Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Taber et al report the biochemical characterization of 7 mutations in PHD2 that induce erythrocytosis. Their goal is to provide a mechanism for how these mutations cause the disease. PHD2 hydroxylates HIF1a in the presence of oxygen at two distinct proline residues (P564 and P402) in the "oxygen degradation domain" (ODD). This leads to the ubiquitylation of HIF1a by the VHL E3 ligase and its subsequent degradation. Multiple mutations have been reported in the EGLN1 gene (coding for PHD2), which are associated with pseudohypoxic diseases that include erythrocytosis. Furthermore, 3 mutations in PHD2 also cause pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL), a neuroendocrine tumour. These mutations likely cause elevated levels of HIF1a, but their mechanisms are unclear. Here, the authors analyze mutations from 152 case reports and map them on the crystal structure. They then focus on 7 mutations, which they clone in a plasmid and transfect into PHD2-KO to monitor HIF1a transcriptional activity via a luciferase assay. All mutants show impaired activation. Some mutants also impaired stability in pulse chase turnover assays (except A228S, P317R, and F366L). In vitro purified PHD2 mutants display a minor loss in thermal stability and some propensity to aggregate. Using MST technology, they show that P317R is strongly impaired in binding to HIF1a and HIF2a, whereas other mutants are only slightly affected. Using NMR, they show that the PHD2 P317R mutation greatly reduces hydroxylation of P402 (HIF1a NODD), as well as P562 (HIF1a CODD), but to a lesser extent. Finally, BLI shows that the P317R mutation reduces affinity for CODD by 3-fold, but not NODD.

Strengths:

(1) Simple, easy-to-follow manuscript. Generally well-written.

(2) Disease-relevant mutations are studied in PHD2 that provide insights into its mechanism of action.

(3) Good, well-researched background section.

Weaknesses:

(1) Poor use of existing structural data on the complexes of PHD2 with HIF1a peptides and various metals and substrates. A quick survey of the impact of these mutations (as well as analysis by Chowdhury et al, 2016) on the structure and interactions between PHD2 peptides of HIF1a shows that the P317R mutation interferes with peptide binding. By contrast, F366L will affect the hydrophobic core, and A228S is on the surface, and it's not obvious how it would interfere with the stability of the protein.

(2) To determine aggregation and monodispersity of the PHD2 mutants using size-exclusion chromatography (SEC), equal quantities of the protein must be loaded on the column. This is not what was done. As an aside, the colors used for the SEC are very similar and nearly indistinguishable.

(3) The interpretation of some mutants remains incomplete. For A228S, what is the explanation for its reduced activity? It is not substantially less stable than WT and does not seem to affect peptide hydroxylation.

(4) The interpretation of the NMR prolyl hydroxylation is tainted by the high concentrations used here. First of all, there is a likely a typo in the method section; the final concentration of ODD is likely 0.18 mM, and not 0.18 uM (PNAS paper by the same group in 2024 reports using a final concentration of 230 uM). Here, I will assume the concentration is 180 uM. Flashman et al (JBC 2008) showed that the affinity of the NODD site (P402; around 10 uM) for PHD2 is 10-fold weaker than CODD (P564, around 1 uM). This likely explains the much faster kinetics of hydroxylation towards the latter. Now, using the MST data, let's say the P317R mutation reduces the affinity by 40-fold; the affinity becomes 400 uM for NODD (above the protein concentration) and 40 uM for CODD (below the protein concentration). Thus, CODD would still be hydroxylated by the P317R mutant, but not NODD.

(5) The discrepancy between the MST and BLI results does not make sense, especially regarding the P317R mutant. Based on the crystal structures of PHD2 in complex with the ODD peptides, the P317R mutation should have a major impact on the affinity, which is what is reported by MST. This suggests that the MST is more likely to be valid than BLI, and the latter is subject to some kind of artefact. Furthermore, the BLI results are inconsistent with previous results showing that PHD2 has a 10-fold lower affinity for NODD compared to CODD.

(6) Overall, the study provides some insights into mutants inducing erythrocytosis, but the impact is limited. Most insights are provided on the P317R mutant, but this mutant had already been characterized by Chowdhury et al (2016). Some mutants affect the stability of the protein in cells, but then no mechanism is provided for A228S or F366L, which have stabilities similar to WT, yet have impaired HIF1a activation.

Comments on revision:

While the authors have addressed my concerns regarding the SEC experiments and the structural interpretation of most mutants, I remain unconvinced by their interpretation of the P317R mutant and affinity measurements. The BLI and MST data remain inconsistent for P317R binding to CODD, and the authors' response is essentially that the fluorescent labeling of P317R (but not other mutants) uniquely interferes with binding to the NODD/CODD peptides, which does not make a lot of sense. The fluorescent labeling target lysine residues; while there are lysine in PHD2 in proximity to the peptide binding site, labeling these sites would affect binding to all mutants, not only P317R (which does not introduce any new labeling site). Furthermore, the authors did not really address the discrepancy with the observations by Flashman et al (2008) that NODD binds more weakly than CODD, which is inconsistent with their BLI results. Another point that makes me doubt the validity of the BLI results is the poor fit of the sensorgrams and the slow dissociation kinetics, which is inconsistent with the relatively low affinity in the 2-6 uM range.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors show that a combination of arginine methyltransferase inhibitors synergize with PARP inhibitors to kill ovarian and triple negative cancer cell lines in vitro and in vivo using preclinical mouse models.

Strengths and weaknesses

The experiments are well-performed, convincing and have the appropriate controls (using inhibitors and genetic deletions) and use statistics.

They identify the DNA damage protein ERCC1 to be reduced in expression with PRMT inhibitors. As ERCC1 is known to be synthetic lethal with PARPi, this provides a mechanism for the synergy. They use cell lines only for their study in 2D as well as xenograph models.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed by final concerns.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript entitled "Molecular dynamics of the matrisome across sea anemone life history", Bergheim and colleagues report the prediction, using an established sequence analysis pipeline, of the "matrisome" - that is, the compendium of genes encoding constituents of the extracellular matrix - of the starlet sea anemone Nematostella vectensis. Re-analysis of an existing scRNA-Seq dataset allowed the authors to identify the cell types expressing matrisome components and different developmental stages. Last, the authors apply time-resolved proteomics to provide experimental evidence of the presence of the extracellular matrix proteins at three different stages of the life cycle of the sea anemone (larva, primary polyp, adult) and show that different subsets of matrisome components are present in the ECM at different life stages with, for example, basement membrane components accompanying the transition from larva to primary polyp and elastic fiber components and matricellular proteins accompanying the transition from primary polyp to the adult stage.

Strengths:

The ECM is a structure that has evolved to support the emergence of multicellularity and different transitions that have accompanied the complexification of multicellular organisms. Understanding the molecular makeup of structures that are conserved throughout evolution is thus of paramount importance.

The in-silico predicted matrisome of the sea anemone has the potential to become an essential resource for the scientific community to support big data annotation efforts and better understand the evolution of the matrisome and of ECM proteins, an important endeavor to better understand structure/function relationships. Toward this goal, the authors provide a comprehensive list with extensive annotations and cross-referencing of the 551 genes encoding matrisome proteins in the sea anemone genome.

This study is also an excellent example of how integrating datasets generated using different -omic modalities can shed light on various aspects of ECM metabolism, from identifying the cell types of origins of matrisome components using scRNA-Seq to studying ECM dynamics using proteomics.

Weakness:

- Prior proteomic studies on the ECM of vertebrate organisms have shown the importance of allowing certain post-translational modifications during database search to ensure maximizing peptide-to-spectrum matching and accurately evaluating protein quantification. Such PTMs include the hydroxylation of lysines and prolines that are collagen-specific PTMs. Multiple reports have shown that omitting these PTMs while analyzing LC-MS/MS data would lead to underestimating the abundance of collagens and the misidentification of certain collagens. While the authors in their response state that the inclusion of these PTMs only led to a modest increase in protein identification, they do not comment on the impact of including these PTMs on PSMs or protein abundance (precursor ion intensity).

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study examines how pyruvate, a key product of glycolysis that influences TCA metabolism and gluconeogenesis, impacts cellular metabolism and cell size. It primarily utilizes the Drosophila liver-like fat body, which is composed of large post-mitotic cells that are metabolically very active. The study focuses on the key observations that over-expression of the pyruvate importer MPC complex (which imports pyruvate from the cytoplasm into mitochondria) can reduce cell size in a cell-autonomous manner. They find this is by metabolic rewiring that shunts pyruvate away from TCA metabolism and into gluconeogenesis. Surprisingly, mTORC and Myc pathways are also hyper-active in this background, despite the decreased cell size, suggesting a non-canonical cell size regulation signaling pathway. They also show a similar cell size reduction in HepG2 organoids. Metabolic analysis reveals that enhanced gluconeogenesis suppresses protein synthesis. Their working model is that elevated pyruvate mitochondrial import drives oxaloacetate production and fuels gluconeogenesis during late larval development, thus reducing amino acid production and thus reducing protein synthesis.

Strengths:

The study is significant because stem cells and many cancers exhibit metabolic rewiring of pyruvate metabolism. It provides new insights into how the fate of pyruvate can be tuned to influence Drosophila biomass accrual, and how pyruvate pools can influence the balance between carbohydrate and protein biosynthesis. Strengths include its rigorous dissection of metabolic rewiring and use of Drosophila and mammalian cell systems to dissect carbohydrate:protein crosstalk.

Comments on revised version:

The study remains an important dissection of how metabolic compartmentalization can influence cell size. It nicely uses Drosophila and a variety of metabolic approaches. The various pathway analyses and rigorous quantitation are strengths.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript describes a chemical screen for activators of the eIF2 kinase GCN2 (EIF2AK4) in the integrated stress response (ISR). Recently, reported inhibitors of GCN2 and other protein kinases have been shown at certain concentrations to paradoxically activate GCN2. The study uses CHO cells and ISR reporter screens to identify a number of GCN2 activator compounds, including a potent "compound 20." These activators have implications for the development of new therapies for ISR-related diseases. For example, although not directly pursued in this study, these GCN2 activators could be helpful for the treatment of PVOD, which is reported for patients with certain GCN2 loss-of-function mutations. The identified activators are also suggested to engage with the GCN2 directly and can function while devoid of GCN1, a co-activator of GCN2.

Strengths:

The manuscript appears to be a largely rigorous study that flows in a logical manner. The topic is interesting and significant.

Weaknesses:

Portions of the manuscript are not fully clear. There are some experimental presentation and design concerns that should be addressed to support the stated conclusions.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study by Raiola et al. conducted a quantitative analysis of tissue deformation during the formation of the primitive heart tube from the cardiac crescent in mouse embryos. Using the tools developed to analyze growth, anisotropy, strain, and cell fate from time-lapse imaging data of mouse embryos, the authors elucidated the compartmentalization of tissue deformation during heart tube formation and ventricular expansion. This paper describes how each region of the cardiac tissue changes to form the heart tube and ventricular chamber, contributing to our understanding of the earliest stages of cardiac development.

Strengths:

In order to understand tissue deformation in cardiac formation, it is commendable that the authors effectively utilized time-lapse imaging data, a data pipeline, and in silico fate mapping.

The study clarifies the compartmentalization of tissue deformation by integrating growth, anisotropy, and strain patterns in each region of the heart.

Weaknesses:

The significance of the compartmentalization of tissue deformation for the heart tube formation remains unclear.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors demonstrate the stereoselective role of D-serine in 1C metabolism, showing that D-serine competes with L-serine and inhibits mitochondrial L-serine transport. They observe expression of 1C metabolites in their metabolomics approach in primary cortical neurons treated with L-serine, D-serine, and a mixture of both. Their conclusions are based on the reduction in levels of glycine, polyamines, and their intermediates and formate. Single-cell RNA sequencing of N2a cells showed that cells treated with D-serine enhanced expression of genes associated with mitochondrial functions, such as respiratory chain complex assembly, and mitochondrial functions, with downregulation of genes related to amino acid transport, cellular growth, and neuron projection extension. Their work demonstrates that D-serine inhibits tumor cell proliferation and induces apoptosis in neural progenitor cells, highlighting the importance of D-serine in neurodevelopment.

Strengths:

D-amino acids are a marvel of nature. It is fascinating that nature decided to make two versions of the same molecule, in this case, an amino acid. While the L-stereoisomer plays well-known roles in biology, the D-stereoisomer seems to function in obscurity. Research into these novel signaling molecules is gathering momentum, with newer stereoisomers being discovered. D-serine has been the most well-studied among the different stereoisomers, and we still continue to learn about this novel neurotransmitter. The roles of these molecules in the context of metabolism is not well studied. The authors aim to elucidate the metabolic role of D-serine in the context of neuronal maturation with implications for 1C metabolism and in cell proliferation. The metabolic role of these molecules is just beginning to be uncovered, especially in the context of mammalian biology. This is the strength of the manuscript. The authors have done important work in prior publications elucidating the role of D-amino acids. The advancement of the field of D-amino acids in mammalian biology is significant, as not much is known. The presentation of RNA seq data is a valuable resource to the community, however, with caveats as mentioned below.

Weaknesses:

The following are some of the issues that come out in a critical reading of the manuscript. Addressing these would only strengthen and clarify the work.

(1) Kinetic assessment of D-serine versus L-serine: While the authors mention that D-serine is not a good substrate for SHMT2 compared to L-serine, the kinetic data are presented for only D-serine. In a substrate comparison with an enzyme, data must be presented for L-serine as well to make the conclusion about substrate specificity and affinity. Since the authors talk about one versus another substrate, there needs to be a kinetic comparison of both with Km (affinity). (Ref Figure 2 panel).

(2) Molecular Dynamics simulations, while a good first step in modeling interactions at the active site, rely on force fields. These force fields are approximations and do not represent all interactions occurring in the natural world. Setting up the initial conditions in the simulations can impact the final results in non-equilibrium scenarios. The basic question here is this: Is the simulated trajectory long enough so that the system reaches thermodynamic equilibrium and the measured properties converge? Prior studies have shown mixed results with the conclusion that properties of biological systems tend to converge in multi-second trajectories (not nanosecond scales as reported by the authors) and transition rates to low probability conformations require more time. (Ref Figure 2C).

(3) The authors use N2a cell line to demonstrate D-serine burden on primary cortical neurons. N2a is an immortalized cell line, and its properties are very different from primary neurons. The authors need to mention a rationale for the use of an immortalized cell line versus primary neurons. The transcriptomic profile of an immortalized cell line is different compared to a primary cell. Hence, the response to D-serine may vary between the two different cell types.

(4) In Figure 4D, the authors mention that D-serine activates the cleavage of caspase 3. Figure 4D shows only cleaved caspase 3 as a single band. They need to show the full blot that contains the cleaved fragments along with the major caspase 3 band.

(5) In Figure panel 4, the authors use neural progenitor cells (NPCs). They need to demonstrate that the population they are working with is NPCs and not primary neurons. There must be a figure panel staining for NPC markers like SOX2 and PAX6. Also, Figure S5 needs to be properly labeled. It is confusing from the legend what panels B-E refer to? Also, scale bars are not indicated.

(6) In Supplementary Figure panel 7F, the authors mention phosphatidyl L-serine and phosphatidyl D-serine. A chromatogram of the two species would clarify their presence as they used 2D-HPLC. On an MS platform, these 2 species are not distinguishable. Including a chromatogram of the 2 species would be helpful to the readers.

(7) The authors mention about enantiomeric shift of serine metabolism during neural development, which appears to be a discussion of prior published data from Hubbard et al, 2013, Burk et al, 2020, and Bella et a,l 2021 in Supplementary Figure panels 8 A-E. This should not be presented as a figure panel, as it gives the false impression that the authors have performed the experiment, which is clearly not the case. However, its discussion can well serve as part of the manuscript in the discussion section.

(8) The entire presentation of the section on enantiomeric shift of serine metabolism during neural development (lines 274-312) is a discussion and should be part of the discussion section and not in the results section. This is misleading.

(9) The discussion section is not well written. There is no mention of recent work related to D-serine that has a direct bearing on its metabolic properties. In the discussion section, paragraph 1, the authors mention that their work demonstrates the selective synthesis of D-serine in mature neurons as opposed to neural progenitor cells. This concept has been referred to in prior publications:

(a) Spatiotemporal relationships among D-serine, serine racemase, and D-amino acid oxidase during mouse postnatal development. PMID:14531937.

(b) D-cysteine is an endogenous regulator of neural progenitor cell dynamics in the mammalian brain. PMID:34556581.

