0mm, water immersion.

2. The depth of z-stacks (how much oversampling).

100 μm, every 0.2 μm 5x.

3. Temgesic is not an active ingredient.

Now buprenorphine.

4. Doses should be provided in an equivalent way throughout (for example mg/g of BW).

Done.

5. The total length of dendrites sampled is not well explained or justified. If a few small segments per mouse are selected, then the selection criteria need to be explained. 20μm is too short and if they are selected based on how obvious changes on them appear, that can introduce sampling bias. The authors should address how they avoid introducing such biases in their analyses.

Dendritic segments were randomly selected. Each dendrite had a length between 20- 60 μm. Dendritic spine density of dendrites of CA1 neurons are more than two times higher than on cortical dendrites (Gu et al. 2014, Attardo et al. 2015, Pfeiffer et al. 2018). Therefore, a segment of 20 μm length has a sufficiently high spine number.

6. The gained and lost fraction is a simple percentage calculation and it should just be called that, no formula is necessary. On the contrary, the calculation of the "general turnover of dendritic spines" is not explained; what does this formula actually calculate?

We included the calculation of spine turnover.

7. The explanation of the dendritic shaft versus contact base sampling is very confusing and the reader cannot understand how the analysis was performed.

Is better described now in the text and figure legend.

8. The TOR needs to be better explained in the methods: what does "the number of red and green pixels" mean? are red and green pixels added and then divided by total number of red green and yellow pixels? if this is done in "specified ROIs how are those picked? why is this not done for the entire process tree of each cell? Are cell body pixels always subtracted or only sometimes?

We provide a formula and precise way how it was carried out.

We have reworked all of the 8 remarks pointed out above and provide the information requested.

Reviewer #3:

In this report, Fuhrmann and colleagues sought to address the role of microglia in hippocampal synaptic connectivity. The research question is unambiguously important as persuasive data could locate microglia in a crucial position for hippocampal connectivity, and provide evidence favoring their involvement in higher cognitive functions under physiological conditions. The paper's title "Microglia motility depends on neuronal activity and promotes structural plasticity in the hippocampus" implies that this standard has been met. There are features of innovation in the research study, including use of two-photon imaging to visualize hippocampal microglial process motility and relation of processes to neuronal elements. Collection of these data was achieved by removing overlying cortical elements, an approach which hasn't been widely, if ever, applied to this research question. Additionally, the authors used DREADDs to silence neurons in the experiments shown in Figure 2, providing encouraging if preliminary data supporting their hypothesis.

Unfortunately, most of the data in this study come from multiply confounded experiments:

1. Isoflurane effect on microglial motility per se, independent of effect on neuronal activity: Isoflurane also blocks microglial THIK-1 which is essential for basal microglial process motility (Attwell Neuron 2018). How does one overcome the effect of isoflurane on microglial motility to reach the conclusions articulated in the text? Can the experiments be done using DREADD-mediated silencing instead?

We thank the reviewer for the valuable comment. We provide further DREADDsilencing and activation of CA3 neurons additionally to the already applied DREADDsilencing included in the initial submission (See Figure 2). We are confident that these experiments support our conclusion of a relationship between microglia motility and neuronal activity in the hippocampus.

2. TTX effect on Na+ channels of microglia: How specific is TTX at this high concentration? Any effect on microglial Na+ channels?

In that regard, two papers from a prominent group of NaV channel researchers, show effects of TTX on microglia at submicromolar concentrations:

"Contribution of sodium channels to lamellipodial protrusion and Rac1 and ERK1/2 activation in ATP-stimulated microglia." Persson AK…Waxman SG, Black JA. Glia. 2014 Dec;62(12):2080-95. doi: 10.1002/glia.22728. Epub 2014 Jul 18. PMID: 25043721

"Sodium channel activity modulates multiple functions in microglia." Black JA, Liu S, Waxman SG. Glia. 2009 Aug 1;57(10):1072-81. doi: 10.1002/glia.20830.

We agree that the usage of isoflurane and especially the topic application of TTX and the potential direct effect on microglia needs to be evaluated critically. As stated above we have improved our manuscript by adding in vivo manipulation of neuronal activity by DREADD silencing and activation experiments. However, we did not perform any experiments in the direction of Na+ channel manipulation on microglia. To take this important possible mechanism into account, we included it in the discussion.

