Background
Materials and methods
Animals
Genotyping
RNA extraction and RT-qPCR analysis
Hippocampal slice preparation
Electrophysiological recordings
Immunofluorescence
Data analysis
Drugs and chemicals
Statistical analysis
Results
Gal3 induces degradation of gamma oscillations via its CRD
Fig. 1 Gal3 impairs gamma oscillation power and rhythmicity through its carbohydrate-recognition domain (CRD). a Representative power spectra of hippocampal CA3 network activity recorded in control slices (gray), slices pre-incubated for 15 min with 1 µM gal3 (red) and slices co-incubated with 1 µM gal3 + 10 µM TD139 (blue). Inset: Representative power spectra for slices co-incubated with 1 µM gal3 + 10 µM TD139 (gray), co-incubated with 1 µM gal3 + 3 µM TD139 (magenta) or co-incubated with 1 µM gal3 + 1 µM TD139 (green). b Representative example traces of recordings performed in the conditions shown in a. c Summary bar graphs of gamma oscillation power for the conditions shown in a, demonstrating that 10 µM TD139 confers the most effective prevention against gal3-induced decrease of gamma oscillation power (ordinary one-way ANOVA followed by Holm-Sidak's multiple comparisons test, Additional file 2: Table S1): control (gray, 12.0 ± 2.52 × 10-09 V2, n = 14, N = 5); gal3 (red, 1.60 ± 0.33 × 10-09 V2, n = 13, N = 3); gal3 + 1 µM TD139 (green, 1.88 ± 0.45 × 10-09 V2, n = 10, N = 3); gal3 + 3 µM TD139 (magenta, 3.13 ± 0.53 × 10-09 V2, n = 8, N = 4); gal3 + 10 µM TD139 (blue, 12.3 ± 1.63 × 10-09 V2, n = 14, N = 3). 10 µM TD139 applied alone did not affect gamma oscillations power (light gray, 13.5 ± 3.44 × 10-09 V2, n = 6, N = 2). d Coefficient of rhythmicity calculated from the autocorrelation function as a measure of gamma oscillation quality (see methods). Top: Representative autocorrelation of gamma oscillations recorded in control conditions (gray), in slices pre-incubated with gal3 (red) and slices co-incubated with gal3 + 10 µM TD139 (blue). Bottom: Bar graphs summarizing the Cr calculated for each condition listed in c: control (gray, 0.83 ± 0.01, n = 14, N = 5); gal3 (red, 0.75 ± 0.01, n = 13, N = 3); gal3 + 1 µM TD139 (green, 0.79 ± 0.02, n = 10, N = 3); gal3 + 3 µM TD139 (magenta, 0.8 ± 0.03, n = 8, N = 4); gal3 + 10 µM TD139 (blue, 0.83 ± 0.01, n = 14, N = 3). 10 µM TD139 applied alone did not affect gamma oscillation rhythmicity (light gray, 0.85 ± 0.02, n = 6, N = 2). Statistical testing performed by ordinary one-way ANOVA followed by Holm-Sidak's multiple comparisons test (Additional file 2: Table S2). e Bar graph summary of gamma oscillation power from slices recorded in control conditions (gray, 10.9 ± 2.04 × 10-09 V2, n = 12, N = 6), slices pre-incubated for 15 min with 1 µM R186S-Gal3 (blue, 10.7 ± 1.56 × 10-09 V2, n = 10, N = 3; P = 0.9265 vs control) and slices pre-incubated for 15 min with 1 µM CRD-Gal3 (red, 2.67 ± 0.69 × 10-09 V2, n = 11, N = 3; P = 0.0022 vs control, P = 0.0029 vs R186S-Gal3), ordinary one-way ANOVA followed by Holm-Sidak's multiple comparisons test. f Top: Representative autocorrelations of gamma oscillations recorded in the conditions mentioned in e. Bottom: Summary bar graphs of the Cr measured in control conditions (gray, 0.8 ± 0.02, n = 12, N = 6); slices pre-incubated with R186S-Gal3 (blue, 0.76 ± 0.01, n = 10, N = 3; P = 0.1866 vs control), and slices pre-incubated with Gal3-CRD (red, 0.69 ± 0.02, n = 11, N = 3; P = 0.0004 vs control, P = 0.0159 vs R186S-Gal3), ordinary one-way ANOVA followed by Holm-Sidak's multiple comparisons test. g Representative example traces of recordings performed in the conditions shown in e and f. Data are presented as mean ± SE. Significance levels are shown as *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. n.s: no significant statistical difference; n: number of slices; N: number of animals |