(10) In the abstract, in lines 101 and 102, the authors mention "how D-serine contributes to cellular metabolism beyond neurotransmission remains largely unknown". In 2023, a paper in Stem Cell Reports by Roychaudhuri et al (PMID:37352848) showed that D and L-serine availability impacts lipid metabolism in the subventricular zone in mice, affecting proliferative properties of stem-cell derived neurons using a comprehensive lipidomics approach. There is no mention of this work even in the discussion section, as it bears directly on L and D-serine availability in neurons, which the authors are investigating. In the discussion section in lines 410-411, the authors mention the role of D-serine in neurogenesis, but surprisingly don't refer to the above reference. The role of D-serine in neurogenesis has been demonstrated in the Sultan et al (lines 855-857) and Roychaudhuri et al references.

(11) Both D-serine and the structurally similar stereoisomer D-cysteine (sulfur versus oxygen atom) have a bearing on 1C metabolism and the folate cycle. With reference to the folate cycle, Roychaudhuri et al in 2024 (PMID:39368613) have shown in rescue experiments in mice that supplementing a higher methionine diet provides folate cycle precursors to rescue the high insulin phenotype in SR-deficient mice. Since 1C metabolism is being discussed in this manuscript, the authors seem to overlook prior work in the field and not include it in their discussion, even when it is the same enzyme (SR) that synthesizes both serine and cysteine. Since the field of D-amino acid research is in its infancy, the authors must make it a point to include prior work related to D-serine at least, and not claim that it is not known. The known D-stereoisomers are not many, hence any progress in the area must include at least a discussion of the other structurally related stereoisomers.

(12) Racemases (serine and aspartate) in general are promiscuous enzymes and known to synthesize other stereoisomers in addition to D-serine, D-cysteine, and D-aspartate. A few controls, like D-aspartate, D-cysteine, or even D-alanine must be included in their study to demonstrate the specific actions of D-serine, especially in the N2a cell treatment experiments. Cysteine and Serine are almost identical in structure (sulfur versus oxygen atom), and both are synthesized by serine racemase (published). Cysteine has also been very recently shown to inhibit tumor growth and neural progenitor cell proliferation. (PMIDs: 40797101 and 34556581). How the authors' work relates to the existing findings must be discussed, and this would put things in perspective for the reader.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Plasmodesmata are channels that allow cell-cell communication in plants; based on the functional similarities between facilitated transport within plasmodesmata and into the nucleus, the authors speculate that nuclear pore complex proteins might be involved in plasmodesmata function. In this manuscript, they localize nuclear pore complex proteins to plasmodesmata using proteomics and heterologous overexpression. They also document a possible plasmodesmata transport defect in a mutant affecting one nuclear pore complex protein.

Strengths:

The main strength of this manuscript is the interesting and novel hypothesis. This work could open exciting new directions in our understanding of plasmodesmata function and cell-cell communication in plants. They also localized many NUPs (12/35 Arabidopsis NUPs).

Weaknesses:

The main weakness of this manuscript is that the data are incomplete. While the authors appropriately and frequently acknowledge caveats to their data, two controls are essential to interpret the results that fluorescently-tagged NUPs localize to the plasmodesmata: (1) assessment of the expression level of these fluorescently-tagged NUPs to determine whether the plasmodesmata localization might be an overexpression artefact; (2) assessment of the function of the fluorescently-tagged NUPs, either by molecular complementation of a knockout mutant phenotype or by biochemical methods to test whether the fluorescently-tagged NUP incorporates into nuclear pore complexes. Conducting these experiments for even one fluorescently-tagged NUP would substantially strengthen this manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript presents a comprehensive study on the developing synthetic gene circuits targeting mutant RAS expressing cells. The aim of this study is to use these RAS targeting circuits as cancer cell classifiers and enable the selective expression of an output protein in correlation with RAS activity. The system is based on the bacterial two-component system NarX/NarL. A RAS-binding domain is fused to a NarX mutant either defective in the ATP binding (N509A) or the phosphorylation site (H399Q). Nanocluster formation of RAS-GTP reconstitutes an active histidine kinase sensor dimer that phosphorylates the response regulator NarL thus leading to the expression of an output protein. The integration of RAS-dependent MAPK responsive elements to express the RAS sensor components generates RAS circuits with an extended dynamic range between mutant and wild-type RAS. The selectivity of the RAS circuits is confirmed in a set of cancer cell lines expressing endogenous levels of mutant or wild-type RAS or oncogenes affecting RAS signaling upstream or downstream. Expression of the suicide gene HSV thymidine kinase as an outcome protein kills RAS-driven cancer cells demonstrating the functionality of the system.

Strengths:

This proof-of-concept study convincingly demonstrates the potential of synthetic gene circuits to target oncogenic RAS in tumor cell lines, act as RAS mutant cell classifier, and induce the killing of RAS-driven cells.

Weaknesses:

A therapeutic strategy based on of this four-plasmid system may be difficult to implement in RAS-driven solid cancers. However, potential solutions are discussed.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The presented study by Centore and colleagues investigates the inhibition of BAF chromatin remodeling complexes. The study is well written and includes comprehensive datasets, including compound screens, gene expression analysis, epigenetics, as well as animal studies. This is an important piece of work for the uveal melanoma research field, and sheds light on a new inhibitor class, as well as a mechanism that might be exploited to target this deadly cancer for which no good treatment options exist.

Strengths:

This is a comprehensive and well-written study.

Weaknesses:

There are minimal weaknesses.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The manuscript "Heterozygote advantage cannot explain MHC diversity, but MHC diversity can explain heterozygote advantage" explores two topics. First, it is claimed that the recently published conclusion by Mattias Siljestam and Claus Rueffler (in the following referred to as [SR] for brevity) that heterozygote advantage explains MHC diversity does not withstand even a very slight change in ecological parameters. Second, a modified model that allows an expansion of the MHC gene family shows that homozygotes outperform heterozygotes. This is an important topic and could be of potential interest to readers if the conclusions are valid and non-trivial.

Let me first comment on the second part of the manuscript that describes the fitness advantage of the 'gene family expansion'. I think this, by itself, is a totally predictable result. It appears obvious that with no or a little fitness penalty, it becomes beneficial to have MHC-coding genes specific to each pathogen. A more thorough study that takes into account a realistic (most probably non-linear in gene number) fitness penalty, various numbers of pathogens that could grossly exceed the self-consistent fitness limit on the number of MHC genes, etc, could be more informative. Yet, as I understood the narrative of the manuscript, the expansion of the gene family serves as a mere counter-example to the disputed finding of [SR], rather than a systematic study of the eco-evolutionary consequences of this process.

Now to the first part of the manuscript, which claims that the point made in [RS] is not robust and breaks down under a small change in the parameters. An addition or removal of one of the pathogens is reported to affect "the maximum condition", a key ecological characteristic of the model, by an enormous factor 10^43, naturally breaking down all the estimates and conclusions made in [RS]. This observation is not substantiated by any formulas, recipes for how to compute this number numerically, or other details, and is presented just as a self-standing number in the text. The only piece of information given in the manuscript is that, unlike in [SR], the adjustable parameter c_{max} is kept constant when the number of pathogens is changed.

In my opinion, the information provided in the manuscript does not allow one to conclude anything about the relevance and the validity of its main claim. At the same time, the simulations done in [SR] are described with a fair amount of detail. Which allows me to assume that the conclusions made in [SR] are fairly robust and, in particular, have been demonstrated not to be too sensitive to changes in the main "suspect', c_{max}. Let me briefly justify my point.

First, it follows from Eqs (4,5) in the main text and (A12-A13) in the Appendix that c_{max} and K do not independently affect the dynamics of the model, but it's rather their ratio K/c_max that matters. It can be seen by dividing the numerator and denominator of (5) by c_max. Figure 3 shows the persistent branching for 4 values of K that cover 4 decades. As it appears from the schemes in the top row of Figure 3, those simulations are done for the same positions and widths/virulences of pathogens. So the position of x* should be the same in all 4 cases, presumably being at the center of pathogens, (x*,x*) = (0,0). According to the definition of x* given in the Appendix after Eqs (A12-A13), this means that c_max remains the same in all 4 cases. So one can interpret the 4 scenarios shown in Figure 3 as corresponding not to various K, but to various c_max that varied inversely to K. That is, the results would have been identical to those shown in Figure 3 if K were kept constant and c_max were multiplied by 0.1, 1, 10, and 100, or scaled as 1/K. This begs the conclusion that the branching remains robust to changes in c_max that span 4 decades as well.

Naturally, most, if not all, the dynamics will break down if one of the ecological characteristics changes by a factor of 10^43, as it is reported in the submitted manuscript. As I wrote above, there is no explanation behind this number, so I can only guess that such a number is created by the removal or addition of a pathogen that is very far away from the other pathogens. Very far in this context means being separated in the x-space by a much greater distance than 1/\nu, the width of the pathogens' gaussians. Once again, I am not totally sure if this was the case, but if it were, some basic notions of how models are set up were broken. It appears very strange that nothing is said in the manuscript about the spatial distribution of the pathogens, which is crucial to their effects on the condition c. In [SP], it is clearly shown where the pathogens are.

Another argument that makes me suspicious in the utility of the conclusions made in the manuscript and plays for the validity of [SP] is the adaptive dynamics derivation of the branching conditions. It is confirmed by numerics with sufficient accuracy, and as it stands in its simple form of the inequality between two widths, the branching condition appears to be pretty robust with respect to reasonable changes in parameters.

Overall, I strongly suspect that an unfortunately poor setup of the model reported in the manuscript has led to the conclusions that dispute the much better-substantiated claims made in [SD].

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Laura Morano and colleagues have performed a screen to identify compounds that interfere with the formation of TopBP1 condensates. TopBP1 plays a crucial role in the DNA damage response, and specifically the activation of ATR. They found that the GSK-3b inhibitor AZD2858 reduced the formation of TopBP1 condensates and activation of ATR and its downstream target CHK1 in colorectal cancer cell lines treated with the clinically relevant irinotecan active metabolite SN-38. This inhibition of TopBP1 condensates by AZD2858 was independent from its effect on GSK-3b enzymatic activity. Mechanistically, they show that AZD2858 thus can interfere with intra-S-phase checkpoint signaling, resulting in enhanced cytostatic and cytotoxic effects of SN-38 (or SN-38+Fluoracil aka FOLFIRI) in vitro in colorectal carcinoma cell lines.

Comments on latest version:

The requested plots are in figure S7 of the latest manuscript version, and look convincing. My last point is now adequately addressed.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors use Dyngo-4a, a known Dynami inhibitor to test its influence on caveolar assembly and surface mobility. They investigate whether it incorporates into membranes with Quartz-Crystal Microbalance, they investigate how it is organized in membranes using simulations. Finally, they use lipid-packing sensitive dyes to investigate lipid packing in the presence of Dyngo-4a, membrane stiffness using AFM and membrane undulation using fluorescence microscopy. They also use a measure they call "caveola duration time" to claim that something happens to caveolae after Dyngo-4a addition and using this parameter, they do indeed see an increase in it in response to Dyngo-4a, which is reduced back to the baseline after addition of cholesterol.

Overall, the authors claim: 1) Dyngo-4a inserts into the membrane and this 2) results in "a dramatic dynamin-independent inhibition of caveola scission". 3) Dyngo-4a was inserted and positioned at the level of cholesterol in the bilayer and 4) Dyngo-4a-treatment resulted in decreased lipid packing in the outer leaflet of the plasma membrane 5) but Dyngo-4a did not affect caveola morphology, caveolae-associated proteins, or the overall membrane stiffness 6) acute addition of cholesterol counteracts the block in caveola scission caused by Dyngo-4a.

Overall, in this reviewers opinion, claims 1, 3, 4, 5 are well-supported by the presented data from electron and live cell microscopy, QCM-D and AFM.

However, there is no convincing assay for caveolar endocytosis presented besides the "caveola duration" which although unclearly described seems to be the time it takes in imaging until a caveolae is not picked up by the tracking software anymore in TIRF microscopy.

Since the main claim of the paper is a mechanism of caveolar endocytosis being blocked by Dyngo-4a, a true caveolar internalization assay is required to make this claim. This means either the intracellular detection of not surface connected caveolar cargo or the quantification of caveolar movement from TIRF into epifluorescence detection in the fluorescence microscope. Otherwise, the authors could remove the claim and just claim that caveolar mobility is influenced.

Significance:

A number of small molecule inhibitors for the GTPase dynamics exist, that are commonly used tools in the investigation of endocytosis. This goes as far that the use of some of these inhibitors alone is considered in some publications as sufficient to declare a process to be dynamin-dependent. However, this is not correct, as there are considerable off-target effects, including the inhibition of caveolar internalization by a dynamin-independent mechanism. This is important, as for example the influence of dynamin small molecule inhibitors on chemotherapy resistance is currently investigated (see for example Tremblay et al., Nature Communications, 2020).

The investigation of the true effect of small molecules discovered as and used as specific inhibitors and their offside effects is extremely important and this reviewer applauds the effort. It is important that inhibitors are not used alone, but other means of targeting a mechanism are exploited as well in functional studies. The audience here thus is besides membrane biophysicists interested in the immediate effect of the small molecule Dyngo-4a also cell biologists and everyone using dynamic inhibitors to investigate cellular function.

Comments on revised version:

Please include the promised data on caveolar internalization and remove the above mentioned claim on membrane undulations from the text.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study uses a novel DNA origami nanospring to measure the stall force and other mechanical parameters of the kinesin-3 family member, KIF1A, using light microscopy. The key is to use SNAP tags to tether a defined nanospring between a motor-dead mutant of KIF5B and the KIF1A to be integrated. The mutant KIF5B binds tightly to a subunit of the microtubule without stepping, thus creating resistance to the processive advancement of the active KIF1A. The nanospring is conjugated with 124 Cy3 dyes, which allows it to be imaged by fluorescence microscopy. Acoustic force spectroscopy was used to measure the relationship between the extension of the NS and force as a calibration. Two different fitting methods are described to measure the length of the extension of the NS from its initial diffraction-limited spot. By measuring the extension of the NS during an experiment, the authors can determine the stall force. The attachment duration of the active motor is measured from the suppression of lateral movement that occurs when the KIF1A is attached and moving. There are numerous advantages of this technology for the study of single molecules of kinesin over previous studies using optical tweezers. First, it can be done using simple fluorescence microscopy and does not require the level of sophistication and expense needed to construct an optical tweezer apparatus. Second, the force that is experienced by the moving KIF1A is parallel to the plane of the microtubule. This regime can be achieved using a dual beam optical tweezer set-up, but in the more commonly used single-beam set-up, much of the force experienced by the kinesin is perpendicular to the microtubule. Recent studies have shown markedly different mechanical behaviors of kinesin when interrogated by the two different optical tweezer configurations. The data in the current manuscript are consistent with those obtained using the dual-beam optical tweezer set-up. In addition, the authors study the mechanical behavior of several mutants of KIF1A that are associated with KIF1A-associated neurological disorder (KAND).

Strengths:

The technique should be cheaper and less technically challenging than optical tweezer microscopy to measure the mechanical parameters of molecular motors. The method is described in sufficient detail to allow its use in other labs. It should have a higher throughput than other methods.

Weaknesses:

The experimenter does not get a "real-time" view of the data as it is collected, which you get from the screen of an optical tweezer set-up. Rather, you have to put the data through the fitting routines to determine the length of the nanospring in order to generate the graphs of extension (force) vs time. No attempts were made to analyze the periods where the motor is actually moving to determine step-size or force-velocity relationships.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

It is well known that autophagosomes/autolysosomes move along microtubules. However, as these previous studies did not distinguish between autophagosomes and autolysosomes, it remains unknown whether autophagosomes begin to move after fusion with lysosomes or even before fusion. In this manuscript, the authors show using fusion-deficient vps16a RNAi cells that both pre-fusion autophagosomes and lysosomes can move along the microtubules towards the minus end. This was confirmed in snap29 RNAi cells. By screening motor proteins and Rabs, the authors found that autophagosomal traffic is primarily regulated by the dynein-dynactin system and can be counter-regulated by kinesins. They also show that Rab7-Epg5 and Rab39-ema interactions are important for autophagosome trafficking.

Strengths:

This study uses reliable Drosophila genetics and high-quality fluorescence microscopy. The data are properly quantified and statistically analyzed. It is a reasonable hypothesis that gathering pre-fusion autophagosomes and lysosomes in close proximity improves fusion efficiency.