3. Effect of Cx3cr1 haploinsufficiency: need to specify that microglial haploinsufficiency for Cx3cr1 precludes generalizing observations to WT microglia.

We have stated this now in the manuscript and clarified that these mice are haploin-sufficient for the fractalkine receptor. Therefore, the results are of course not generalizable to WT microglia.

All these experiments (Figures 1, 3) should be deleted in favor of those shown in Figure 2 using DREADDs to silence neurons and WT rather than Cx3cr1-haploinsufficient microglia. The conclusions are unchanged.

We understand the concern about the usage of the Cx3Cr1-GFP mouse line, but currently do not have a better model at hand in terms of haploinsufficiency. Furthermore, the findings shown in Figure 3 (now termed Figure 4) concerning the interaction of microglia with dendritic spines in the adult hippocampus is of particular interest and novel to the field. Therefore, we decided to keep figures 1 and 3 (Figure 4 respectively).

[Editors’ note: what follows is the authors’ response to the second round of review.]

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Nebeling et al. seek to: (1) characterize microglial motility under healthy conditions and in the absence of anesthesia in the hippocampus of awake, adult mice; (2) examine to what extent baseline surveillance of microglia is dependent on neuronal activity; and (3) address the question of whether microglia play a role in dendritic spine formation and elimination in the hippocampus during adulthood. To do this, the authors used appropriate experimental approaches – all experiments were conducted using hippocampal cranial window preparations (as described in previous work) and two-photon microscopy to image the same mice under different experimental conditions. They also used the DREADD system to modulate input from CA3 to CA1 to determine how changes in neuronal activity regulate microglia dynamics. Lastly, they monitored both microglia and dendritic spines and measured rates of spine turnover, microglia-dendritic spine contact, and microglia-dendritic shaft contact. The authors found that CA3 to CA1 input is sufficient to modulate microglial process motility, more dendritic spines emerged in awake compared to anesthetized mice, and microglial contact rates of individual dendritic spines and dendrites were associated with the stability, removal, or emergence of dendritic spines. This work provides impressive new information on the use of anesthetics in measuring cellular dynamics, regional differences in plasticity, and neuronal activity regulation of microglia dynamics. Overall, it is an important contribution to understanding hippocampal microglia plasticity in adulthood.

1) It is interesting that there is a significant increase in dendritic spines density and significantly higher fractions of gained to lost spines in awake mice (Figure 3). This suggests that over time, more and more spines are being formed throughout adulthood in the hippocampus rather than being maintained through a balance in formation and loss of spines over time. The authors explain this in one sentence on line 360: "We interpret the increased spine density after awake imaging most likely being a response to an enriched environment, which has been shown to induce a dendritic spine increase in the hippocampus (Rampon et al., 2000) and the cortex (Jung and Herms, 2014)". While it is certainly possible that 1 hour of being on a treadmill (is this what the authors mean by enriched environment?) could temporarily effect spine gain, it seems to me much more likely that the authors are measuring a stress-induced effect and not really comparing anesthetized to awake conditions. This appears all the more likely given that the authors did not describe any head-fixation habituation/awake training in the methods. It is standard for mice to undergo several training sessions to habituate to head restraint before collecting experimental data because head fixation is stressful (see references below). If the mice used in these studies underwent habituation, please add this to your methods. If not, this needs to be thoroughly discussed as a possible confound of the findings in the Discussion section. It would be preferable to have some measure of stress signaling (cortisol ELISA) after both imaging sessions, but I realize this would require more difficult experiments so at the very least please discuss this possibility and the caveats of the current approach. Furthermore, if the running apparatus (treadmill or foam running wheel) is not consistent between training and imaging, this could further impact your results. In any case, some of the statements made in the manuscript seem disingenuous, like that on line 217: "Here, we observed a significant increase in spine density, as well as significantly higher fractions of gained compared to lost spines in awake mice (Figure 3c-f). These results underscore the rewiring potential of hippocampal synaptic connectivity in awake mice during adulthood". And 359: "Indeed, awake mice exhibited a higher spine density after two days compared with anesthetized mice". These kinds of statements suggest that there is something inherent in awake mice that induces gain of spines as compared to anesthetized mice. Given that mice are anesthetized for a very short period of imaging over two days and the majority of spine gain occurs in the awake condition in both sets of comparisons, it seems overblown to make statements about spine turnover under anesthesia vs. wakefulness. The statements on microglia-spine contact and the outcome 2 days later are fine but please refrain from inferring remodeling in circuits based on these experiments.