Gal3 disrupts action potential phase-lock of fast-spiking interneurons to gamma oscillations in a concentration- and exposure time-dependent manner
Fig. 2 Gal3-induced impairment of FSN and PC action potential phase lock to gamma oscillations. a Time course of the effect of 1 µM gal3 application on gamma oscillation power. b Left: Summary of gamma power in control condition (99.2% ± 1.25%) and 30 min after 1 µM gal3 application (95.8% ± 17.5%, n = 6, N = 3; P > 0.9999 vs control, two-tailed Wilcoxon test). Right: Representative example traces of the conditions shown in the bar graph. c Time course of the effect of 2 µM gal3 application on gamma oscillation power. d Left: Summary of gamma power in control condition (gray, 102.6% ± 2.6%) and 40 min after 2 µM gal3 application (46.4% ± 7.39%, n = 14, N = 7; P > 0.9999, two-tailed Wilcoxon test). Right: Representative example traces of the conditions shown in the bar graph. e Representative polar plots of the AP firing window for a FSN recorded concomitantly to gamma oscillations in control conditions (gray) and 40 min after application of 2 µM gal3 (red). Left: FSN-AP firing window relative to gamma. Right: resultant vector showing the magnitude of the phase-lock and the gamma phase-angle preference. f Representative example traces of FSN AP firing (upper traces) concomitantly recorded with gamma oscillations (lower traces) in conditions mentioned in e and d. Left: schematic of the hippocampus showing the locations of FSN AP and LFP recordings. g Quantification of the vector length (control: 0.64 ± 0.1, gal3: 0.48 ± 0.1, n = 9, N = 6; P = 0.0092, two-tailed t-test). h Quantification of the gamma-preferred phase-angle (control: 5.2 ± 0.13 radians, gal3: 5.3 ± 0.13 radians, n = 9, N = 6; P = 0.1459, two-tailed t-test). i Quantification of the FSN firing rate (control: 9.91 ± 2.73 Hz, gal3: 4.9 ± 1, n = 9, N = 6; P = 0.0389, two-tailed t-test). j Representative polar plots of the AP firing window for a PC recorded concomitantly to gamma oscillations in control conditions (gray) and 40 min after application of 2 µM gal3 (red). Left: PC AP firing window relative to gamma. Right: resultant vector showing the magnitude of the phase-lock and the gamma phase-angle preference. k Representative example traces of PC AP firing (upper traces) concomitantly recorded with gamma oscillations (lower traces) in conditions mentioned in j and k. l Quantification of the vector length (control: 0.58 ± 0.1, gal3: 0.38 ± 0.1, n = 7, N = 6; P = 0.0078, one-tailed Wilcoxon test). m Quantification of the gamma-preferred phase-angle (control: 3.9 ± 0.21, gal3: 3.9 ± 0.58, n = 7, N = 6; P = 0.5781, two-tailed Wilcoxon test). n Quantification of the PC firing rate (control: 1.74 ± 0.5 Hz, gal3: 0.38 ± 0.11, n = 11, N = 6; P = 0.0389, two-tailed paired t-test). Data are presented as a mean ± SE. Significance levels are shown as *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. n.s: no significant statistical difference; n: number of slices recorded in a-d and cells recorded in e-n; N: number of animals |
Gal3 impairs inhibitory and excitatory synaptic transmission during ongoing gamma oscillations