Weaknesses:

(1) This study investigates the behavior of pre-fusion autophagosomes and lysosomes using fusion-incompetent cells (e.g., vps16a RNAi cells). However, the claim that these cells are truly fusion-incompetent relies on citations from previous studies. Since this is a foundational premise of the research, it should be rigorously evaluated before interpreting the data. It's particularly awkward that the crucial data for vps16a RNAi is only presented at the very end of Figure 10-S1; this should be among the first data shown (the same for SNAP29). It would be important to determine the extent to which autophagosomes and lysosomes are fusing (or tethered in close proximity), within each of these cell lines.

(2) In the new Figures 8 and 9, the authors analyze autolysosomes without knocking down Vps16A (i.e., without inhibiting fusion). However, as this reviewer pointed out in the previous round, it is highly likely that both autophagosomes and autolysosomes are present in these cells. This is particularly relevant given that the knockdown of dynein-dynactin, Rab7, and Epg5 only partially inhibits the fusion of autophagosomes and lysosomes (Figure 10H). If the goal is to investigate the effects of fusion, it would be more appropriate to analyze autolysosomes and autophagosomes separately. The authors mention that they can differentiate these two structures based on the size of mCherry-Atg8a structures. If this is the case, they should perform separate analyses for both autophagosomes and autolysosomes.

(3) This is also a continued Issue from the previous review. The authors suggest that autophagosome movement is crucial for fusion, based on the observed decrease in fusion rates in Rab7 and Epg5 knockdown cells (Fig. 10). However, this conclusion is not well supported. It is known that Rab7 and Epg5 are directly involved in the fusion process itself. Therefore, the possibility that the observed decrease is simply due to a direct defect in fusion, rather than an impairment of movement, has not been ruled out.

(4) The term "autolysosome maturation" appears multiple times, yet its meaning remains unclear. Does it refer to autolysosome formation (autophagosome-lysosome fusion), or does it imply a further maturation process occurring after autolysosome formation? This is not a commonly used term in the field, so it requires a clear definition.

(5) In Figure 1-S1D, the authors state that the disappearance of the mCherry-Atg8a signal after atg8a RNAi indicates that the observed structures are not non-autophagic vacuoles. This reasoning is inappropriate. Naturally, knocking down Atg8 will abolish its signal, regardless of the nature of the vacuoles. This does not definitively distinguish autophagic from non-autophagic structures.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this manuscript, the authors employ a combined proteomic and genetic approach to identify the glycoprotein QC factor malectin as an important protein involved in promoting coronavirus infection. Using proteomic approaches, they show that the non-structural protein NSP2 and malectin interact in the absence of viral infection, but not in the presence of viral infection. However, both NSP2 and malectin engage the OST complex during viral infection, with malectin also showing reduced interactions with other glycoprotein QC proteins. Malectin KD reduce replication of coronaviruses, including SARS-COV2. Collectively, these results identify Malectin as a glycoprotein QC protein involved in regulating coronavirus replication that could potentially be targeted to mitigate coronavirus replication.

In the revised manuscript, the authors have addressed many of my comments from the previous submission. Notably, they've provided some additional mechanistic data, focused primarily on the activation of different stress signaling pathways, to help define malectin impacts viral replication, although this is mostly suggests that activation of these pathways may not be the main mechanism of malectin-dependent reductions in viral replication. Regardless, I'm sure this mechanism will be the focus of continued efforts on this project. They have also addressed other concerns related to interactions between OST and malectin, as well as the curious interactions between non-structural proteins with both ER and mitochondrial proteins. Overall, the authors have been responsive to my comments and comments from other reviewers, and the manuscript has been improved. It will be a good addition to eLife.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors were attempting to identify the molecular and cellular basis for why modulators of the HR pathway, specifically PARPi, are not effective in CDK12 deleted or mutant prostate cancers and they seek to identify new therapeutic agents to treat this subset of metastatic prostate cancer patients. Overall, this is an outstanding manuscript with a number of strengths and in my opinion represents a significant advance in the field of prostate cancer biology and experimental therapeutics.

Strengths:

The patient data cohort size and clinical annotation from Figure 1 are compelling and comprehensive in scope. The associations between tandem duplications and amplifications of oncogenes that have been well-credentialed to be drivers of cancer development and progression are fascinating and the authors identify that in those that have AR amplification for example, there is evidence for AR pathway activation. The association between CDK12 inactivation and various specific gene/pathway perturbations is fascinating and is consistent with previously published studies - it would be interesting to correlate these changes with cell line-based studies in which CDK12 is specifically deleted or inhibited with small molecules to see how many pathways/gene perturbations are shared between the clinical samples and cell and mouse models with CDK12 perturbation. The short-term inhibitor studies related to changes in HRD genes and protein expression with CDK12/13 inhibition are fascinating and suggest differential pathway effects between short inhibition of CDK12/13 and long-term loss of CDK12. The in vivo studies with the inhibitor of CDK12/13 are intriguing but not definitive

Weaknesses:

Given that there are different mutations identified at different CDK12 sites as illustrated in Figure 1B it would be nice to know which ones have been functionally classified as pathogenic and for which ones that the pathogenicity has not been determined. This would be especially interesting to perform in light of the differences in the LOH scores and WES data presented - specifically, are the pathogenic mutations vs the mutations for which true pathogenicity is unknown more likely to display LOH or TD? For the cell inhibition studies with the CDK12/13 inhibitor, more details characterizing the specificity of this molecule to these targets would be useful. Additionally, could the authors perform short-term depletion studies with a PROTAC to the target or short shRNA or non-selected pool CRISPR deletion studies of CDK12 in these same cell lines to complement their pharmacological studies with genetic depletion studies? Also perhaps performing these same inhibitor studies in CDK12/13 deleted cells to test the specificity of the molecule would be useful. Additionally, expanding these studies to additional prostate cancer cell lines or organdies models would strengthen the conclusions being made. More information should be provided about the dose and schedule chosen and the rationale for choosing those doses and schedules for the in vivo studies proposed should be presented and discussed. Was there evidence for maximal evidence of inhibition of the target CDK12/13 at the dose tested given the very modest tumor growth inhibition noted in these studies?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Hurtado et al. show that Sox9 is essential for retinal integrity, and its null mutation causes the loss of the outer nuclear layer (ONL). The authors then show that this absence of the ONL is due to apoptosis of photoreceptors and a reduction in the numbers of other retinal cell types such as ganglion cells, amacrine cells and horizontal cells. They also describe that Müller Glia undergoes reactive gliosis by upregulating the Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein. The authors then show that Sox9+ progenitors proliferate and differentiate to generate the corneal cells through Sox9 lineage-tracing experiments. They validate Sox9 expression and characterize its dynamics in limbal stem cells using an existing single-cell RNA sequencing dataset. Finally, the authors show that Sox9 deletion causes progenitor cells to lose their clonogenic capacity by comparing the sizes of control and Sox9-null clones. Overall, Hurtado et al. underline the importance of Sox9 function in retinal cells.

Strengths:

The authors have characterized a myriad of striking phenotypes due to Sox9 deletion in the retina and limbal stem cells which will serve as a basis for future studies.

Weaknesses:

Hurtado et al. highlight the importance of Sox9 in the retina and limbal stem cells by describing several affects of Sox9 depletion in the adult eye. However, it is unclear how or where Sox9 precisely acts as a mechanistic investigation of the transcription factor's role in this tissue is lacking.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This work computationally characterized the threat-reward learning behavior of mice in a recent study (Akiti et al.), which had prominent individual differences. The authors constructed a Bayes-adaptive Markov decision process model, and fitted the behavioral data by the model. The model assumed (i) hazard function staring from a prior (with free mean and SD parameters) and updated in a Bayesian manner through experience (actually no real threat or reward was given in the experiment), (ii) risk-sensitive evaluation of future outcomes (calculating lower 𝛼 quantile of outcomes with free 𝛼 parameter), and (iii) heuristic exploration bonus. The authors found that (i) brave animals had more widespread hazard priors than timid animals and thereby quickly learned that there was in fact little real threat, (ii) brave animals may also be less risk-aversive than timid animals in future outcome evaluation, and (iii) the exploration bonus could explain the observed behavioral features, including the transition of behavior from the peak to steady-state frequency of bout. Overall, this work is a novel interesting analysis of threat-reward learning, and provides useful insights for future experimental and theoretical work. However, there are several issues that I think need to be addressed.

Strengths:

- This work provides a normative Bayesian account for individual differences in braveness/timidity in reward-threat learning behavior, which complements the analysis by Akiti et al. based on model-free threat reinforcement learning.

- Specifically, the individual differences were characterized by (i) the difference in the variance of hazard prior and potentially also (ii) the difference in the risk-sensitivity in evaluation of future returns.

Weakness:

- Theoretically the effect of prior is diluted over experience whereas the effect of biased (risk-aversive) evaluation persists, but these two effects could not be teased apart in the fitting analysis of the current data.

- It is currently unclear how (whether) the proposed model corresponds to neurobiological (rather than behavioral) findings, different from the analysis by Akiti et al.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have adequately replied to all the concerns that I raised in my review of the original manuscript. I do not have any remaining concern, and I am now more convinced that this work provides novel important insights and stimulates future experimental and theoretical examinations.

Editorial note: To ensure a thorough evaluation of the revised manuscript, we invited a third reviewer to assess whether the authors had sufficiently addressed the concerns raised in the initial round of peer review. This additional reviewer confirmed that the authors responded partially to the original reviewers requests. While he/she also provided a set of new comments, these do not alter the original assessment or editorial decision regarding the manuscript. For transparency and completeness, the additional comments are included below.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Li and coworkers present experiments generated with human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) differentiated to astrocytes through a three-step protocol consisting of neural induction/midbrain patterning, switch to expansion of astrocytic progenitors, and terminal differentiation to astroglial cells. They used lineage tracing with a LMX1A-Cre/AAVS1-BFP iPSCs line, where the initial expression of LMX1A and Cre allows the long-lasting expression of BFP, yielding BFP+ and BFP- populations, that were sorted when in the astrocytic progenitor expansion. BFP+ showed significantly higher number of cells positive to NFIA and SOX9 than BFP- cells, at 45 and 98 DIV. However, no significant differences in other markers such as AQP4, EAAT2, GFAP (which show a proportion of less than 10% in all cases) and S100B were found between BFP-positive or -negative, at these differentiation times. Intriguingly, non-patterned astrocytes produced higher proportions of GFAP positive cells than the midbrain-induced and then sorted populations. BFP+ cells have enhanced calcium responses after ATP addition, compared to BFP- cells. Single-cell RNA-seq of early and late cells from BFP- and BFP+ populations were compared to non-patterned astrocytes and neurons differentiated from iPSCs. Bioinformatic analyses of the transcriptomes resulted in 9 astrocyte clusters, 2 precursor clusters and one neuronal cluster. DEG analysis between BFP+ and BFP- populations showed some genes enriched in each population, which were subject to GO analysis, resulting in biological processes that are different for BFP+ or BFP- cells.

Strengths:

The manuscript tries to tackle an important aspect in Neuroscience, namely the importance of patterning in astrocytes. Regionalization is crucial for neuronal differentiation and the presented experiments constitute a trackable system to analyze both transcriptional identities and functionality on astrocytes.

Weaknesses:

The presented results have several fundamental issues, to be resolved, as listed in the following major points:

(1) It is very intriguing that GFAP is not expressed in late BFP- nor in BFP+ cultures, when authors designated them as mature astrocytes.<br /> (2) In Fig. 2D, authors need to change the designation "% of positive nuclei".<br /> (3) In Fig. 2E, the text describes a decrease caused by 2APB on the rise elicited by ATP, but the graph shows an increase with ATP+2APB. However, in Fig. 2F, the peak amplitude for BFP+ cells is higher in ATP than in ATP+2APD, which is mentioned in the text, but this is inconsistent with the graph in 2E.<br /> (4) The description of Results in the single-cell section is confusing, particularly in the sorted CD49 and unsorted cultures. Where do these cells come from? Are they BFP-, BFP+, unsorted for BFP, or non-patterned? Which are the "all three astrocyte populations"? A more complete description of the "iPSC-derived neurons" is required in this section to allow the reader to understand the type and maturation stage of neurons, and if they are patterned or not.<br /> (5) A puzzling fact is that both BFP- and BFP- cells have similar levels of LMX1A, as shown in Fig. S6F. How do authors explain this observation?<br /> (6) In Fig. 3B, the non-patterned cells cluster away from the BFP+ and BFP-; on the other hand, early and late BFP- are close and the same is true for early and late BFP+. A possible interpretation of these results is that patterned astrocytes have different paths for differentiation, compared to non-patterned cells. If that can be implied from these data, authors should discuss the alternative ways for astrocytes to differentiate.<br /> (7) Fig. 3D shows that cluster 9 is the only one with detectable and coincident expression of both S100B and GFAP expression. Please discuss why these widely-accepted astrocyte transcripts are not found in the other astrocytes clusters. Also, Sox9 is expressed in neurons, astrocyte precursors and astrocytes. Why is that?<br /> (8) Line 337, Why authors selected a log2 change of 0.25? Typically, 1 or a higher number is used to ensure at least a 2-fold increase, or a 50% decrease. A volcano plot generated by the comparison of BFP+ with BFP- cells would be appropriate. The validation of differences by immunocytochemistry, between BFP+ and BFP-, is inconclusive. The staining is blur in the images presented in Fig. S8C. Quantification of the positive cells, without significant background signal, in both populations is required.<br /> (9) Lines 349-351: BFP+ cells did not show higher levels of transcripts for LMX1A nor FOXA2. This fact jeopardizes the claim that these cells are still patterned. In the same line, there are not significant differences with cortical astrocytes, indicating a wider repertoire of the initially patterned cells, that seems to lose the midbrain phenotype. Furthermore, common DGE shared by BFP- and BFP+ cells when compared to non-patterned cells indicate that after culture, the pre-pattern in BFP+ cells is somehow lost, and coincides with the progression of BFP- cells.<br /> (10) For the GO analyses, How did authors select 1153 genes? The previous section mentioned 287 genes unique for BFP+ cells. The Results section should include a rationale for performing a wider search for the enriched processes.<br /> (11) For Fig. 4C and 4D, both p values and the number of genes should be indicated in the graph. I would advise to select the 10 or 15 most significant categories, these panels are very difficult to read. Whereas the listed processes for BFP+ have a relation to Parkinson disease, the ones detected for BFP- cells are related to extracellular matrix and tissue development. Does it mean that BFP+ cells have impaired formation of this matrix, or defective tissue development? This is in contradiction of enhanced calcium responses of BFP+ cells compared to BFP- cells.<br /> (12) Both the comparison between midbrain and cortical astrocytes in Fig. S8A, and the volcano plot in S8B do not show consistent changes. For example, RCAN2 in Fig. S8A has the same intensity for cortical and midbrain cells, but is marked as an enriched gene in midbrain in the p vs log2FC graph in Fig. S8B.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study elucidates the molecular linkage between the mobilization of damaged rDNA from the nucleolus to its periphery and the subsequent repair process by HDR. The authors demonstrate that the nucleolar adaptor protein Treacle mediates rDNA mobilization, and the MDC1-RNF8-RNF168 pathway coordinates the recruitment of the BRCA1-PALB2-BRCA2 complex and RAD51 loading. This stepwise regulation appears to prevent aberrant recombination events between rDNA repeats. This work provides compelling evidence for the recruitment of the Treacle-TOPBP1-NBS1 complex to rDNA DSBs and demonstrates the critical role of MDC1 in the rDNA damage response. There are some issues with the over-interpretation of results as described subsequently. Some aspects could be strengthened, for example, a potential role of the RAP80-Abraxas axis, the origin of the repair synthesis (HDR vs. NHEJ)

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors present an approach that uses the transformer architecture to model epistasis in deep mutational scanning datasets. This is an original and very interesting idea. Applying the approach to 10 datasets, they quantify the contribution of higher-order epistasis, showing that it varies quite extensively.

Suggestions:

(1) The approach taken is very interesting, but it is not particularly well placed in the context of recent related work. MAVE-NN, LANTERN, and MoCHI are all approaches that different labs have developed for inferring and fitting global epistasis functions to DMS datasets. MoCHI can also be used to infer multi-dimensional global epistasis (for example, folding and binding energies) and also pairwise (and higher order) specific interaction terms (see 10.1186/s13059-024-03444-y and 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012132). It doesn't distract from the current work to better introduce these recent approaches in the introduction. A comparison of the different capabilities of the methods may also be helpful. It may also be interesting to compare the contributions to variance of 1st, 2nd, and higher-order interaction terms estimated by the Epistatic transformer and MoCHI.

