Dear Dr. Roxin,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Rapid memory encoding in a recurrent network model with behavioral time scale synaptic plasticity" for consideration at PLOS Computational Biology.

As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

In particular, it is important for the authors to clarify how the parameters of their BTSP rule correspond to the established experimental data, as highlighted by both reviewers. It is also crucial that any model of this type makes testable predictions that render it falsifiable - and some comparison with previous synaptic plasticity models that have attempted to account for the same hippocampal memory phenomena would be useful, in this regard.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Daniel Bush

Academic Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Thomas Serre

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: The review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #2: Summary:

In this study, the authors analyze a simplified 1D map derived from experimental BTSP rules. They demonstrate that this simplified map aligns with biophysical models (i.e., experimental BTSP rule) and investigate the properties of memory storage in recurrent neural networks, such as CA3. They studied the correlation of the synaptic weight matrix created by the rules and estimate the properties of memory capacity through signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) analysis. The authors also provide good analysis for the sparse coding and the properties of attractors.

Overall, this work provides valuable insights into the memory storage of simplified BTSP in recurrent neural networks, specifically CA3. The simplified map captures the essential features of BTSP, and the analysis of recurrent neural networks enables to leverage the SNR tools for studying memory capacity.

Comments:

The assumption that each cell induces plateau potentials may oversimplify the sparsity and randomness of PPs. Please provide justifications, references or some discussion for this assumption.

Please provoide more details on how BTSP constructs the connection weights and how it operates in firing rate models when simulating the network of firing rate neurons.

Although the simplified rule aligns with the biophysical model, it is worth noting that the parameters used for simulations fall outside the range of experimental fitting (Milstein 2021 [10]). In fact, the heapmap of the change in weights shown in Fig.1G differs from that of (see Fig.3I of Milstein 2021). Considering that the biophysical model allows for nine free parameters, it would be beneficial to demonstrate that the model accurately fits the experimental curve suggested by previous studies.

Since BTSP is primarily discovered in the connection between CA3 and CA1, it would be valuable if the authors could discuss the applicability of the proposed rule to CA3 as well.

**********

Have the authors made all data and (if applicable) computational code underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data and code underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data and code should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data or code —e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No: Data availability states that code will be made available upon publicaiton, but it was not available at time of submission

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example in PLOS Biology see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: review_PLOS_00687.pdf

Dear Dr. Roxin,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Rapid memory encoding in a recurrent network model with behavioral time scale synaptic plasticity' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Computational Biology. 

Best regards,

Daniel Bush

Academic Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Thomas Serre

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

***********************************************************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: A recent preprint from the lab of Jeff Magee which found symmetric BTSP kernels in CA3 (Li et al. 2023) assuaged my major concern for the paper. All prior BTSP publications had noted an asymmetric kernel, so I had felt it was important for models of BTSP to include this component. However, with this new finding, the symmetric kernel in the model is clearly justified, and I am now happy to recommend the work. My other concerns were minor and mostly addressed by the latest revision. Thank you to the authors for their detailed responses to my comments.

Reviewer #2: Thanks for the authors' response, which has addressed my concerns. I am glad to see that the symmetric assumption made in this work is in line with the recent experimental model in CA3 from Maggee's lab. Consequently, I endorse to the publication of this paper.

**********

Have the authors made all data and (if applicable) computational code underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data and code underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data and code should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data or code —e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Yujie Wu