eLife Assessment

This important study reveals that Excitatory Amino Acid Transporters play a role in chromatic information processing in the retina. The combination of (double) mutants, behavioral assays, immunohistochemistry, and electroretinograms provides solid evidence supporting the appropriately conservative conclusions. The work will be of interest to neurobiologists working on color vision or retinal processing.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Garbelli et al. investigates the roles of excitatory amino acid transporters (EAATs) in retinal bipolar cells. The group previously identified that EAAT5b and EAAT7 are expressed at the dendritic tips of bipolar cells, where they connect with photoreceptor terminals. The previous study found that the light responses of bipolar cells, measured by electroretinogram (ERG) in response to white light, were reduced in double mutants, though there was little to no reduction in light responses in single mutants of either EAAT5b or EAAT7.

The current study further explores the roles of EAAT5b and EAAT7 in bipolar cells' chromatic responses. The authors found that bipolar cell responses to red light, but not to green or UV-blue light, were reduced in single mutants of both EAAT5b and EAAT7. In contrast, UV-blue light responses were reduced in double mutants. Additionally, the authors observed that EAAT5b, but not EAAT7, is strongly localized in the UV cone-enriched area of the eye, known as the "Strike Zone (SZ)." This led them to investigate the impact of the EAAT5b mutation on prey detection performance, which is mediated by UV cones in the SZ. Surprisingly, contrary to the predicted role of EAAT5b in prey detection, EAAT5b mutants did not show any changes in prey detection performance compared to wild-type fish. Interestingly, EAAT7 mutants exhibited enhanced prey detection performance, though the underlying mechanisms remain unclear.

The distribution of EAAT7 protein in the outer plexiform layer across the eye correlates with the distribution of red cones. Based on this, the authors tested the behavioral performance driven by red light in EAAT5b and EAAT7 mutants. The results here were again somewhat contrary to predictions based on ERG findings and protein localization: the optomotor response was reduced in EAAT5b mutants, but not in EAAT7 mutants.


Strengths:

Although the paper lacks cohesive conclusions, as many results contradict initial predictions as mentioned above, the authors discuss possible mechanisms for these contradictions and suggest future avenues for study. Nevertheless, this paper demonstrates a novel mechanism underlying chromatic information processing.
The manuscript is well-written, the data are well-presented, and the analysis is thorough.

Weaknesses:

I have only a minor comment. The authors present preliminary data on mGluR6b distribution across the eye. Since this result is based on a single fish, I recommend either adding more samples or removing this data, as it does not significantly impact the paper's main conclusions.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Garbelli et. al. set out to elucidate the function of two glutamate transporters, EAAT5b and EAAT7, in the functional and behavioral responses to different wavelengths of light. The question is an interesting one, because these transporters are well positioned to affect responses to light, and their distribution in the retina suggests that they could play differential roles in visual behaviors. However, the low resolution of both the functional and behavioral data presented here means that the conclusions are necessarily a bit vague.

In Figure 1, the authors show that the double KO has a decreased ERG response to UV/blue and red wavelengths. However, the individual mutations only affect the response to red light, suggesting that they might affect behaviors such as OMR which typically rely on this part of the visual spectrum. However, there was no significant change in the response to UV/blue light of any intensity, making it unclear whether the mutations could individually play roles in the detection of UV prey. Based on the later behavioral data, it seems likely that at least the EAAT7 KO should affect retinal responses to UV light, but it may be that the ERG does not have the spatial or temporal resolution to detect the difference, or that the presence of blue light overwhelmed any effect of the individual knockouts on the response to UV light.

In Figures 5 and 6, the authors compare the two knockouts to wild-type fish in terms of their sensitivity to UV prey in a hunting assay. The EAAT5b KO showed no significant impairment in UV sensitivity, while the EAAT7 KO fish actually had an increased hunting response to UV prey. However, there is no comparison of the KO and WT responses to different UV intensities, only in bulk, so we cannot conclude that the EAAT7 KO is allowing the fish to detect weaker prey-like stimuli.

In Figure 7, the EAAT5b KO seems to cause a decrease in OMR behavior to red grating stimuli, but only one stimulus is tested, so it is unclear whether this is due to a change in visual sensitivity or resolution.

The conclusions made in the manuscript are appropriately conservative; the abstract states that these transporters somehow influence prey detection and motion sensing, and this is probably true. However, it is unclear to what extent and how they might be acting on these processes, so the conclusions are a bit unsatisfying.

In terms of impact on the field, this work highlights the potential importance of these two transporters to visual processing, but further studies will be required to say how important they are and what they are doing. The methods presented here are not novel, as UV prey and red OMR stimuli and behaviors have previously been described.

Author response:

We agree with reviewer #1 to remove the mGluR6b data. It is indeed a weakness and is too preliminary. We will gladly remove it from the revised version.

We will address the issue of the bulk responses (depicted in Figures 5 and 6) by showing the significance data, arguing that although we cannot prove that prey-detection is increased for lower intensities, the bulk effect is significant, so prey detection is effectively stronger.