(2) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004771 is another useful reference that relates different metrics of epistasis, including the useful distinction between biochemical/background-relative and background-averaged epistasis.

(3) Which higher-order interactions are more important? Are there any mechanistic/structural insights?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript uses adaptive sampling simulations to understand the impact of mutations on the specificity of the enzyme PDC-3 β-lactamase. The authors argue that mutations in the Ω-loop can expand the active site to accommodate larger substrates.

Strengths:

The authors simulate an array of variants and perform numerous analyses to support their conclusions.

The use of constant pH simulations to connect structural differences with likely functional outcomes is a strength.

Weaknesses:

I would like to have seen more error bars on quantities reported (e.g., % populations reported in the text and Table 1).

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study is methodologically solid and introduces a compelling regulatory model. However, several mechanistic aspects and interpretations require clarification or additional experimental support to strengthen the conclusions.

Strengths:

(1) The manuscript presents a compelling structural and biochemical analysis of human glutamine synthetase, offering novel insights into product-induced filamentation.

(2) The combination of cryo-EM, mutational analysis, and molecular dynamics provides a multifaceted view of filament assembly and enzyme regulation.

(3) The contrast between human and E. coli GS filamentation mechanisms highlights a potentially unique mode of metabolic feedback in higher organisms.

Weaknesses:

(1) The mechanism underlying spontaneous di-decamer formation in the absence of glutamine is insufficiently explored and lacks quantitative biophysical validation.

(2) Claims of decamer-only behavior in mutants rely solely on negative-stain EM and are not supported by orthogonal solution-based methods.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Frelih et al. investigated both periodic and aperiodic activity in EEG during working memory tasks. In terms of periodic activity, they found post-stimulus decreases in alpha and beta activity, while in terms of aperiodic activity, they found a bi-phasic post-stimulus steepening of the power spectrum, which was weakly predictive of performance. They conclude that it is crucial to properly distinguish between aperiodic and periodic activity in event-related designs as the former could confound the latter. They also add to the growing body of research highlighting the functional relevance of aperiodic activity in the brain.

Strengths:

This is a well-written, timely paper that could be of interest to the field of cognitive neuroscience, especially to researchers investigating the functional role of aperiodic activity. The authors describe a well-designed study that looked at both the oscillatory and non-oscillatory aspects of brain activity during a working memory task. The analytic approach is appropriate, as a state-of-the-art toolbox is used to separate these two types of activity. The results support the basic claim of the paper that it is crucial to properly distinguish between aperiodic and periodic activity in event-related designs as the former could confound the latter. They also add to the growing body of research highlighting the functional relevance of aperiodic activity in the brain. Commendably, the authors include replications of their key findings on multiple independent data sets.

Comments on the previous version:

The authors have addressed several of the weaknesses I noted in my original review, specifically, they softened their claims regarding the theta findings, while simultaneously strengthening these findings with additional analyses (using simulations as well as a new measure of rhythmicity, the phase autocorrelation function, pACF). Most of the other suggested control analyses were also implemented. While I believe the fact that the participants in the main sample were not young adults could be made even more explicit, and the potential interaction between age and aperiodic changes could be unpacked a little in the discussion, the age of the sample is definitely addressed upfront.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors tried to quantify the difference between human complex traits by calculating genetic overlap scores between a pair of traits. Sherlock-II was devised to integrate GWAS with eQTL signals. The authors claim that Sherlock-II is superior to the previous version (robustness, accuracy, etc). It appears that their framework provides a reasonable solution to this important question, although the study needs further clarification and improvements.

(1) Sherlock-II incorporates GWAS and eQTL signals to better quantify genetic signals for a given complex trait. However, this approach is based on the hypothesis that "all GWAS signals confer association to complex trait via eQTL", which is not true (PMID: 37857933). This should be acknowledged (through mentioning in the text) and incorporated into the current setup (through differential analysis - for example, with or without eQTL signals, or with strong colocalization only).

(2) When incorporating eQTL, why did the authors use the top p-value tissues for eQTL? This approach seems simpler and probably more robust. But many eQTLs are tissue-specific. Therefore, it would also be important to know if eQTLS from appropriate tissues were incorporated instead.

(3) One of the main examples is the novel association between Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer. Although the authors provided a molecular clue underlying the association, it is still hard to comprehend the association easily, as the two diseases are generally known to be exclusive to each other. This is probably because breast cancer GWAS is performed for germline variants and does not consider the contribution of somatic variants.

(4) It would help readers understand the story better if a summary figure of the entire process were provided. The current Figure 1 does not fulfil that role.

(5) Figure 2 is not very informative. The readers would want to know more quantitative information rather than a heatmap-style display. Is there directionality to the relationship, or is it always unidirectional?

(6) In Figure 3, readers may want to know more specific information. For example, what gene signals are really driving the hypoxia signal in Alzheimer's disease vs breast cancer? And what SNP signals are driving these gene-level signals?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This work aims to elucidate the molecular mechanisms affected in hypoxic conditions, causing reduced cortical interneuron migration. They use human assembloids as a migratory assay of subpallial interneurons into cortical organoids and show substantially reduced migration upon 24 hours of hypoxia. Bulk and scRNA-seq show adrenomedullin (ADM) up-regulation, as well as its receptor RAMP2, confirmed atthe protein level. Adding ADM to the culture medium after hypoxic conditions rescues the migration deficits, even though the subtype of interneurons affected is not examined. However, the authors demonstrate very clearly that ineffective ADM does not rescue the phenotype, and blocking RAMP2 also interferes with the rescue. The authors are also applauded for using 4 different cell lines and using human fetal cortex slices as an independent method to explore the DLXi1/2GFP-labelled iPSC-derived interneuron migration in this substrate with and without ADM addition (after confirming that also in this system ADM is up-regulated). Finally, the authors demonstrate PKA-CREB signalling mediating the effect of ADM addition, which also leads to up-regulation of GABAreceptors. Taken together, this is a very carefully done study on an important subject - how hypoxia affects cortical interneuron migration. In my view, the study is of great interest.

Strengths:

The strengths of the study are the novelty and the thorough work using several culture methods and 4 independent lines.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness is that other genes regulated upon hypoxia are not confirmed, such that readers will not know until which fold change/stats cut-off data are reliable.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Inhibitory hM4Di and excitatory hM3Dq DREADDs are currently the most commonly utilized chemogenetic tools in the field of nonhuman primate research, but there is a lack of available information regarding the temporal aspects of virally-mediated DREADD expression and function. Nagai et al. investigated the longitudinal expression and efficacy of DREADDs to modulate neuronal activity in the macaque model. The authors demonstrate that both hM4Di and hM3Dq DREADDs reach peak expression levels after approximately 60 days and that stable expression was maintained for up to two years for hM4Di and at least one year for hM3Dq DREADDs. During this period, DREADDs effectively modulated neuronal activity, as evidenced by a variety of measures, including behavioural testing, functional imaging, and/or electrophysiological recording. Notably, some of the data suggest that DREADD expression may decline after two-three years. This is a novel finding and has important implications for the utilization of this technology for long-term studies, as well as its potential therapeutic applications. Lastly, the authors highlight that peak DREADD expression may be significantly influenced by the presence of fused or co-expressed protein tags, emphasizing the importance of careful design and selection of viral constructs for neuroscientific research. This study represents a critical step in the field of chemogenetics, setting the scene for future development and optimization of this technology.

Strengths:

The longitudinal approach of this study provides important preliminary insights into the long-term utility of chemogenetics, which has not yet been thoroughly explored.

The data presented are novel and inclusive, relying on well-established in vivo imaging methods as well as behavioral and immunohistochemical techniques. The conclusions made by the authors are generally supported by a combination of these techniques. In particular, the utilization of in vivo imaging as a non-invasive method is translationally relevant and likely to make an impact in the field of chemogenetics, such that other researchers may adopt this method of longitudinal assessment in their own experiments. Rigorous standards have been applied to the datasets, and the appropriate controls have been included where possible.

The number of macaque subjects (20) from which data was available is also notable. Behavioral testing was performed in 11 subjects, FDG-PET in 5, electrophysiology in 1, and [11C]DCZ-PET in 15. This is an impressive accumulation of work that will surely be appreciated by the growing community of researchers using chemogenetics in nonhuman primates.

The implication that chemogenetic effects can be maintained for up to 1.5-2 years, followed by a gradual decline beyond this period, is an important development in knowledge. The limited duration of DREADD expression may present an obstacle in the translation of chemogenetic technology as a potential therapeutic tool, and it will be of interest for researchers to explore whether this limitation can be overcome. This study therefore represents a key starting point upon which future research can build.

Weaknesses:

None.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript assesses the differences between young and aged chondrocytes. Through transcriptomic analysis and further assessments in chondrocytes, GATA4 was found to be increased in aged chondrocyte donors compared to young. Subsequent mechanistic analysis with lentiviral vectors, siRNAs, and a small molecule were used to study the role of GATA4 in young and old chondrocytes. Lastly, an in vivo study was used to assess the effect of GATA4 expression on osteoarthritis progression in a DMM mouse model.

Strengths:

This work linked the over expression of GATA4 to NF-kB signaling pathway activation, alterations to the TGF-b signaling pathway, and found that GATA4 increased the progression of OA compared to the DMM control group. Indicating that GATA4 contributes to the onset and progression of OA in aged individuals.

Comments on revised version:

Great work! All my concerns have been well addressed.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this work, Rios-Jimenez and Zomer et al have developed a 'zero-code' accessible computational framework (BEHAV3D-Tumour Profiler) designed to facilitate unbiased analysis of Intravital imaging (IVM) data to investigate tumour cell dynamics (via the tool's central 'heterogeneity module' ) and their interactions with the tumour microenvironment (via the 'large-scale phenotyping' and 'small-scale phenotyping' modules). A key strength is that it is designed as an open-source modular Jupyter Notebook with a user-friendly graphical user interface and can be implemented with Google Colab, facilitating efficient, cloud-based computational analysis at no cost. In addition, demo datasets are available on the authors GitHub repository to aid user training and enhance the usability of the developed pipeline.

To demonstrate the utility of BEHAV3D-TP, they apply the pipeline to timelapse IVM imaging datasets to investigate the in vivo migratory behaviour of fluorescently labelled DMG cells in tumour bearing mice. Using the tool's 'heterogeneity module' they were able to identify distinct single-cell behavioural patterns (based on multiple parameters such as directionality, speed, displacement, distance from tumour edge) which was used to group cells into distinct categories (e.g. retreating, invasive, static, erratic). They next applied the framework's 'large-scale phenotyping' and 'small-scale phenotyping' modules to investigate whether the tumour microenvironment (TME) may influence the distinct migratory behaviours identified. To achieve this, they combine TME visualisation in vivo during IVM (using fluorescent probes to label distinct TME components) or ex vivo after IVM (by large-scale imaging of harvested, immunostained tumours) to correlate different tumour behavioural patterns with the composition of the TME. They conclude that this tool has helped reveal links between TME composition (e.g. degree of vascularisation, presence of tumour-associated macrophages) and the invasiveness and directionality of tumour cells, which would have been challenging to identify when analysing single kinetic parameters in isolation.<br /> While the analysis provides only preliminary evidence in support of the authors conclusions on DMG cell migratory behaviours and their relationship with components of the tumour microenvironment, conclusions are appropriately tempered in the absence of additional experiments and controls.

The authors also evaluated the BEHAV3D TP heterogeneity module using available IVM datasets of distinct breast cancer cell lines transplanted in vivo, as well as healthy mammary epithelial cells to test its usability in non-tumour contexts where the migratory phenotypes of cells may be more subtle. This generated data is consistent with that produced during the original studies, as well as providing some additional (albeit preliminary) insights above that previously reported. Collectively, this provides some confidence in BEHAV3D TP's ability to uncover complex, multi-parametric cellular behaviours that may be missed using traditional approaches.

While the tool does not facilitate the extraction of quantitative kinetic cellular parameters (e.g. speed, directionality, persistence and displacement) from intravital images, the authors have developed their tool to facilitate the integration of other data formats generated by open-source Fiji plugins (e.g. TrackMate, MTrackJ, ManualTracking) which will help ensure its accessibility to a broader range of researchers. Overall, this computational framework appears to represent a useful and comparatively user-friendly tool to analyse dynamic multi-parametric data to help identify patterns in cell migratory behaviours, and to assess whether these behaviours might be influenced by neighbouring cells and structures in their microenvironment.

When combined with other methods, it therefore has the potential to be a valuable addition to a researcher's IVM analysis 'tool-box'.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript uses molecular dynamics simulations to understand how forces felt by the intracellular domain are coupled to opening of the mechanosensitive ion channel NOMPC. The concept is interesting - as the only clearly defined example of an ion channel that opens due to forces on a tethered domain, the mechanism by which this occur are yet to be fully elucidated. The main finding is that twisting of the transmembrane portion of the protein - specifically via the TRP domain that is conserved within the broad family of channels- is required to open the pore. That this could be a common mechanism utilised by a wide range of channels in the family, not just mechanically gated ones, makes the result significant. It is intriguing to consider how different activating stimuli can produce a similar activating motion within this family. While the authors do not see full opening of the channel, only an initial dilation, this motion is consistent with partial opening of structurally characterized members of this family.

Strengths:

Demonstrating that rotation of the TRP domain is the essential requirement for channel opening would have significant implcaitions for other members of this channel family.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript centres around 3 main computational experiments. In the first, a compression force is applied on a truncated intracellular domain and it is shown that this creates both a membrane normal (compression) and membrane parallel (twisting) force on the TRP domain. This is a point that was demonstrated in the authors prior eLife paper - so the point here is to quantify these forces for the second experiment.

The second experiment is the most important in the manuscript. In this, forces are applied directly to two residues on the TRP domain with either a membrane normal (compression) or membrane parallel (twisting) direction, with the magnitude and directions chosen to match that found in the first experiment. Only the twisting force is seen to widen the pore in the triplicate simulations, suggesting that twisting, but not compression can open the pore. This result is intriguing and there appears to be a significant difference between the dilation of pore with the two force directions. When the forces are made of similar magnitude, twisting still has a larger effect than forces along the membrane normal.

The second important consideration is that the study never sees full pore opening, rather a widening that is less than that seen in open state structures of other TRP channels and insufficient for rapid ion currents. This is something the authors acknowledge in their prior manuscript Twist may be the key to get this dilation, but we don't know if it is the key to full pore opening. Structural comparison to open state TRP channels supports that this represents partial opening along the expected pathway of channel gating.

Experiment three considers the intracellular domain and determines the link between compression and twisting of the intracellular AR domain. In this case, the end of the domain is twisted and it is shown that the domain compresses, the converse to the similar study previously done by the authors in which compression of the domain was shown to generate torque.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper attempts to measure the complex changes of consciousness in the human brain as a whole. Inspired by the perturbational complexity index (PCI) from classic research, authors introduce simulation PCI (𝑠𝑃𝐶𝐼) of a time series of brain activity as a measure of consciousness. They first use large-scale brain network modeling to explore its relationship with the network coupling and input noise. Then the authors verify the measure with empirical data collected in previous research.

Strengths:

The conceptual idea of the work is novel. The authors measure the complexity of brain activity from the perspective of dynamical systems. They provide a comparison of the proposed measure with four other indexes. The text of this paper is very concise, supported by experimental data and theoretical model analysis.

Comments on revisions:

The manuscript is in good shape after revision. I would suggest that the author open-source the code and data in this study.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript "Synaptotagmin 1 and Synaptotagmin 7 promote MR1-mediated presentation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens", authored by Kim et al., showed that the calcium-sensing trafficking proteins Synaptotagmin (Syt) 1 and Syt7 specifically promote (are critical for) MAIT cell activation in response to Mtb-infected bronchial epithelial cell line BEAS-2B (Fig. 1) and monocyte-like cell line THP-1 (Figure 3) . This work also showed co-localization of Syt1 and Syt7 with Rab7a and Lamp1, but not with Rab5a (Figure 5). Loss of Syt1 and Syt7 resulted in a larger area of MR1 vesicles (Figure 6f) and an increased number of MR1 vesicles in close proximity to an Auxotrophic Mtb-containing vacuoles during infection (Figure 7ab). Moreover, flow organellometry was used to separate phagosomes from other subcellular fractions and identify enrichment of auxotrophic Mtb-containing vacuoles in fractions 42-50, which were enriched with Lamp1+ vacuoles or phagosomes (Figures 7e-f).