Fig. 3 Gal3-induced impairment of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic transmission during gamma oscillations. a Summary bar graphs of EPSC charge transfer in PCs in control conditions (gray) and 40 min after application of 2 µM gal3 (red) (control: 333.2 ± 44.4 pC, gal3: 253.9 ± 41.3 pC, n = 11, N = 6; P = 0.0423, one-tailed paired t-test). b Cumulative probability of PC EPSC amplitude in control conditions (gray) and 40 min after application of 2 µM gal3 (red). Inset: Quantification of mean amplitude (control: 25.7 ± 3.1 pA, gal3: 21.5 ± 3.68 pA, n = 11, N = 6; P = 0.2158, two-tailed paired t-test). c Cumulative probability of PC EPSC frequency in control conditions (gray) and 40 min after application of 2 µM gal3 (red). Inset: Quantification of mean frequency (control: 29.6 ± 0.91 Hz, gal3: 27.4 ± 0.79 Hz, n = 11, N = 6; P = 0.0046, two-tailed paired t-test). d EPSC amplitude distribution in conditions mentioned in a. Inset: Representative traces of EPSC recordings for each condition. e Summary bar graphs of IPSC charge transfer in PCs in control conditions (gray) and 40 min after application of 2 µM gal3 (red) (control: 2170 ± 395.4 pC, gal3: 1052 ± 171.3 pC, n = 9, N = 4; P = 0.0049, one-tailed paired t-test). f Cumulative probability of PC IPSC amplitude in control conditions (gray) and 40 min after application of 2 µM gal3 (red). Inset: Quantification of mean amplitude (control: 128.8 ± 26.3 pA, gal3: 59.5 ± 9.72 pA, n = 9, N = 4; P = 0.0143, two-tailed paired t-test). g Cumulative probability of PC IPSC frequency in control conditions (gray) and 40 min after 2 µM gal3 application (red). Inset: Quantification of mean frequency (control: 27.0 ± 1.17 Hz, gal3: 28.1 ± 0.74 Hz, n = 9, N = 4; P = 0.2004, two-tailed paired t-test). h IPSC amplitude distribution in conditions mentioned in e. Inset: Representative traces of IPSC recordings for each condition. i Coefficient of rhythmicity calculated from PC EPSCs in the conditions described in a (control: 0.82 ± 0.02, gal3: 0.75 ± 0.02, n = 11, N = 6; P = 0.0040, two-tailed paired t-test). j Analysis of the cross-correlation (XC) (LFP, EPSCs) peak size revealed that gal3 did not alter the LFP-EPSC similarity (control: 0.66 ± 0.04, gal3: 0.65 ± 0.06, n = 11, N = 6; P = 0.8994, two-tailed Wilcoxon test). k Top: Representative XC calculation performed between gamma LFP and EPSC signals in the conditions described in a. Bottom: Analysis of the peak lag of the XC (LFP, EPSCs) revealed that gal3 induced a phase shift in the maximal coordination between LFP and EPSCs (control: − 3.71 ± 0.54 ms, gal3: 2.43 ± 2.53, n = 7, N = 6; P = 0.0156, two-tailed Wilcoxon test). l Coefficient of rhythmicity calculated from PC IPSCs in the conditions described in e, showing that gal3 drastically affected IPSC rhythmicity (control: 0.87 ± 0.03, gal3: 0.84 ± 0.03, n = 7, N = 4; P = 0.0078, one-tailed Wilcoxon test). m Quantification of the XC (LFP, IPSCs) peak size showing that gal3 impaired LFP-IPSC similarity (control: 0.91 ± 0.01, gal3: 0.79 ± 0.04, n = 7, N = 4; P = 0.0078, one-tailed Wilcoxon test). n Top: Representative XC calculation performed between gamma LFP and IPSC signals. Bottom: Analysis of the peak lag of the XC (LFP, IPSCs) revealed that gal3 induced a non-significant phase shift in the maximal coordination between LFP and IPSCs (control: 0.91 ± 0.91 ms, gal3: 0.4 ± 0.94, n = 7, N = 4; P = 0.2969, two-tailed Wilcoxon test). o Quantification of the excitatory charge transfer (control: 142.8 ± 31.8 pC, gal3: 100.7 ± 19.6 pC, n = 7, N = 4; P = 0.0146, one-tailed Wilcoxon test). p Cumulative probability of FSN EPSC amplitude in control conditions (gray) and 