Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
Vagnozzi et al. analyze the role of cadherins in respiratory circuit development. The authors previously identified a combinatorial cadherin code that defines phrenic motor neurons (Vagnozzi et al., eLife 2020). Here they find that combined loss of type I N-cadherin and type II cadherins 6, 9 and 10 results in respiratory failure and reduction in phrenic motor neuron bursting activity. Furthermore, diaphragm innervation, phrenic motor neuron (MN) number, cell body position as well as dendrite orientation are all impaired in mice lacking N-cadherin and cadherins 6, 9, 10. Analysis of different genotypes indicates that phrenic MN cell body position is regulated by N-cadherin, but that dendrite orientation is regulated by the combinatorial action of N-cadherin and cadherins 6, 9, and 10. They subsequently determine that cadherin signaling in presynaptic interneurons is required for phrenic MN bursting activity. Together, the results indicate that cadherins are essential for respiratory circuit function and suggest that a combinatorial cadherin code regulates wiring specificity in this circuit.
The manuscript is well presented with clear figures and text. My comments below mainly revolve around the interpretation of some of the findings and the correlation between phenotypes in NMNΔ6910-/- mice and βγ-catDbx1Δ mice in light of specific cadherin expression patterns and connectivity between rVRG and prenic MNs.
Major points<br /> 1. Page 8: 'In addition, NMNΔ and NMNΔ6910-/- mice showed a similar decrease in phrenic MN numbers, likely from the loss of trophic support due to the decrease in diaphragm innervation (Figure S3c).' This statement should be corrected: phrenic MN number in NMNΔ mice does not differ from controls, in contrast to NMNΔ6910-/- mice (Fig. S3). Similarly, diaphragm innervation is not significantly different from controls in NMNΔ (Fig. S2). Alternatively, these observations could be strengthened by increasing the number of mice analyzed to determine whether there is a significant reduction in PMN number and diaphragm innervation in NMNΔ mice.<br /> 2. A similar comment relates to the interpretation of the dendritic phenotype in NMNΔ and NMNΔ6910-/- mice (Fig. 3m): the authors conclude 'When directly comparing NMNΔ and NMNΔ6910-/- mice, NMNΔ6910-/- mice had a more severe loss of dorsolateral dendrites and a more significant increase in ventral dendrites (Figure 3l-m).' (page 9). The loss of dorsolateral dendrites in NMNΔ6910-/- mice indeed differs significantly from control mice, and is more severe than in NMNΔ mice, which do not differ significantly from controls. For ventral dendrites however, the increase compared to controls is significant for both NMNΔ and NMNΔ6910-/- mice, and the two genotypes do not appear to differ from each other. This suggests cooperative action of N-cadherin and cadherin 6,9,10 for dorsolateral dendrites, but suggests that N-cad is more important for ventral dendrites. This should be phrased more clearly.<br /> 3. Related comment, page 10: 'Furthermore, the fact that phrenic MNs maintain their normal activity pattern in NMNΔ mice suggests that neither cell body position nor phrenic MN numbers significantly contribute to phrenic MN output.' This should be rephrased, phrenic MN number does not differ from control in NMNΔ mice (Fig. S2c).<br /> 4. The authors conclude that spinal network activity in control and NMNΔ6910-/- mice does not differ (page 10, Fig. 4f). It is difficult to judge this from the example trace in 4f. How is this concluded from the figure and can this be quantified?<br /> 5. RphiGT mice: please explain the genetic strategy better in Results section or Methods, do these mice also express the TVA receptor in a Cre-dependent manner? Crossing with the Cdh9:iCre line will then result in expression of TVA and G protein in phrenic motor neurons and presynaptic rVRG neurons in the brainstem, as well as additional Cdh9-expressing neuronal populations. How can the authors be sure that they are looking at monosynaptically connected neurons?<br /> 6. The authors use a Dbx1-cre strategy to inactivate cadherin signaling in multiple brainstem neuronal populations and perform analysis of burst activity in phrenic nerves. Based on the similarity in phenotype with NMNΔ6910-/- mice it is concluded that cadherin function is required in both phrenic MNs and Dbx1-derived interneurons. However, this manipulation can affect many populations including the preBötC, and the impact of this manipulation on rVRG and phrenic motor neurons (neuron number, cell body position, dendrite orientation, diaphragm innervation etc) is not described, although a model is presented in Fig. 7. These parameters should be analyzed to interpret the functional phenotype.<br /> 7. Additional evidence is needed to support the model that a selective loss of excitatory rVRG to phrenic motor neuron connectivity underlies the reduced bursting activity phenotype in NMNΔ6910-/- mice, for instance by labeling the connections from rVRG to phrenic MNs and quantifying connectivity.