Strengths:

This work nicely associated Syt1 and Syt7 with late endocytic compartments and Mtb+ vacuoles. Gene editing of Syt1 and Syt7 loci of bronchial epithelial and monocyte-like cells supported Syt1 and Syt7 facilitated maintaining a normal level of antigen presentation for MAIT cell activation in Mtb infection. Imaging analyses further supported that Syt1 and Syt7 mutants enhanced the overlaps of MR1 with Mtb fluorescence, and the MR1 proximity with Mtb-infected vacuoles, suggesting that Syt1 and Syt7 proteins help antigen presentation in Mtb infection for MAIT activation.

Weaknesses:

Additional data are needed to support the conclusion, "identify a novel pathway in which Syt1 and Syt7 facilitate the translocation of MR1 from Mtb-containing vacuoles" and some pieces of other evidence may be seen by some to contradict this conclusion.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study by Thapliyal and Glauser investigates the neural mechanisms that contribute to the progressive suppression of thermonociceptive behavior that is induced under conditions of starvation. Several previous studies have demonstrated that when starved, C. elegans alters its preferences for a variety of sensory cues, including CO2, temperature, and odors, in order to prioritize food seeking over other behavioral drives. The varied mechanisms that underlie the ability of internal states to alter behavioral responses are not fully understood, however there is growing evidence for a role by neuropeptidergic signaling as well as capacity for functionally distinct microcircuits, formed by distinct internal states, to trigger similar behavior outcomes.

Within the physiological range of C. elegans (~15-25C), starvation triggers a profound reduction in temperature-driven thermotaxis behaviors. This reduction involves the recruitment of the amphid sensory neuron pair AWC. The AWC neurons primarily act to sense appetitive chemosensory cues, however under starvation conditions begin to display temperature responses that previous studies have linked to the reduction in thermotaxis navigation. Here, Thapliyal and Glauser investigate the impact of starvation on thermonociceptive responses, innate escape behaviors that are triggered by exposure to noxious temperatures above 26C or rapid thermal stimuli below 26C. They compare the strength of thermonociceptive behaviors, specifically heat-triggered reversals, in worms experiencing either early food deprivation (1 hour off food) or prolonged starvation (6 hours off food). Their experiments demonstrate a progressive loss of heat-triggered reversals that is mediated by AWC and ASI neurons, as well as both glutamateric and neuropeptidergic signaling.

At the level of neural activity, this study reports that the transition from early food deprivation to prolonged starvation reconfigures the temperature-driven activity of AWC neurons from largely deterministic to stochastic. This finding is interesting in light of previous work that reported the opposite transition (from stochastic to deterministic) in temperature-driven AWC responses when comparing well-fed worms to those kept from food for 3 hours. This study also identifies neural and genetic mechanisms that contribute to differences in thermonociceptive responses at +1 versus +6 hours starvation; confusingly, these mechanisms are partially distinct from those that contribute to differences in negative thermotaxis behaviors in well-fed and +3 hours starvation worms (Takeishi et al 2020). A limitation of this manuscript is that these differences are not particularly acknowledged or addressed, other than the hypothesis that independent mechanisms underlie negative thermotaxis versus thermonociceptive stimuli. However, this suggestion is not experimentally verified. Multiple additional aspects of this study make the results difficult to synthesize with existing knowledge, including 1) differences in - and insufficient discussion of - the magnitude and kinetics of thermal stimuli; 2) this study's use of "heating power" rather than temperature values when presenting behavioral results; 3) the use of +1 hours starvation as a baseline instead of well-fed worms. Indeed, this last point reflects a noticeable experimental result that differs from previous studies, namely that at room temperature the basal movements of well-fed and starved worms are not different. Such a surprisingly result warrants further quantification of worm mobility in general and could have prompted a set of experiments directly testing previously published thermal conditions, to demonstrate that the new effects reported arise specifically from the use of thermonociceptive stimuli, as hypothesized. Finally, a previous report (Yeon et al 2021) demonstrated differences in the impact of chronic versus acute neural silencing on starvation-dependent plasticity in the context of negative thermotaxis. We therefore wonder whether similar developmental compensation impacts the neural circuits that contribute to starvation-dependent plasticity in the thermonociceptive responses.

A weakness of this manuscript is that the introduction is insufficiently scholarly in terms of citations and the description of current knowledge surrounding the impact of internal state on sensory behavior, particularly given previous work on the impact of feeding state on thermosensory behavioral plasticity (Takeshi et al 2020, Yeon et al 2021) and chemosensory valence (Banerjee et al 2023, Rengarajan et al 2019, etc). Similarly, the authors commanding knowledge of the distinction between thermotaxis navigation (especially negative thermotaxis) and thermonociceptive behaviors could be communicated in more depth and clarity to the readers, in order to contextualize this study's new findings within the previous literature.

Nevertheless, this study represents a solid addition to the growing evidence that C. elegans sensory behaviors are strongly impacted by internal states, and that neuropeptigergic signaling plays a key role in mediating behavioral plasticity. To that end, the authors have provided solid evidence of their claims.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this article, the authors develop a method to re-analyze published data measuring the transcription dynamics of developmental genes within Drosophila embryos. Using a simple framework, they identify periods of transcriptional activity from traces of MS2 signal and analyze several parameters of these traces. In the five data sets they analyzed, the authors find that each transcriptional "burst" has a largely invariant duration, both across spatial positions in the embryo and across different enhancers and genes, while the time between transcriptional bursts varies more. However, they find that the best predictor of the mean transcription levels at different spatial positions in the embryo is the "activity time" -- the total time from the first to the last transcriptional burst in the observed cell cycle.

Strengths:

(1) The algorithm for analyzing the MS2 transcriptional traces is clearly described and appropriate for the data.

(2) The analysis of the four transcriptional parameters -- the transcriptional burst duration, the time between bursts, the activity time, and the polymerase loading rate is clearly done and logically explained, allowing the reader to observe the different distributions of these values and the relationship between each of these parameters and the overall expression output in each cell. The authors make a convincing case that the activity time is the best predictor of a cell's expression output.

(3) The figures are clearly presented and easy to follow.

Weaknesses:

(1) The strength of the relationship between the different transcriptional parameters and the mean expression output is displayed visually in Figures 5 and 7, but is not formally quantified. Given that the tau_off times seem more correlated to mean activity for some enhancers (e.g., rho) than others (e.g., sna SE), the quantification might be useful.

(2) There are some mechanistic details that are not discussed in depth. For example, the authors observe that the accumulation and degradation of the MS2 signal have similar slopes. However, given that the accumulation represents the transcription of MS2 loops, while the degradation represents diffusion of nascent transcripts away from the site of transcription, there is no mechanistic expectation for this. The degradation of signal seems likely to be a property of the mRNA itself, which shouldn't vary between cells or enhancer reporters, but the accumulation rate may be cell- or enhancer-specific. Similarly, the activity time depends both on the time of transcription onset and the time of transcription cessation. These two processes may be controlled by different transcription factor properties or levels and may be interesting to disentangle.

(3) There are previous analyses of the eve stripe dynamics, which the authors cite, but do not compare the results of their work to the previous work in depth.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors state the study's goal clearly: "The goal of our study was to understand to what extent animal individuality is influenced by situational changes in the environment, i.e., how much of an animal's individuality remains after one or more environmental features change." They use visually guided behavioral features to examine the extent of correlation over time and in a variety of contexts. They develop new behavioral instrumentation and software to measure behavior in Buridan's paradigm (and variations thereof), the Y-maze, and a flight simulator. Using these assays, they examine the correlations between conditions for a panel of locomotion parameters. They propose that inter-assay correlations will determine the persistence of locomotion individuality.

Strengths:

The OED defines individuality as "the sum of the attributes which distinguish a person or thing from others of the same kind," a definition mirrored by other dictionaries and the scientific literature on the topic. The concept of behavioral individuality can be characterized as: (1) a large set of behavioral attributes, (2) with inter-individual variability, that are (3) stable over time. A previous study examined walking parameters in Buridan's paradigm, finding that several parameters were variable between individuals, and that these showed stability over separate days and up to 4 weeks (DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw718). The present study replicates some of those findings, and extends the experiments from temporal stability to examining correlation of locomotion features between different contexts.

The major strength of the study is using a range of different behavioral assays to examine the correlations of several different behavior parameters. It shows clearly that the inter-individual variability of some parameters is at least partially preserved between some contexts, and not preserved between others. The development of high-throughput behavior assays and sharing the information on how to make the assays is a commendable contribution.

Weaknesses:

The definition of individuality considers a comprehensive or large set of attributes, but the authors consider only a handful. In Supplemental Fig. S8, the authors show a large correlation matrix of many behavioral parameters, but these are illegible and are only mentioned briefly in Results. Why were five or so parameters selected from the full set? How were these selected? Do the correlation trends hold true across all parameters? For assays in which only a subset of parameters can be directly compared, were all of these included in the analysis, or only a subset?

The correlation analysis is used to establish stability between assays. For temporal re-testing, "stability" is certainly the appropriate word, but between contexts it implies that there could be 'instability'. Rather, instead of the 'instability' of a single brain process, a different behavior in a different context could arise from engaging largely (or entirely?) distinct context-dependent internal processes, and have nothing to do with process stability per se. For inter-context similarities, perhaps a better word would be "consistency".

The parameters are considered one-by-one, not in aggregate. This focuses on the stability/consistency of the variability of a single parameter at a time, rather than holistic individuality. It would appear that an appropriate measure of individuality stability (or individuality consistency) that accounts for the high-dimensional nature of individuality would somehow summarize correlations across all parameters. Why was a multivariate approach (e.g. multiple regression/correlation) not used? Treating the data with a multivariate or averaged approach would allow the authors to directly address 'individuality stability', along with the analyses of single-parameter variability stability.

The correlation coefficients are sometimes quite low, though highly significant, and are deemed to indicate stability. For example, in Figure 4C top left, the % of time walked at 23{degree sign}C and 32{degree sign}C are correlated by 0.263, which corresponds to an R2 of 0.069 i.e. just 7% of the 32{degree sign}C variance is predictable by the 23{degree sign}C variance. Is it fair to say that 7% determination indicates parameter stability? Another example: "Vector strength was the most correlated attention parameter... correlations ranged... to -0.197," which implies that 96% (1 - R2) of Y-maze variance is not predicted by Buridan variance. At what level does an r value not represent stability?

The authors describe a dissociation between inter-group differences and inter-individual variation stability, i.e. sometimes large mean differences between contexts, but significant correlation between individual test and retest data. Given that correlation is sensitive to slope, this might be expected to underestimate the variability stability (or consistency). Is there a way to adjust for the group differences before examining correlation? For example, would it be possible to transform the values to in-group ranks prior to correlation analysis?

What is gained by classifying the five parameters into exploration, attention, and anxiety? To what extent have these classifications been validated, both in general, and with regard to these specific parameters? Is increased walking speed at higher temperature necessarily due to increased 'explorative' nature, or could it be attributed to increased metabolism, dehydration stress, or a heat-pain response? To what extent are these categories subjective?

The legends are quite brief and do not link to descriptions of specific experiments. For example, Figure 4a depicts a graphical overview of the procedure, but I could not find a detailed description of this experiment's protocol.

Using the current single-correlation analysis approach, the aims would benefit from re-wording to appropriately address single-parameter variability stability/consistency (as distinct from holistic individuality). Alternatively, the analysis could be adjusted to address the multivariate nature of individuality, so that the claims and the analysis are in concordance with each other.

The study presents a bounty of new technology to study visually guided behaviors. The Github link to the software was not available. To verify successful transfer or open-hardware and open-software, a report would demonstrate transfer by collaboration with one or more other laboratories, which the present manuscript does not appear to do. Nevertheless, making the technology available to readers is commendable.

The study discusses a number of interesting, stimulating ideas about inter-individual variability, and presents intriguing data that speaks to those ideas, albeit with the issues outlined above.

While the current work does not present any mechanistic analysis of inter-individual variability, the implementation of high-throughput assays sets up the field to more systematically investigate fly visual behaviors, their variability, and their underlying mechanisms.

Comments on revisions:

While the incorporation of a hierarchical mixed model (HMM) appears to represent an improvement over their prior single-parameter correlation approach, it's not clear to me that this is a multivariate analysis. They write that "For each trait, we fitted a hierarchical linear mixed-effects model in Matlab (using the fit lme function) with environmental context as a fixed effect and fly identity (ID) as a random intercept... We computed the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) from each model as the between-fly variance divided by total variance. ICC, therefore, quantified repeatability across environmental contexts."

Does this indicate that HMM was used in a univariate approach? Can an analysis of only five metrics of several dozen total metrics be characterized as 'holistic'?

Within Figure 10a, some of the metrics show high ICC scores, but others do not. This suggests that the authors are overstating the overall persistence and/or consistency of behavioral individuality. It is clear from Figure S8 that a large number of metrics were calculated for each fly, but it remains unclear, at least to me, why the five metrics in Figure 10a are justified for selection. One is left wondering how rare or common is the 0.6 repeatability of % time walked among all the other behavioral metrics. It appears that a holistic analysis of this large data set remains impossible.

The authors write: "...fly individuality persists across different contexts, and individual differences shape behavior across variable environments, thereby making the underlying developmental and functional mechanisms amenable to genetic dissection." However, presumably the various behavioral features (and their variability) are governed by different brain regions, so some metrics (high ICC) would be amenable to the genetic dissection of individuality/variability, while others (low ICC) would not. It would be useful to know which are which, to define which behavioral domains express individuality, and could be targets for genetic analysis, and which do not. At the very least, the Abstract might like to acknowledge that inter-context consistency is not a major property of all or most behavioral metrics.

I hold that inter-trial repeatability should rightly be called "stability" while inter-context repeatability should be called "consistency". In the current manuscript, "consistency" is used throughout the manuscript, except for the new edits, which use "stability". If the authors are going to use both terms, it would be preferable if they could explain precisely how they define and use these terms.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Mahajan et.al introduce two innovative macroscopic measures-intrachromosomal gene correlation length (𝓁∗) and transition energy barrier-to investigate chromatin structural dynamics associated with aging and age-related syndromes such as Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS) and Werner Syndrome (WRN). The authors propose a compelling systems-level approach that complements traditional biomarker-driven analyses, offering a more holistic and quantitative framework to assess genome-wide dysregulation. The concept of 𝓁∗ as a spatial correlation metric to capture chromatin disorganization is novel and well-motivated. The use of autocorrelation on distance-binned gene expression adds depth to the interpretation of chromatin state shifts. The energy landscape framework for gene state transitions is an elegant abstraction, with the notion of "irreversibility" providing a thermodynamic interpretation of transcriptional dysregulation. The application to multiple datasets (Fleischer, Line-1) and pathological states adds robustness to the analysis. The consistency of chromosome 6 (and to some extent chromosomes 16 and X) emerging as hotspots aligns well with known histone cluster localization and disease-relevant pathways. The manuscript does an excellent job of integrating transcriptomic trends with known epigenetic hallmarks of aging, and the proposed metrics can be used in place of traditional techniques like PCA in capturing structural transcriptome features. However, a direct correlation with ATACseq/ HiC data with the present analysis will be more informative.

Strengths:

Novel inclusion of statistical metrics that can help in systems-level studies in aging and chromatin biology.

Weaknesses:

(1) In the manuscript, the authors mention "While it may be intuitive to assume that highly expressed genes originate from euchromatin, this cannot be conclusively stated as a complete representation of euchromatin genes, nor can LAT be definitively linked to heterochromatin". What percentage of LAT can be linked to heterochromatin? What is the distribution of LAT and HAT in the euchromatin?

(2) In Figure 2, the authors observe "that the signal from the HAT class is the stronger between two and the signal from the LAT class, being mostly uniform, can be constituted as background noise." Is this biologically relevant? Are low-abundance transcripts constitutively expressed? The authors should discuss this in the Results section.

(3) The authors make a very interesting observation from Figure 3: that ASO-treated LINE-1 appears to be more effective in restoring HGPS cell lines closer to wild-type compared to WRN.. This can be explained by the difference in the basal activity of L1 elements in the HGPS vs WRN cell types. The authors should comment on this.

(4) The authors report that "from the results on Fleicher dataset is the magnitude of the difference in similarity distance is more pronounced in 𝓁∗ than in gene expression." Does this mean that the alterations in gene distance and chromatin organization do not result in gene expression change during aging?