40 min after application of 2 µM gal3 (red). Inset: Quantification of mean amplitude (control: 12.1 ± 2.5 pA, gal3: 8.59 ± 1.63 pA, n = 7, N = 4; P = 0.0313, two-tailed Wilcoxon test). q Cumulative probability of FSN EPSC frequency in control conditions (gray) and 40 min after application of 2 µM gal3 (red). Inset: Quantification of mean frequency (control: 33.0 ± 0.89 Hz, gal3: 33.8 ± 1.35 Hz, n = 7, N = 4; P = 0.6875, two-tailed Wilcoxon test). r FSN EPSC amplitude distribution in the conditions mentioned in o. Inset: Representative traces of EPSC recordings for each condition. Data are presented as mean ± SE. Significance levels are shown as *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. IEI: Inter-event interval; n.s: no significant statistical difference; n: number of slices and cells recorded concomitantly; N: number of animals |
Neuronal mechanisms underlying the activity-dependence of gal3-induced impairment of functional network dynamics
Fig. 4 Neuronal mechanisms underlying the activity-dependence of gal3-induced impairment of gamma oscillations. a Left, general schematic representation of the experimental set up. Right, representative power spectra of network activity (0-100 Hz) and representative FSN AP firing windows relative to concomitant gamma oscillation 30 min after KA application for the color-coded experimental conditions shown on the left. b-e correspond to recordings of FSN membrane potential performed in the quiescent network state for 15 min. Additional measurements for each condition (control, gal3 or gal3 + TD139 application) such as firing at basal membrane potential and firing threshold are provided in Fig. S3. Effects on EPSCs in basal state are provided in Additional file 1: Fig. S4. f-n correspond to FSN-gamma phase-lock analyzed from concomitant recordings of the same FSN and gamma network activity for 30 min after 100 nM KA application to induce stable gamma oscillations. Additional measurements for each condition in the activated state such as FSN EPSCs are provided in Additional file 1: Fig. S5. Note that both recording electrodes (whole cell FSN patch clamp and LFP recording) were positioned and left in place for the entire experiment (left hippocampal diagram), including gal3 or gal3 + TD139 applications during the quiescent state recordings (first 15 min) and during the subsequent gamma induction (following 30 min). b Time course of the effect of 15 min wash-in of 1 µM gal3 (red) or co-application of 1 µM gal3 + 10 µM TD139 (blue) on FSN membrane potential (Em) in the quiescent network state. Basal control condition (ACSF) is shown in gray. c-e show the quantification of FSN membrane potential over 15 min of control recordings (basal: − 60.2 ± 0.73 mV, ACSF: − 60.0 ± 0.92 mV, n = 18, N = 6; P = 0.7427), after gal3 (basal: − 60.4 ± 1.61 mV, gal3: − 62.3 ± 1.60 mV, n = 10, N = 7; P = 0.0346) or after gal3 + TD139 (basal: − 60.1 ± 0.82 mV, gal3: − 59.0 ± 1.14 mV, n = 10, N = 5; P = 0.1804). Statistics performed: two-tailed paired t-test. Inset: Example traces showing 1 min recorded in basal (control) condition and the last minute recorded for the quantification of the effect of gal3 (red), gal3 + TD139 (blue) as well as the control recorded just with ACSF (gray). Corresponding effects on AP firing for each condition when the FSN was firing at basal membrane potential are shown in Additional file 1: Fig. S5. f Representative traces of concomitant recordings (upper: APs, lower: gamma oscillations) in control conditions as well as in the presence of gal3 