a. Examples of habituation period prior to imaging with head fixation:

i. Giovannucci, A. et al. Automated gesture tracking in head-fixed mice. J. Neurosci. Methods 300, 184-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2017.07.014 (2018).

ii. Chettih, S. N., McDougle, S. D., Ruffolo, L. I. and Medina, J. F. Adaptive timing of motor output in the mouse: the role of movement oscillations in eyelid conditioning. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 5, 72. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2011.00072 (2011).

iii. Stowell, R. D., Sipe, G. O., Dawes, R. P., Batchelor, H. N., Lordy, K. A., Whitelaw, B. S., … and Majewska, A. K. (2019). Noradrenergic signaling in the wakeful state inhibits microglial surveillance and synaptic plasticity in the mouse visual cortex. Nature neuroscience, 22(11), 1782-1792.

b. Examples of how stress can influence data collected with head restraint:

i. Juczewski, K., Koussa, J. A., Kesner, A. J., Lee, J. O., and Lovinger, D. M. (2020). Stress and behavioral correlates in the head-fixed method: stress measurements, habituation dynamics, locomotion, and motor-skill learning in mice. Scientific reports, 10(1), 1-19.

We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. We agree with the reviewer that the increase in gained spines after 1h awake imaging is very likely transient. We and others have shown that under baseline conditions, spine densities remain at a steady state level. We also habituated the mice and included the description in the MatandMet. part now. The treadmill for training and experiment was the same. We are therefore confident that the spine gain effect was not stress-related. To clarify the point that the spine gain is likely transient, we revised the part of the discussion addressing this point: “Indeed, awake mice, meaning imaged under awake conditions while being on a treadmill for one hour, exhibited a higher spine density after two days compared with anesthetized mice. We suspect the increase observed in our study to be transient, as permanent increases in spine formation was not observed in previous studies (Attardo et al., 2015; Gu et al., 2014; Pfeiffer et al., 2018). Although mice were habituated, it is possible that the one hour awake imaging is similar to an enriched environment, which induced a dendritic spine increase in the hippocampus (Rampon et al., 2000) and the cortex (Jung and Herms, 2014).” (L361-368)

We also revised the sentences L217, L359 (now L219 and L361) to clarify that awake mice do not inherently have higher spine gain. Furthermore, we refrain from inferring remodeling circuits based on our experiments.

2) A more detailed description of microglia contact analysis should be provided. The number of spines analyzed for contacts should be included (was this the same numbers as the turnover analysis?). Once a contacted spine was identified, were neighboring spines that were not contacted also included in the analysis? If not, when comparing contacted versus non-contacted spines, any difference in turnover could be due to the probability of contact/physical limits of the microglia rather than a property of the spine itself. It is also important to mention that these contacts are putative, and that electron microscopy would be needed to fully resolve contact.

We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. We now provide a more detailed description of microglia contact analysis, as well as the number of spines analyzed (see MatandMet L678-694; Table 2). The same number of spines was analyzed for contacts and turnover. All spines along a dendritic segment were taken into account, which means that neighboring spines were also included. Furthermore, we clarify in the discussion that these are putative contacts (L422).

3) It is unclear to me why analysis in Figure 1-2 uses animals as the statistical n while in Figure 3-4 dendrites are used (is this true for Figure 4 – it was not clear). At the very least, please provide supplementary figures that show the analysis averaged per animal so the reader can evaluate any animal-based trends in the data. Please list the # of spines/mouse/day imaged.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We provide the statistics over mice now and changed Figure 3, 4 accordingly. The analysis over dendrites is provided as supplementary file (Figure3—figure supplement 2; Figure 4—figure supplement 1). The number of spines/mouse/day imaged are provided in Table2 now.