(5) "In Fleischer dataset, as evident in Figure 4a, although changes in the heterochromatin are not identical for all chromosomes shown by the different degrees of variation of 𝓁∗ in each age group." The authors should present a comprehensive map of each chromosome change in gene distance to better explain the above statement.

(6) While trends in 𝓁∗ are discussed at both global and chromosome-specific levels, stronger statistical testing (e.g., permutation tests, bootstrapping) would lend greater confidence, especially when differences between age groups or treatment states are modest.

(7) While the transition energy barrier is an insightful conceptual addition, further clarification on the mathematical formulation and its physical assumptions (e.g., energy normalization, symmetry conditions) would improve interpretability. Also, in between Figures 7 and 8, the authors first compare the energy barrier of Chromosome 1 and then for all other chromosomes. What is the rationale for only analyzing chromosome 1? How many HAT or LAT are present there?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary

This manuscript presents an updated version of rsatoolbox, a Python package for performing Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) on neural data. The authors provide a comprehensive and well-integrated framework that incorporates a range of state-of-the-art methodological advances. The updated version extends the toolbox's capabilities.

The paper outlines a typical RSA workflow in five steps:

(1) Importing data and estimating activity patterns.

(2) Estimating representational geometries (computing RDMs).

(3) Comparing RDMs.

(4) Performing inferential model comparisons.

(5) Handling multiple testing across space and time.

For each step, the authors describe methodological advances and best practices implemented in the toolbox, including improved measures of representational distances, evaluators for representational models, and statistical inference methods.

While the relative impact of the manuscript is somewhat limited to the new contributions in this update (which are nonetheless very useful), the general toolbox - here thoroughly described and discussed - remains an invaluable contribution to the field and is well-received by the cognitive and computational neuroscience communities.

Strengths:

A key strength of the work is the breadth and integration of the implemented methods. The updated version introduces several new features, such as additional comparators and dissimilarity estimators, that closely follow recent methodological developments in the field. These enhancements build on an already extensive set of functionalities, offering seamless support for RSA analyses across a wide variety of data sources, including deep neural networks, fMRI, EEG, and electrophysiological recordings.

The toolbox also integrates effectively with the broader open-source ecosystem, providing compatibility with BIDS formats and outputs from widely used neuroscience software. This integration will make it easier for researchers to incorporate rsatoolbox into existing workflows. The documentation is extensive, and the scope of functionality - from dissimilarity estimation to statistical inference - is impressive.

For researchers already familiar with RSA, rsatoolbox offers a coherent environment that can streamline analyses, promote methodological consistency, and encourage best practices.

Weaknesses:

While I enjoyed reading the manuscript - and even more so exploring the toolbox - I have some comments for the authors. None of these points is strictly major, and I leave it to the authors' discretion whether to act on them, but addressing them could make the manuscript an even more valuable resource for those approaching RSA.

(1) While several estimators and comparators are implemented, Figure 4 appears to suggest that only a subset should be used in practice. This raises the question of whether the remaining options are necessary, and under what circumstances they might be preferable. Although it is likely that different measures are suited to different scenarios, this is not clearly explained in the manuscript. As presented, a reader following the manuscript's guidance might rely on only a few of the available comparators and estimators without understanding the rationale. It would be helpful if the authors could provide practical examples illustrating when one measure might be preferred over another, and how different measures behave under varying conditions-for instance, in what situations the user should choose manifold similarity versus Bures similarity?

(2) The comparison to other RSA tools is minimal, making it challenging to place rsatoolbox in the broader landscape of available resources. Although the authors mention some existing RSA implementations, they do not provide a detailed comparison of features or performance between their toolbox and alternatives.

(3) Finally, given the growing interest in comparing neural network models with brain data, a more detailed discussion of how the toolbox can be applied to common questions in this area would be a valuable addition.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This is an interesting and timely computational study using molecular dynamics simulation as well as quantum mechanical calculation to address why tyrosine (Y), as part of an intrinsically disordered protein (IDP) sequence, has been observed experimentally to be stronger than phenylalanine (F) as a promoter for biomolecular phase separation. Notably, the authors identified the aqueous nature of the condensate environment and the corresponding dielectric and hydrogen bonding effects as a key to understand the experimentally observed difference. This principle is illustrated by the difference in computed transfer free energy of Y- and F-containing pentapeptides into solvent with various degrees of polarity. The elucidation offered by this work is important. The computation appears to be carefully executed, the results are valuable, and the discussion is generally insightful. However, there is room for improvement in some parts of the presentation in terms of accuracy and clarity, including, e.g., the logic of the narrative should be clarified with additional information (and possibly additional computation), and the current effort should be better placed in the context of prior relevant theoretical and experimental works on cation-π interactions in biomolecules and dielectric properties of biomolecular condensates. Accordingly, this manuscript should be revised to address the following, with added discussion as well as inclusion of references mentioned below.

(1) Page 2, line 61: "Coarse-grained simulation models have failed to account for the greater propensity of arginine to promote phase separation in Ddx4 variants with Arg to Lys mutations (Das et al., 2020)". As it stands, this statement is not accurate, because the cited reference to Das et al. showed that although some coarse-grained model, namely the HPS model of Dignon et al., 2018 PLoS Comput did not capture the Arg to Lys trend, the KH model described in the same Dignon et al. paper was demonstrated by Das et al. (2020) to be capable of mimicking the greater propensity of Arg to promote phase separation than Lys. Accordingly, a possible minimal change that would correct the inaccuracy of this statement in the manuscript would be to add the word "Some" in front of "coarse-grained simulation models ...", i.e., it should read "Some coarse-grained simulation models have failed ...". In fact, a subsequent work [Wessén et al., J Phys Chem B 126: 9222-9245 (2022)] that applied the Mpipi interaction parameters (Joseph et al., 2021, already cited in the manuscript) showed that Mpipi is capable of capturing the rank ordering of phase separation propensity of Ddx4 variants, including a charge scrambled variant as well as both the Arg to Lys and the Phe to Ala variants (see Fig.11a of the above-cited Wessén et al. 2022 reference). The authors may wish to qualify their statements in the introduction to take note of these prior results. For example, they may consider adding a note immediately after the next sentence in the manuscript "However, by replacing the hydrophobicity scales ... (Das et al., 2020)" to refer to these subsequent findings in 2021-2022.

(2) Page 8, lines 285-290 (as well as the preceding discussion under the same subheading & Fig.4): "These findings suggest that ... is not primarily driven by differences in protein-protein interaction patterns ..." The authors' logic in terms of physical explanation is somewhat problematic here. In this regard, "Protein-protein interaction patterns" appears to be a straw man, so to speak. Indeed, who (reference?) has argued that the difference in the capability of Y and F in promoting phase separation should be reflected in the pairwise amino acid interaction pattern in a condensate that contains either only Y (and G, S) and only F (and G, S) but not both Y and F? Also, this paragraph in the manuscript seems to suggest that the authors' observation of similar contact patterns in the GSY and GSF condensates is "counterintuitive" given the difference in Y-Y and F-F potentials of mean force (Joseph et al., 2021); but there is nothing particularly counterintuitive about that. The two sets of observations are not mutually exclusive. For instance, consider two different homopolymers, one with a significantly stronger monomer-monomer attraction than the other. The condensates for the two different homopolymers will have essentially the same contact pattern but very different stabilities (different critical temperatures), and there is nothing surprising about it. In other words, phase separation propensity is not "driven" by contact pattern in general, it's driven by interaction (free) energy. The relevant issue here is total interaction energy or critical point of the phase separation. If it is computationally feasible, the authors should attempt to determine the critical temperatures for the GSY condensate versus the GSF condensate to verify that the GSY condensate has a higher critical temperature than the GSF condensate. That would be the most relevant piece of information for the question at hand.

(3) Page 9, lines 315-316: "...Our ε [relative permittivity] values ... are surprisingly close to that derived from experiment on Ddx4 condensates (45{plus minus}13) (Nott et al., 2015)". For accuracy, it should be noted here that the relative permittivity provided in the supplementary information of Nott et al. was not a direct experimental measurement but based on a fit using Flory-Huggins (FH), but FH is not the most appropriate theory for polymer with long-spatial-range Coulomb interactions. To this reviewer's knowledge, no direct measurement of relative permittivity in biomolecular condensates has been made to date. Explicit-water simulation suggests that relative permittivity of Ddx4 condensate with protein volume fraction ≈ 0.4 can have relative permittivity ≈ 35-50 (Das et al., PNAS 2020, Fig.7A), which happens to agree with the ε = 45{plus minus}13 estimate. This information should be useful to include in the authors' manuscript.

(4) As for the dielectric environment within biomolecular condensates, coarse-grained simulation has suggested that whereas condensates formed by essentially electric neutral polymers (as in the authors' model systems) have relative permittivities intermediate between that of bulk water and that of pure protein (ε = 2-4, or at most 15), condensates formed by highly charge polymers can have relative permittivity higher than that of bulk water [Wessén et al., J Phys Chem B 125:4337-4358 (2021), Fig.14 of this reference]. In view of the role of aromatic residues (mainly Y and F) in the phase separation of IDPs such as A1-LCD and LAF-1 that contain positively and negatively charged residues (Martin et al., 2020; Schuster et al., 2020, already cited in the manuscript), it should be useful to address briefly how the relationship between the relative phase-separation promotion strength of Y vs F and dielectric environment of the condensate may or may not be change with higher relative permittivities.

(5) The authors applied the dipole moment fluctuation formula (Eq.2 in the manuscript) to calculate relative permittivity in their model condensates. Does this formula apply only to an isotropic environment? The authors' model condensates were obtained from a "slab" approach (p.4) and thus the simulation box has a rectangular geometry. Did the authors apply their Eq.2 to the entire simulation box or only to the central part of the box with the condensate (see, e.g., Fig.3C in the manuscript). If the latter is the case, is it necessary to use a different dipole moment formula that distinguishes between the "parallel" and "perpendicular" components of the dipole moment (see, e.g., Eq.16 in the above-cited Wessén et al. 2021 paper). A brief added comments will be useful.

(6) With regard to the general role of Y and F in the phase separation of biomolecules containing positively charged Arg and Lys residues, the relative strength of cation-π interactions (cation-Y vs cation-F) should be addressed (in view of the generality implied by the title of the manuscript), or at least discussed briefly in the authors' manuscript if a detailed study is beyond the scope of their current effort. It has long been known that in the biomolecular context, cation-Y is slightly stronger than cation-F, whereas cation-tryptophan (W) is significantly stronger than either cation-Y and cation-F [Wu & McMahon, JACS 130:12554-12555 (2008)]. Experimental data from a study of EWS (Ewing sarcoma) transactivation domains indicated that Y is a slightly stronger promoter than F for transcription, whereas W is significantly stronger than either Y or F [Song et al., PLoS Comput Biol 9:e1003239 (2013)]. In view of the subsequent general recognition that "transcription factors activate genes through the phase-separation capacity of their activation domain" [Boija et al., Cell 175:1842-1855.e16 (2018)] which is applicable to EWS in particular [Johnson et al., JACS 146:8071-8085 (2024)], the experimental data in Song et al. 2013 (see Fig.3A of this reference) suggests that cation-Y interactions are stronger than cation-F interactions in promoting phase separation, thus generalizing the authors' observations (which focus primarily on Y-Y, Y-F and F-F interactions) to most situations in which cation-Y and cation-F interactions are relevant to biomolecular condensation.

(7) Page 9: The observation of a weaker effective F-F (and a few other nonpolar-nonpolar) interaction in a largely aqueous environment (as in an IDP condensate) than in a nonpolar environment (as in the core of a folded protein) is intimately related to (and expected from) the long-recognized distinction between "bulk" and "pair" as well as size dependence of hydrophobic effects that have been addressed in the context of protein folding [Wood & Thompson, PNAS 87:8921-8927 (1990); Shimizu & Chan, JACS 123:2083-2084 (2001); Proteins 49:560-566 (2002)]. It will be useful to add a brief pointer in the current manuscript to this body of relevant resource in protein science.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have largely addressed my previous concerns and the manuscript has been substantially improved. Nonetheless, it will benefit the readers more if the authors had included more of the relevant references provided in my previous review so as to afford a broader and more accurate context to the authors' effort. This deficiency is particularly pertinent for point number 6 in my previous report about cation-pi interactions. The authors have now added a brief discussion but with no references on the rank ordering of Y, F, and W interactions. I cannot see how providing additional information about a few related works could hurt. Quite the contrary, having the references will help readers establish scientific connections and contribute to conceptual advance.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary

In the presented paper, Lu and colleagues focus on how items held in working memory bias someone's attention. In a series of three experiments, they utilized a similar paradigm in which subjects were asked to maintain two colored squares in memory for a short and variable time. After this delay, they either tested one of the memory items or asked subjects to perform a search task.

In the search task, items could share colors with the memory items, and the authors were interested in how these would capture attention, using reaction time as a proxy. The behavioral data suggest that attention oscillates between the two items. At different maintenance intervals, the authors observed that items in memory captured different amounts of attention (attentional capture effect).

This attentional bias fluctuates over time at approximately the theta frequency range of the EEG spectrum. This part of the study is a replication of Peters and colleagues (2020).

Next, the authors used EEG recordings to better understand the neural mechanisms underlying this process. They present results suggesting that this attentional capture effect is positively correlated with the mean amplitude of alpha power. Furthermore, they show that the weighted phase lag index (wPLI) between the alpha and theta bands across different electrodes also fluctuates at the theta frequency.

Strengths

The authors focus on an interesting and timely topic: how items in working memory can bias our attention. This line of research could improve our understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying working memory, specifically how we maintain multiple items and how these interact with attentional processes. This approach is intriguing because it can shed light on neuronal mechanisms not only through behavioral measures but also by incorporating brain recordings, which is definitely a strength.<br /> Subjects performed several blocks of experiments, ranging from 4 to 30, over a few days depending on the experiment. This makes the results - especially those from behavioral experiments 2 and 3, which included the most repetitions - particularly robust.

Weaknesses

One of the main EEG results is based on the weighted phase lag index (wPLI) between oscillations in the alpha and theta bands. In my opinion, this is problematic, as wPLI measures the locking of oscillations at the same frequency. It quantifies how reliably the phase difference stays the same over time. If these oscillations have different frequencies, the phase difference cannot remain consistent. Even worse, modeling data show that even very small fluctuations in frequency between signals make wPLI artificially small (Cohen, 2015).

In response authors stated : "Additionally, the present study referenced previous research by using the wPLI index as a measure of cross-frequency coupling strength31,64-66"<br /> Unfortunately, after checking those publications, we can see that in paper 31 there is no mention of "wPLI" or "PLV." In 64 and 65, the authors use wPLI, but only to measure same-frequency coherence, whereas cross-frequency coupling is computed by phase-amplitude coupling or cross-frequency coupling also known as n:m-PS. In 66, I cannot find any cross-frequency results, only cross-species analysis. This is very problematic, as it indicates that the authors included references in their rebuttal without verifying their relevance.<br /> 31 de Vries, I. E. J., van Driel, J., Karacaoglu, M. & Olivers, C. N. L. Priority Switches in Visual Working Memory are Supported by Frontal Delta and Posterior Alpha Interactions. Cereb Cortex 28, 4090-4104, doi:10.1093/cercor/bhy223 (2018).64 Delgado-Sallent, C. et al. Atypical, but not typical, antipsychotic drugs reduce hypersynchronized prefrontal-hippocampal circuits during psychosis-like states in mice: Contribution of 5-HT2A and 5-HT1A receptors. Cerebral Cortex 32, 870 3472-3487 (2022). 65 Siebenhühner, F. et al. Genuine cross-frequency coupling networks in human resting-state electrophysiological recordings. PLoS Biology 18, e3000685 (2020). 66 Zhang, F. et al. Cross-Species Investigation on Resting State Electroencephalogram. Brain Topogr 32, 808-824, doi:10.1007/s10548-019-00723-x (2019).

Another result from the electrophysiology data shows that the attentional capture effect is positively correlated with the mean amplitude of alpha power. In the presented scatter plot, it seems that this result is driven by one outlier. Unfortunately, Pearson correlation is very sensitive to outliers, and the entire analysis can be driven by an extreme case. I extracted data from the plot and obtained a Pearson correlation of 0.4, similar to what the authors report. However, the Spearman correlation, which is robust against outliers, was only 0.13 (p = 0.57) indicating a non-significant relationship.