or gal3 + TD139. g Summary of gamma oscillation power calculated from 20 to 80 Hz for each condition showing that co-application of TD139 counteracts the gal3-induced decrease of gamma oscillation power (ACSF: 1.43 ± 0.21 × 10-09 V2, n = 15, N = 6; gal3: 0.52 ± 0.12 × 10-09 V2, n = 15, N = 7; P = 0.0050 vs control, P < 0.0001 vs gal3 + TD139, gal3 + TD139: 2 ± 0.31 × 10-09 V2, n = 11, N = 5; P = 0.0644 vs control). h Summary of gamma peak frequency showing that co-application of TD139 counteracts the gal3-induced slowing of the gamma rhythm (ACSF: 26.5 ± 0.71 Hz, n = 15, N = 6; gal3: 24.3 ± 0.63 Hz, n = 15, N = 7; P = 0.0372 vs control, P < 0.0099 vs gal3 + TD139, gal3 + TD139: 27.3 ± 0.59 Hz, n = 11, N = 5; P = 0.3867 vs control). i Summary of AP firing rate showing that gal3-induced decrease of AP rate is prevented by co-application of TD139 (ACSF: 7.36 ± 1.47 Hz, n = 12, N = 6; gal3: 0.79 ± 0.26 Hz, n = 9, N = 7; P = 0.0012 vs control, P < 0.0118 vs gal3 + TD139, gal3 + TD139: 5.88 ± 1 Hz, n = 10, N = 5; P = 0.3619 vs control). j Representative polar plots of the firing windows shown in a for each condition with the resultant vector (bottom right) showing the magnitude of the FSN-gamma phase-lock and the phase-angle preference for each condition. k Logarithmic distribution of the P values from the Rayleigh's test for uniformity showing that in the presence of gal3 considerably fewer FSN are able to engage in a patterned firing locked to a specific gamma phase (ACSF: 1 out of 15 recorded cells, gal3: 3 out of 12 recorded cells, gal3 + TD139: all the recorded cells showed P < 0.05). Pink dashed line denotes P = 0.05. l Summary of the resultant vector length for each condition (ACSF: 0.55 ± 0.07, n = 12, N = 6; gal3: 0.33 ± 0.04, n = 9, N = 7; P = 0.0364 vs control, P < 0.0308 vs gal3 + TD139, gal3 + TD139: 0.59 ± 0.06, n = 10, N = 5; P = 0.7143 vs control). m Quantification of the phase-angle firing preference revealing that neither gal3 nor gal3 + TD139 induced significant changes (ACSF: 5.26 ± 0.11 radians, n = 12, N = 6; gal3: 4.81 ± 0.24 radians, n = 9, N = 7; P = 0.2328 vs control, P = 0.5881vs gal3 + TD139, gal3 + TD139: 5 ± 0.2 radians, n = 10, N = 5; P = 0.3921 vs control). n Summary bar graphs showing that 30 min of KA application did not differentially depolarize FSN either in control conditions, or in the presence of gal3 or gal3 + TD139 (ACSF: − 50 ± 1.17 mV, n = 12, N = 6; gal3: − 51.8 ± 1.32 mV, n = 9, N = 7; P = 0.5595 vs control, P = 0.2304 vs gal3 + TD139, gal3 + TD139: − 48.2 ± 1.54 mV, n = 10, N = 5; P = 0.5595 vs control). Data are presented as mean ± SE. Statistics performed: ordinary one-way ANOVA followed by Holm-Sidak's multiple comparisons test. Significance levels are shown as *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ****P < 0.0001. n.s: no significant statistical difference; n: number of cells recorded in b-e, number of slices recorded in g-h and number of cells and slices recorded concomitantly in i, k-n; N: number of animals |
Interference with gal3 signaling prevents the disruption of gamma oscillations in two different AD models