4) The authors chose to only use one main methodology for their experiments- in vivo imaging using two-photon microscopy utilizing a hippocampal cranial window preparation- which is an appropriate method to measure cellular dynamics. The experiments are technically challenging. However, the authors could do more to discuss the limitations of using their techniques and put their work in the context of the literature.

We have now added a new point to the discussion termed “limitations” pointing out potential deficits of our study especially in terms of methodology. We also put our work now more in the context of the literature.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

The authors address an important question in the field-how do microglia in the hippocampus respond to local neuronal activity? They show that microglial motility increases in response to activity. The most convincing piece of evidence is the DREADD data, which was added in response to the comments of previous reviewers. These data are novel and will improve our understanding of memory disorders and neurodegeneration, where hippocampal microglia likely play a role.

However, as previous reviewers pointed out, the experimental design is not optimal, which is not an easy problem to mitigate. The authors seem to have addressed some of the concerns by mentioning important caveats and moderating some of the claims. However, this resulted in the loss of significance of some of conclusions.

Strengths:

1. The new DREADD experiment addresses an important question in the field-how do microglia in the hippocampus respond to local neuronal activity? The authors now show causal evidence that microglial motility increases in response to activity. Their data are novel and will improve our understanding of memory disorders and neurodegeneration, where hippocampal microglia likely play a role (but see caveats below).

2. While some of the isoflurane vs. anesthetized data are perhaps not entirely novel, they still contribute to reconciling the findings from previous publications in the field.

Weaknesses:

1. The window implantation may result in increased inflammation in the hippocampus, and will certainly trigger inflammatory responses in the cortex. Moreover, it is possible that inflammation is present in some mice but not others, depending on how much tissue was removed during the implantation surgery and whether hippocampal tissue was damaged.

We thank the reviewer for this important comment. Indeed, the implantation of a hippocampal window leads to initial gliosis in the hippocampus and cortex. However in a previous study we could show that this inflammatory reaction (as measured by Iba1+ and GFAP stainings) only lasts about 3 weeks after which it reseeds back to baseline levels (Gu et al. 2014). We also can exclude that hippocampal tissue was damaged. As previously shown, spine density and neuron survival in the hippocampus were unchanged between mice with and without hippocampal window implantation. Furthermore, density of cfos positive neurons upon contextual fear conditioning were unchanged between ipsi- and contralateral hemispheres.

Nevertheless, we added a sentence that addresses the possibility of a longer lasting inflammation that is independent of morphological or cell number changes as a point of consideration in the manuscript (L488)

2. The experimental timeline is another potential concern, given the issues with inflammation discussed in the previous point. Is there a reason for the 3-week interval between anesthesia, awake and TTX experiments in Figure 1? Since the interval between imaging sessions is quite long, could it be that the time from surgery affects the inflammatory response in the 3 different conditions?

There was no particular reason for the timespacing, but coordination of experiments with microscope availability and timesheduling. Since inflammation, as measured by different parameters in Gu et al. 2014, decreased already after three weeks, we did not expect any newly appearing inflammation for later time-points.

Along the same lines, could the 1-week wait time between baseline and CNO experiments in Figure 2 be excessive? Were the experiments counterbalanced so that some mice received CNO in the first session, while others received it in the second session?

We thank the reviewer for the comment. We do not think that the 1-week waiting time is excessive. The waiting time of one week was chosen primarily because of microscope booking reasons (availability of the instrument, see also point above). We started always with vehicle-injection to exclude the possibility of a long-lasting CNO-effect. Therefore, we did not start with CNO-treatment and did also not mix mice (starting with CNO or vehicle). Mixing treatment regimes would have increased variability and required a higher number of mice, which should be avoided according to 3R rules.

3. The TTX experiments are difficult to interpret due to the acute injury response from the TTX injection, which could potentially induce microglia migration in the area adjacent to the lesion.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. TTX was not injected, but topically applied after removal of the window. This procedure is comparable to a bath application of TTX in an electrophysiology measurement in brain slices. The removal of the window did not lead to any bleeding and the imaging region (stratum radiatum, CA1) was approximately 150µm away from the surface. During the imaging of microglia, we also did not observe a microglia process extension towards the surface, which one would have expected to observe in case of a lesion. We are therefore confident that TTX application was not accompanied by any lesion.