Cohen, M. X. (2015). Effects of time lag and frequency matching on phase based connectivity. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 250, 137-146

DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2025.116325

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-GENO-190430-1

What is this?

Joint Public Review:

Marshall et al describe the effects of altering metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 activity on activity of D1 receptor expressing spiny projection neurons in dorsolateral striatum focusing on two states - locomotion and rest. The authors examine effects of dSPN-specific constitutive mGlu5 deletion in several motor tests to arrive at this finding. Effects of inhibiting the degradation of the endocannabinoid 2-arachidonoyl glycerol are also examined. Overall, this is a valuable study that provides solid new information of relevance to movement disorders and possibly psychosis.

The combination of in vivo cellular calcium imaging, pharmacology, receptor knockout and movement analysis is effectively used. The main findings do not involve gross firing rates or numbers of active neurons, but rather are revealed by specialized measures involving Jaccard coefficient and an assessment of coactivity. The authors conclude that mGlu5 expressed in dSPNs contributes to movement through effects on clustered spatial coactivity of dSPNs. More specifically, reduced mGluR5 increases coactivity during rest (defined as low velocity periods) but not during locomotion periods. The authors observe a role for mGlu5 expression in dSPNs in modulating the frequency of mEPSCs, suggesting a role in presynaptic neurotransmitter release. Some data suggesting the story may be different in the other major SPN subpopulation (iSPNs) are also presented but these studies are relatively underdeveloped leaving some ambiguity as to how cell-selective the findings are. In addition, an occlusion experiment in which the pharmacological mGluR5 agents are delivered to the dSPN mGluR5 KO to clarify if other sites of action are involved beyond the proposed D1-expressing neurons is missing. Finally, the authors present a working model that sets the stage for future experimentation. Overall, this study provides an important and detailed assessment of mGluR5 contributions to striatal circuit function and behavior.

Remaining concerns include:

(1) To clarify that dSPNs are sole site of action, it is necessary to examine effects of the mGlu5 NAM in the dSPN mGlu5 cKO mice. If the effects of the two manipulations occluded one another this would certainly support the hypothesis that the drug effects are mediated by receptors expressed in dSPNs. A similar argument can be made for examining effects of the JNJ PAM in the cKO mice.

(2) There is a concern that the D1 Cre line used (Ey262), which may also target cortical neurons expands the interpretation of the study beyond the striatal populations. Further discussion of this point, particularly in the interpretation of the mGluR5 cKO experiments, would provide a better understanding of the contribution of the paper.

(3) The use of CsF-based whole-cell internal solutions has caused concern in some past studies due to possible interference with G-protein, phosphatase and channel function (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1044743104000296, https://www.jneurosci.org/content/jneuro/6/10/2915.full.pdf). It is reassuring the DHPG-induced LTD was still observable with this solution. However, it might be worth examining this plasticity with a different internal to ensure that the magnitude of the agonist effect is not altered by this manipulation.

(4) Behavioral resolution of actions at low velocity that are termed "rest" are not explored in this study. Thus, a remaining ambiguity is whether the activities in rest include only periods of immobility or other low-velocity activities such as grooming or rearing.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This work addresses an important question in the field of Drosophila aggression and mating. Prior social isolation is known to increase aggression in males, manifesting as increased lunging, which is suppressed by group housing (GH). However, it is also known that single housed (SH) males, despite their higher attempts to court females, are less successful. Here, Gao et al., develop a modified aggression assay to address this issue by recording aggression in Drosophila males for 2 hours, with a virgin female immobilized by burying its head in the food. They found that while SH males frequently lunge in this assay, GH males switch to higher intensity but very low frequency tussling. Constitutive neuronal silencing and activation experiments implicate cVA sensing Or67d neurons in promoting high frequency lunging, similar to earlier studies, whereas Or47b neurons promote low frequency but higher intensity tussling. Optogenetic activation revealed that three pairs of pC1SS2 neurons increase tussling. Cell-type-specific DsxM manipulations combined with morphological analysis of pC1SS2 neurons and side-by-side tussling quantification link the developmental role of DsxM to the functional output of these aggression-promoting cells. In contrast, although optogenetic activation of P1a neurons in the dark did not increase tussling, thermogenetic activation under visible light drove aggressive tussling. Using a further modified aggression assay, GH males exhibit increased tussling and maintain territorial control, which could contribute to a mating advantage over SH males, although direct measures of reproductive success are still needed

Strengths:

Through a series of clever neurogenetic and behavioral approaches, the authors implicate specific subsets of ORNs and pC1 neurons in promoting distinct forms of aggressive behavior, particularly tussling. They have devised a refined territorial control paradigm, which appears more robust than earlier assays. This new setup is relatively clutter-free and could be amenable to future automation using computer vision approaches. The updated Figure 5, which combines cell-type-specific developmental manipulation of pC1SS2 neurons with behavioral output, provides a link between developmental mechanisms and functional aggression circuits. The manuscript is generally well written, and the claims are largely supported by the data.

Weakness:

All prior concerns have been addressed in the revised manuscript. The added 'Limitations of the study' section is a welcome and important clarification. Despite these limitations, the study provides valuable insights into the neural and behavioral mechanisms of Drosophila aggression.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study provides compelling evidence suggesting that ghrelin, a molecule released in the surrounding of the major adult brain neurogenic niche (V-SVZ) by blood vessels with high blood flow controls the migration of newborn interneurons towards the olfactory bulbs.

Strengths:

This study is a tour de force as it provides a solid set of data obtained by time lapse recordings in vivo. The data demonstrate that the migration and guidance of newborn neurons relies on factors released by selective type of blood vessels.

Weaknesses:

Some intermediate conclusions are weak and may be reinforced by additional experiments.

Comments on revisions: The manuscript has improved.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

LRRK2 protein is familially linked to Parkinson's disease by the presence of several gene variants that all confer a gain-of-function effect on LRRK2 kinase activity.

The authors examine the effects of BDNF stimulation in immortalized neuron-like cells, cultured mouse primary neurons, hIPSC-derived neurons, and brain tissue from genetically modified mice. They examine a LRRK2 regulatory phosphorylation residue, LRRK2 binding relationships, and measures of synaptic structure and function.

Strengths:

The study addresses an important research question: how does a PD-linked protein interact with other proteins, and contribute to responses to a well-characterized neuronal signalling pathway involved in the regulation of synaptic function and cell health.

They employ a range of good models and techniques to fairly convincingly demonstrate that BDNF stimulation alters LRRK2 phosphorylation and binding to many proteins. IN this revised manuscript, aspects are well validated e.g., drebrin binding, but there is a disconnect between these findings and alterations to LRRK2 substrates. A convincing phosphoproteomic analysis of PD mutant Knock-in mouse brain is included. Overall the links between LRRK2, LRRK2 activity, and the changes to synaptic molecules, structures, and activity are intriguing.

Weaknesses:

The data sets remain disjointed, conclusions are sweeping, and not always in line with what the data is showing. Validation of 'omics' data is light. Some inconsistencies with the major conclusions are ignored. Several of the assays employed (western blotting especially) are underpowered, findings key to their interpretation are addressed in only one or other of the several models employed, and supporting observations are lacking.

Main Conclusions of Abstract:

(1) Increase in pLRRK2 Ser935 and pRAB after BDNF in SH-SY5Y & mouse neurons

Well supported, but only for pLRRK2 in neurons, why not pERK pAkt & pRab?

(2) Omics Proteome remodelling of LRRK2 interactome with BDNF & different in G2019S mouse neurons.

Supports that the phosphoproteome of G2019S is different. Drebrin interaction with LRRK2 very well supported. Link between drebrin and LRRK2 activity somewhat supported (pS935 site), but the consequence (non-specific pRab8) not supported, as there is no evidence of a change in LRRK2 substrate(s).

(3) Golgi 1 month LKO mouse altered dendritic spines, transient at 1m not older.

Supported but very small transient change in spines, disconnected to other results (e.g., drebrin).

(4) iPSC-derived neurons BDNF increases mEPSC frequency (transient at 70 not 50 or 90 days) in WT not KO "which appear to bypass this regulation through developmental compensation"

Weak, not clear what is being bypassed.

Main Conclusions Based on Old and New Figure / Data:

(1) Increase in pLRRK2 Ser935 and pRAB after BDNF in SH-SY5Y & mouse neurons

Well supported, but only for pLRRK2 in neurons, why not ERK Akt & Rab?

(2) BDNF promotes LRRK2 interaction with "post-synaptic actin cytoskeleton components"

Tone down, only one postsynaptic validated - drebrin strong BUT CONTRADICTORY; link between drebrin and LRRK2 activity (pS935 site) supported, consequence (non-specific pRab8) broken, no evidence of change in LRRK2 substrate.

(3) LRRK2 G2019S striatal phosphoproteome is different from WT.

It is different. Where is link to BDNF or Drebrin?

(4) BDNF signaling is impaired in Lrrk2 knockout neurons

TrkB changes seem higher in SHSY5Y. pAKT impaired, pERK not convincing. Primary neurons Akt slower but it and Erk mostly intact. MLi-2 did not block pAkt or pErk in WT or KO (higher in latter). Whatever is happening in KO, Mli-2 not really blocking effect in WT. If we are to assume that studying the KO was a means to understand LRRK2 function, the authors data should explain why we care if an effect is absent in LKO, if LRRK2 isn't doing the same job in WT?

BDNF increases synaptic puncta in WT not LKO (which start higher?). Is this BDNF increase blocked by LRRK2 inhibition?

(5) Postsynaptic structural changes in Lrrk2 knockout neurons

Golgi impregnation shows some very small spine changes at 1m. Not sustained over age. mRNA changes are very small (10% not even a fold... very weak and should be written as so). Derbrin levels reduced clearly at 1m, but probably also at 4 & 18. Underpowered, disconnected time course from the spine changes.

(6) An effect on "spontaneous electrical activity" at Div70

Weak. What is so special at 70 days that means we should be confident in the differences, or be satisfied that the other time points are legitimately ignored? These are 10-11 cells from 3 cultures assayed at 3 time points but only one is presented (rest in supplement). This should be a 2 (time) or 3 way (+culture RM) ANOVA. As it stands, in WT there is a little - no activity at 50 days, little to no at 70 days, and variable to lots or none at 90. BDNF did nothing at 50 or 90 but may have at 70. In KO low activity stable at 50 & 70, tanks at 90. BDNF would seem to have a similar effect on KO at 90 as WT at 70, but as there are only 7 cells it remains inconclusive. Thus the conclusion that BDNF signalling is broken in LKO is not well supported by the ephys data, nor is the BDNF effect in WT cells (even at the 70 day time point) shown to be susceptible to LRRK2 inhibition.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In the submitted manuscript, Steinbach et al describe the formation of a detergent-resistant "cloud" around the Legionella-containing vacuole (LCV) that functions as a protective barrier. The authors show that formation of the "cloud" barrier is contingent upon the phosphoribosyl-ubiquitination activity of the SidE/SdeABC effector family, and is temporally regulated, with the assembly and subsequent disassembly of the "cloud" coinciding with replication and vacuolar expansion. The authors postulate a model of "cloud" barrier formation that relies upon a wave of initial ubiquitination by the SidC effector family, after which the SidE/SdeABC family expands the ubiquitination and forms cross-links that render the ubiquitin cloud resistant to harsh detergents. Additionally, Steinbach et al. also demonstrate that Rab5 is recruited to the LCV and remains associated for a considerable period.

Strengths:

This manuscript is very well written, with clear justification provided for experiments that make it very easy to follow along with the experimental logic. The figures have clearly been designed with much thought and are easy to interpret. Steinbach et al have also done a commendable job of addressing the previous reviewers' comments, even though some may suggest that some of these comments could be viewed as slightly unreasonable. This work would be of interest to both the Legionella and ubiquitin fields. Legionella researchers would potentially be interested to explore the proposed barrier model as the function for the ubiquitin "cloud," whereas ubiquitin researchers may be interested in exploring the mechanisms underlying SidE's crosslinking ability.

Weaknesses:

While the work is important and describes the physical nature of the ubiquitin cloud on the Legionella vacuole, it is somewhat descriptive in nature and does not dig deeply into what purpose this cloud serves. This is a complicated topic that will certainly stimulate additional research in this area.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper developed a model of chromosome mosaicism by using a new aneuploidy-inducing drug (AZ3146), and compared this to their previous work where they used reversine, to demonstrate the fate of aneuploid cells during murine preimplantation embryo development. They found that AZ3146 acts similarly to reversine in inducing aneuploidy in embryos, but interestingly showed that the developmental potential of embryos is higher in AZ3146-treated vs. reversine-treated embryos. This difference was associated with changes in HIF1A, p53 gene regulation, DNA damage, and fate of euploid and aneuploid cells when embryos were cultured in a hypoxic environment.

Strengths:

In the current study, the authors investigate the fate of aneuploid cells in the preimplantation murine embryo using a specific aneuploidy-inducing compound to generate embryos that were chimeras of euploid and aneuploid cells. The strength of the work is that they investigate the developmental potential and changes in gene expression profiles under normoxic and hypoxic culture conditions. Further, they also assessed how levels of DNA damage and DNA repair are altered in these culture conditions. They also assessed the allocation of aneuploid cells to the divergent cell lineages of the blastocyst stage embryo.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors note that it is challenging to perform diffusion MRI tractography consistently in both humans and macaques, particularly when deep subcortical structures are involved. The scientific advance described in this paper is effectively an update to the tracts that the XTRACT software supports. The changes to XTRACT are soundly motivated in theory (based on anatomical tracer studies) and practice (changes in seeding/masking for tractography).

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The manuscript by Zhang et al describes the use of a protein language model (pLM) to analyse disordered regions in proteins, with a focus on those that may be important in biological phase separation. While the paper is relatively easy to read overall, my main comment is that the authors could perhaps make it clearer which observations are new, and which support previous work using related approaches. Further, while the link to phase separation is interesting, it is not completely clear which data supports the statements made, and this could also be made clearer.

Major comments:

(1) With respect to putting the work in a better context of what has previously been done before, this is not to say that there is not new information in it, but what the authors do is somewhat closely related to work by others. I think it would be useful to make those links more directly. Some examples:

(1a) Alderson et al (reference 71) analysed in detail the conservation of IDRs (via pLDDT, which is itself related to conservation) to show, for example, that conserved residues fold upon binding. This analysis is very similar to the analysis used in the current study (using ESM2 as a different measure of conservation). Thus, the approach (pages 7-8) described as "This distinction allows us to classify disordered regions into two types: "flexible disordered" regions, which show high ESM2 scores and greater mutational tolerance, and "conserved disordered" regions, which display low ESM2 scores, indicating varying levels of mutational constraint despite a lack of stable folding." is fundamentally very similar to that used by Alderson et al. Thus, the result that "Given that low ESM2 scores generally reflect mutational constraint in folded proteins, the presence of region a among disordered residues suggests that certain disordered amino acids are evolutionarily conserved and likely functionally significant" is in some ways very similar to the results of that paper.

(1b) Dasmeh et al (https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/iyab184), Lu et al (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010238) and Ho & Huang (https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.4317) analysed conservation in IDRs, including aromatic residues and their role in phase separation

(1c) A number of groups have performed proteomewide saturation scans using pLMs, including variants of the ESM family, including Meier (reference 89, but cited about something else) and Cagiada et al (https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.21.595203) that analysed variant effects in IDRs using a pLM. Thus, I think statements such as "their applicability to studying the fitness and evolutionary pressures on IDRs has yet to be established" should possibly be qualified.

(2) On page 4, the authors write, "The conserved residues are primarily located in regions associated with phase separation." These results are presented as a central part of the work, but it is not completely clear what the evidence is.

(3) It would be useful with an assessment of what controls the authors used to assess whether there are folded domains within their set of IDRs.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this review, the author covered several aspects of the inflammation response, mainly focusing on the mechanisms controlling leukocyte extravasation and inflammation resolution.

Strengths:

This review is based on an impressive number of sources, trying to comprehensively present a very broad and complex topic.

Weaknesses:

(1) This reviewer feels that, despite the title, this review is quite broad and not centred on the role of the extracellular matrix.

(2) The review will benefit from a stronger focus on the specific roles of matrix components and dynamics, with more informative subheadings.

(3) The macrophage phenotype section doesn't seem well integrated with the rest of the review (and is not linked to the ECM).

(4) Table 1 is difficult to follow. It could be reformatted to facilitate reading and understanding

(5) Figure 2 appears very complex and broad.