Fig. 5 Involvement of gal3 in the disruption of gamma oscillations in two different AD-related mouse models. a Left: Representative example traces of gamma oscillations recorded in an interface-type recording chamber in control conditions (gray) and in slices pre-incubated for 15 min with 50 nM Aβ42 (red) or 50 nM Aβ42 + 10 µM TD139 (blue). Right: Representative power spectra from network activity (0-100 Hz) in CA3 hippocampus for each condition. b Left: Representative example traces of gamma oscillations recorded in CA3 of hippocampal slices from WT (gray), 5 × FAD (red) and 5 × FAD-Gal3KO (blue) mice in a submerged-type recording chamber. Right: Representative power spectra from network activity (0-100 Hz) in CA3 hippocampus for each animal group. c Summary of gamma oscillation power (20-80 Hz) showing that TD139 counteracted Aβ42-induced decrease of gamma power (control: 10.4 ± 2.24 × 10-09 V2, n = 8, N = 4; Aβ42: 2.23 ± 0.36 × 10-09 V2, n = 8, N = 4; P = 0.0478 vs control, P = 0.0040 vs Aβ42 + TD139, Aβ42 + TD139: 13.9 ± 2.9 × 10-09 V2, n = 10, N = 3; P = 0.2809 vs control). d Summary of the Cr showing that TD139 prevented Aβ42-induced deterioration of gamma rhythmicity (control: 0.84 ± 0.01, n = 8, N = 4; Aβ42: 0.75 ± 0.02, n = 8, N = 4; P < 0.001 vs control, P < 0.0001 vs Aβ42 + TD139, Aβ42 + TD139: 0.85 ± 0.01, n = 10, N = 3; P = 0.7034 vs control). Inset: Representative example of the autocorrelation function performed on gamma oscillations recorded in the conditions mentioned in a. e Quantification of gamma oscillation power (20-80 Hz) showing that the absence of gal3 signaling in 5 × FAD mice prevented the gamma power reduction typical of this AD mouse model and resulted in gamma power similar to WT mice (WT: 1.27 ± 0.18 × 10-09 V2, n = 11, N = 4, 5 × FAD: 0.55 ± 0.03 × 10-09 V2, n = 11, N = 4, 5 × FAD-Gal3KO: 1.28 ± 0.25 × 10-09 V2, n = 10, N = 4). Note that deletion of gal3 in isolation did not affect gamma oscillation power in the Gal3KO mice: 1.34 ± 0.14 × 10-09 V2, n = 17, N = 4. Statistics performed: Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparisons. A summary is provided in Additional file 2: Table S3. f Summary of peak frequency revealing that 5 × FAD mice had slower gamma oscillations (WT: 28.2 ± 0.61 Hz, n = 11, N = 4, 5 × FAD: 24.6 ± 0.58 Hz, n = 11, N = 4, 5 × FAD-Gal3KO: 26.4 ± 1.05 Hz, n = 10, N = 4, Gal3KO: 26.8 ± 0.87 Hz, n = 17, N = 4). Statistics performed: ordinary one-way ANOVA followed by Holm-Sidak's multiple comparisons test. A summary is provided in Additional file 2: Table S4. In parallel to the lower power and slower central frequency of gamma oscillation, 5 × FAD mice displayed gamma oscillations with larger frequency variance (WT: 7.43 ± 0.48 Hz, n = 11, N = 4, 5 × FAD: 10.9 ± 0.69 Hz, n = 10, N = 4, 5 × FAD-Gal3KO: 7.55 ± 0.64 Hz, n = 10, N = 4, Gal3KO: 8.52 ± 0.62 Hz, n = 17, N = 4). Statistics performed: Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparisons. A summary is provided in Additional file 2: Table S5 and Additional file 1: Fig. S9. g Left panels, from top to bottom: Aβ (in grey) plaque size was reduced in CA3 area of the 5 × FAD-Gal3KO mouse hippocampus. Microglia (Iba1 in green) surrounding the plaques in both 5 × FAD and 5 × FAD-Gal3KO. Labelling corresponding to the specific antibody against Gal3 (in red) was abolished in 5 × FAD-Gal3KO mouse hippocampus. Right panels: merge of the labeling on the left panels. Scale bar 500 μm. DG: Dentate gyrus. h Quantification of the mean area of Aβ plaque labelling in CA3 area of 6-month-old mice in both 5 × FAD (864 ± 135.7 μm2, n = 21, N = 3) and 5 × FAD-Gal3KO (328.9 ± 112.7 μm2, n = 7, N = 3). P = 0.0225, two-tailed Mann Whitney test. n: number of plaques; N: number of mice per group. Data are presented as mean ± SE. Significance levels are shown as *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. n.s.: no significant statistical difference. In panels c-f, n: number of slices, N: number of animals |