4. Another potential confound is the AAV-mediated over-expression of Cre recombinase, which can have toxic effects.

We thank the reviewer for raising this concern. We assume that the reviewer refers to potential neurotoxic effects of Cre-recombinase expression in neurons. However, we used for example AAV9-Cre plus a second AAV containing either an inhibiting or activating DREADD (Figure 2). If the AAV9-Cre would have had a confounding effect, why should we observe on the one hand a decrease of microglia motility (hM4D(Gi)) and on the other hand an increase in microglia motility (hM3D(Gq))? Although there might be an effect of AAV9-Cre, one would expect that both groups would be similarly affected and not in opposite directions.

5. I am not sure that the statistics in Figure 3 and Figure 4 are appropriate. The measurements from different dendrites are not truly independent observations since some were collected in the same mouse (i.e. the data is nested).

Thank you for pointing this out. We revised the statistics for Figures 3 and 4 and provide the data on individual mice now. The analyses over dendrites is now provided as supplementary figures.

Suggested approach to mitigate weaknesses:

Weakness 1: The authors could discuss this caveat and quantify neuroinflammatory markers such as GFAP, microglial density and possibly microglial morphology (although from the images shown microglial do not appear to be ameboid). The non-implanted hemisphere or non-implanted tissue can be used as controls.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We agree with the reviewer that microglia shown in our pictures and movies do not appear ameboid. This is the reason, why we consider that neuroinflammation was back to baseline levels at our imaging timepoints. We also did the suggested measurements in our previous work (Gu et al. 2014) and addressed the raised points above. We also provide a further supplementary figure (Figure 1 —figure supplement 2) showing ramified microglia under varying conditions.

Weakness 3: This is already addressed in the text in response to the previous reviewers but it is nevertheless a weakness that reduces the significance of the data.

We agree that this experiment has to be interpreted with care (L159-161; L304-308). Nevertheless it was the starting point for the following less invasive DREADD experiments, which could provide a more profound link between neuronal activity and microglial motility. Thereby, a potential direct affect of TTX on microglia themselves could be ruled out.

Weakness 4: Mention caveat in text

Indeed, we found publications supporting a neurotoxic effect of Cre-recombinase (Forni et al., 2006; Erben et al., 2022; Rezai Amin et al., 2019). However, these observations were made in cell cultures, during development and in dopaminergic neurons in adult mice. The latter suggesting a high viral titer and expression of Cre-recombinase as the reason for neurotoxicity in these neurons. Whether the findings from different brain regions, cells and culture systems are applicable to our experimental conditions is speculative. Furthermore, as discussed above, we observe opposite effects of inhibiting and activating DREADDs on microglia motility, while using the same AAV9-Cre. These arguments are in favor of a non-confounding effect of AAV-Cre application. We included a sentence in the limitations paragraph of the discussion to address this point.(L493497)

Weakness 6: It seems to me that a multilevel statistical model should be used (even more so since the number of dendrites imaged per mouse seems to be variable).

We thank the reviewer for the comment. The statistics for Figure 3 and 4 are now performed over mice and the statistics over dendrites is provided as supplementary (Figure3—figure supplement 2; Figure 4—figure supplement 1). Therefore, we don’t see the necessity of a multilevel statistical model.

Associated Data

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

    Data Citations

    1. Furhmann M. 2023. Data from: Microglial motility is modulated by neuronal activity and correlates with dendritic spine plasticity in the hippocampus of awake mice. Dryad Digital Repository. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

    Supplementary Materials

    MDAR checklist

    Data Availability Statement

    Data related to the manuscript are available according to the FAIR principles via Dryad.

    The following dataset was generated:

    Furhmann M. 2023. Data from: Microglial motility is modulated by neuronal activity and correlates with dendritic spine plasticity in the hippocampus of awake mice. Dryad Digital Repository.


    Articles from eLife are provided here courtesy of eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd

    RESOURCES