(6) Spelling and grammar should be thoroughly checked to improve the readability.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The work used open peer reviews and followed them through a succession of reviews and author revisions. It assessed whether a reviewer had requested the author include additional citations and references to the reviewers' work. It then assessed whether the author had followed these suggestions and what the probability of acceptance was based on the authors decision.

Strengths and weaknesses:

The work's strengths are the in-depth and thorough statistical analysis it contains and the very large dataset it uses. The methods are robust and reported in detail. However, this is also a weakness of the work. Such thorough analysis makes it very hard to read! It's a very interesting paper with some excellent and thought provoking references but it needs to be careful not to overstate the results and improve the readability so it can be disseminated widely. It should also discuss more alternative explanations for the findings and, where possible, dismiss them.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study presents an exploration of PPGL tumour bulk transcriptomics and identifies three clusters of samples (labeled as subtypes C1-C3). Each subtype is then investigated for the presence of somatic mutations, metabolism-associated pathways and inflammation correlates, and disease progression.

The proposed subtype descriptions are presented as an exploratory study. The proposed potential biomarkers from this subtype are suitably caveated, and will require further validation in PPGL cohorts together with a mechanistic study.

The first section uses WGCNA (a method to identify clusters of samples based on gene expression correlations) to discover three transcriptome-based clusters of PPGL tumours.

The second section inspects a previously published snRNAseq dataset, and labels some of the published cells as subtypes C1, C2, C3 (Methods could be clarified here), among other cells labelled as immune cell types. Further details about how the previously reported single-nuclei were assigned to the newly described subtypes C1-C3 require clarification.

The tumour samples are obtained from multiple locations in the body (Figure 1A). It will be important to see further investigation of how the sample origin is distributed among the C1-C3 clusters, and whether there is a sample-origin association with mutational drivers and disease progression.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The manuscript by Zhang et al describes the use of a protein language model (pLM) to analyse disordered regions in proteins, with a focus on those that may be important in biological phase separation. This is an interesting study that supports, complements and extends previous related analyses on the conservation and mutational tolerance of disordered regions, with a particular focus on disordered regions in proteins that are found in condensates.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this descriptive study, Tateishi et al. report a Tn-seq based analysis of genetic requirements for growth and fitness in 8 clinical strains of Mycobacterium intracellulare Mi), and compare the findings with a type strain ATCC13950. The study finds a core set of 131 genes that are essential in all nine strains, and therefore are reasonably argued as potential drug targets. Multiple other genes required for fitness in clinical isolates have been found to be important for hypoxic growth in the type strain.

Strengths:

The study has generated a large volume of Tn-seq datasets of multiple clinical strains of Mi from multiple growth conditions, including from mouse lungs. The dataset can serve as an important resource for future studies on Mi, which despite being clinically significant remains a relatively understudied species of mycobacteria.

Weaknesses:

The primary claim of the study that the clinical strains are better adapted for hypoxic growth is yet to be comprehensively investigated. However, this reviewer thinks such an investigation would require a complex experimental design and perhaps forms an independent study.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The present study evaluates the role of visual experience in shaping functional correlations between human extrastriate visual cortex and frontal regions. The authors used fMRI to assess "resting-state" temporal correlations in three groups: sighted adults, congenitally blind adults, and neonates. Previous research has already demonstrated differences in functional correlations between visual and frontal regions in sighted compared to early blind individuals. The novel contribution of the current study lies in the inclusion of an infant dataset, which allows for an assessment of the developmental origins of these differences.

The main results of the study reveal that correlations between prefrontal and visual regions are more prominent in the blind and infant groups, with the blind group exhibiting greater lateralization. Conversely, correlations between visual and somato-motor cortices are more prominent in sighted adults. Based on these data, the authors conclude that visual experience plays an instructive role in shaping these cortical networks. This study provides valuable insights into the impact of visual experience on the development of functional connectivity in the brain.

Strengths:

The dissociations in functional correlations observed among the sighted adult, congenitally blind, and neonate groups provide strong support for the main conclusion regarding postnatal experience-driven shaping of visual-frontal connectivity.

The inclusion of neonates offers a unique and valuable developmental anchor for interpreting divergence between blind and sighted adults. This is a major advance over prior studies limited to adult comparisons.

Convergence with prior findings in the blind and sighted adult groups reinforces the reliability and external validity of the present results.

The split-half reliability analysis in the infant data increases confidence in the robustness of the reported group differences.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript risks overstating a mechanistic distinction between sighted and blind development by framing visual experience as "instructive" and blindness as "reorganizing." Similarly, the binary framing of visual experience and blindness as independent may oversimplify shared plasticity mechanisms.

The interpretation of changes in temporal correlations as altered neural communication does not adequately consider how shifts in shared variance across networks may influence these measures without reflecting true biological reorganization.

The discussion does not substantively engage with the longstanding debate over whether sensory experience plays an instructive or permissive role in cortical development.

The relationship between resting-state and task-based findings in blindness remains unclear.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The work by Fisher et al describes the role of novel RSPO mimetics in the activation of WNT signaling and hepatocyte regeneration. However, the results of the experiments and weaknesses of the methods used do not support the conclusions of the authors that the new therapy can promote liver regeneration in alcohol-induced liver cirrhosis.

Strengths:

Similarly to its precursor, aASGR1-RSPO2-RA-IgG, SZN-043 can upregulate Wnt target genes and promote hepatocyte proliferation in the liver.

Comments on revisions:

The authors responded to all my comments and concerns.

Joint Public Review:

This study employs single-cell RNA sequencing to investigate how electroacupuncture (EA) stimulation alters the transcriptional profiles of central nervous system cell types following blood-brain barrier (BBB) opening. The authors seek to characterize changes in gene expression and pathway activities across diverse neural cells in response to electroacupuncture (EA) stimulation using high-resolution transcriptomics. This approach has the potential to elucidate the cellular mechanisms underlying EA stimulation and their implications for therapeutic intervention. The work engages with a timely and biologically significant question regarding noninvasive stimulation methods to manipulate BBB permeability. However, no in vivo/in vitro functional assays are provided to validate the changes in BBB permeability or cytokine release in the tested models. The experimental rationale remains inadequately explained, and key details regarding the magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of BBB opening in this system are still lacking.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors analyzed the expression of ATAD2 protein in post-meiotic stages and characterized the localization of various testis-specific proteins in the testis of the Atad2 knockout (KO). By cytological analysis as well as the ATAC sequencing, the study showed that increased levels of HIRA histone chaperone, accumulation of histone H3.3 on post-meiotic nuclei, defective chromatin accessibility and also delayed deposition of protamines. Sperm from the Atad2 KO mice reduces the success of in vitro fertilization. The work was performed well, and most of the results are convincing. However, this manuscript does not suggest a molecular mechanism for how ATAD2 promotes the formation of testis-specific chromatin.

Strengths:

The paper describes the role of ATAD2 AAA+ ATPase in the proper localization of sperm-specific chromatin proteins such as protamine, suggesting the importance of the DNA replication-independent histone exchanges with the HIRA-histone H3.3 axis.

Weaknesses:

(1) Some results lack quantification.

(2) The work was performed well, and most of the results are convincing. However, this manuscript does not suggest a molecular mechanism for how ATAD2 promotes the formation of testis-specific chromatin.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Desveaux et al. describe human mAbs targeting protein from the Pseudomonas aeruginosa T3SS, discovered by employing single cell B cell sorting from cystic fibrosis patients. The mAbs were directed at the proteins PscF and PcrV. They particularly focused on two mAbs binding the T3SS with the potential of blocking activity. The supplemented biochemical analysis was crystal structures of P3D6 Fab complex. They also compared the blocking activity with mAbs that were described in previous studies, using an assay that evaluated the toxin injection. They conducted mechanistic structure analysis and found that these mAbs might act through different mechanisms by preventing PcrV oligomerization and disrupting PcrVs scaffolding function.

The antibiotic resistance crisis requires the development of new solutions to treat infections cause by MDR bacteria. The development of antibacterial mAbs holds great potential. In that context, this report is important as it paves the way for the development of additional mAbs targeting various pathogens that harbor the T3SS. In this report the authors present a comparative study of their discovered mAbs vs. a commercial mAb currently in clinical testing resulting in valuate data with applicative implications. The authors investigated the mechanism of action of the mAbs using advanced methods and assays for characterization of antibody and antigen interaction, underlining the effort to determine the discovered mAbs suitability for downstream application.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors investigated the elasticity of controllability by developing a task that manipulates the probability of achieving a goal with a baseline investment (which they refer to as inelastic controllability) and the probability that additional investment would increase the probability of achieving a goal (which they refer to as elastic controllability). They found that a computational model representing the controllability and elasticity of the environment accounted better for the data than a model representing only the controllability. They also found that prior biases about the controllability and elasticity of the environment was associated with a composite psychopathology score. The authors conclude that elasticity inference and bias guide resource allocation.

Strengths:

This research takes a novel theoretical and methodological approach to understanding how people estimate the level of control they have over their environment, and how they adjust their actions accordingly. The task is innovative and both it and the findings are well-described (with excellent visuals). They also offer thorough validation for the particular model they develop. The research has the potential to theoretically inform understanding of control across domains, which is a topic of great importance.

Weaknesses:

In its revised form, the manuscript addresses most of my previous concerns. The main remaining weakness pertains to the analyses aimed at addressing my suggesting of Bayesian updating as an alternative to the model proposed by the authors. My suggestion was to assume that people perform a form of function approximation to relate resource expenditure to success probability. The authors performed a version of this where people were weighing evidence for a few canonical functions (flat, step, linear), and found that this model underperforms theirs. However, this Bayesian model is quite constrained in its ability to estimate the function relating resources. A more robust test would be to assume a more flexible form of updating that is able to capture a wide range of distributions (e.g., using basis functions, gaussian processes, or nonparametric estimators); see, e.g., work by Griffiths on human function learning). The benefit of testing this type of model is that it would make contact with a known form of inference that individuals engage in across various settings, and therefore could offer a more parsimonious and generalizable account of function learning, whereby learning of resource elasticity is a special case. I defer to the authors as to whether they'd like to pursue this direction, but if not I think it's still important that they acknowledge that they are unable to rule out a more general process like this as an alternative to their model. This also pertains to inferences about individual differences, which currently hinge on their preferred model being the most parsimonious.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study addresses the important question of how top-down cognitive processes affect tactile perception in autism - specifically, in the Fmr1-/y genetic mouse model of autism. Using a 2AFC tactile task in behaving mice, the study investigated multiple aspects of perceptual processing, including perceptual learning, stimulus categorization and discrimination, as well as the influence of prior experience and attention.

Strengths:

The experiments seem well performed, with interesting results. Thus, this study can/will advance our understanding of atypical tactile perception and its relation to cognitive factors in autism.

Weaknesses:

Certain aspects of the analyses (and therefore the results) are unclear, which makes the manuscript difficult to understand. Clearer presentation, with the addition of more standard psychometric analyses, and/or other useful models (like logistic regression) would improve this aspect. The use of d' needs better explanation, both in terms of how and why these analyses are appropriate (and perhaps it should be applied for more specific needs rather than as a ubiquitous measure).

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study generated 3D cell constructs from endometrial cell mixtures that were seeded in the Matrigel scaffold. The cell assemblies were treated with hormones to induce a "window of implantation" (WOI) state. Although many bioinformatic analyses point in this direction, there are major concerns that must be addressed.

Strengths:

The addition of 3 hormones to enhance the WOI state (although not clearly supported in comparison to the secretory state).

Comments on revisions:

The authors did their best to revise their study according to the Reviewers' comments. However, the study remains unconvincing, incomplete and at the same time still too dense and not focused enough.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This manuscript reports a dual-task experiment intended to test whether language prediction relies on executive resources, using surprisal-based measures of predictability and an n-back task to manipulate cognitive load. While the study addresses a question under debate, the current design and modeling framework fall short of supporting the central claims. Key components of cognitive load, such as task switching, word prediction vs integration, are not adequately modeled. Moreover, the weak consistency in replication undermines the robustness of the reported findings. Below unpacks each point.

Cognitive load is a broad term. In the present study, it can be at least decomposed into the following components:

(1) Working memory (WM) load: news, color, and rank.

(2) Task switching load: domain of attention (color vs semantics), sensorimotor rules (c/m vs space).

(3) Word comprehension load (hypothesized against): prediction, integration.

The components of task switching load should be directly included in the statistical models. Switching of sensorimotor rules may be captured by the "n-back reaction" (binary) predictor. However, the switching of attended domains and the interaction between domain switching and rule complexity (1-back or 2-back) were not included. The attention control experiment (1) avoided useful statistical variation from the Read Only task, and (2) did not address interactions. More fundamentally, task-switching components should be directly modeled in both performance and full RT models to minimize selection bias. This principle also applies to other confounding factors, such as education level. While missing these important predictors, the current models have an abundance of predictors that are not so well motivated (see later comments). In sum, with the current models, one cannot determine whether the reduced performance or prolonged RT was due to affecting word prediction load (if it exists) or merely affecting the task switching load.

The entropy and surprisal need to be more clearly interpreted and modeled in the context of the word comprehension process. The entropy concerns the "prediction" part of the word comprehension (before seeing the next word), whereas surprisal concerns the "integration" part as a posterior. This interpretation is similar to the authors writing in the Introduction that "Graded language predictions necessitate the active generation of hypotheses on upcoming words as well as the integration of prediction errors to inform future predictions [1,5]." However, the Results of this study largely ignored entropy (treating it as a fixed effect) and only focus on surprisal without clear justification.

In Table S3, with original and replicated model fitting results, the only consistent interaction is surprisal x age x cognitive load [2-back vs. Reading Only]. None of the two-way interactions can be replicated. This is puzzling and undermines the robustness of the main claims of this paper.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The researchers sought to determine whether Ptbp1, an RNA-binding protein formerly thought to be a master regulator of neuronal differentiation, is required for retinal neurogenesis and cell fate specification. They used a conditional knockout mouse line to remove Ptbp1 in retinal progenitors and analyzed the results using bulk RNA-seq, single-cell RNA-seq, immunohistochemistry, and EdU labeling. Their findings show that Ptbp1 deletion has no effect on retinal development, since no defects were found in retinal lamination, progenitor proliferation, or cell type composition. Although bulk RNA-seq indicated changes in RNA splicing and increased expression of late-stage progenitor and photoreceptor genes in the mutants, and single-cell RNA-seq detected relatively minor transcriptional shifts in Müller glia, the overall phenotypic impact was low. As a result, the authors conclude that Ptbp1 is not required for retinal neurogenesis and development, thus contradicting prior statements about its important role as a master regulator of neurogenesis. They argue for a reassessment of this stated role. While the findings are strong in the setting of the retina, the larger implications for other areas of the CNS require more investigation. Furthermore, questions about potential reimbursement from Ptbp2 warrant further research.

Strengths:

This study calls into doubt the commonly held belief that Ptbp1 is a critical regulator of neurogenesis in the CNS, particularly in retinal development. The adoption of a conditional knockout mouse model provides a reliable way for eliminating Ptbp1 in retinal progenitors while avoiding the off-target effects often reported in RNAi experiments. The combination of bulk RNA-seq, scRNA-seq, and immunohistochemistry enables a thorough examination of molecular and cellular alterations at both embryonic and postnatal stages, which strengthens the study's findings. Furthermore, using publicly available RNA-Seq datasets for comparison improves the investigation of splicing and expression across tissues and cell types. The work is well-organized, with informative figure legends and supplemental data that clearly show no substantial phenotypic changes in retinal lamination, proliferation, or cell destiny, despite identified transcriptional and splicing modifications.

Weaknesses:

The retina-specific method raises questions regarding whether Ptbp1 is required in other CNS locations where its neurogenic roles were first proposed. The claim that Ptbp1 is "fully dispensable" for retinal development may be toned down, given the transcriptional and splicing modifications identified. The possibility of subtle or transitory impacts, such as ectopic neuron development followed by cell death, is postulated, but not completely investigated. Furthermore, as the authors point out, the compensating potential of increased Ptbp2 warrants additional exploration. Although the study performs well in transcriptome and histological analyses, it lacks functional assessments (such as electrophysiological or behavioral testing) to determine if small changes in splicing or gene expression affect retinal function. While 864 splicing events have been found, the functional significance of these alterations, notably the 7% that are neuronal-enriched and the 35% that are rod-specific, has not been thoroughly investigated. The manuscript might be improved by describing how these splicing changes affect retinal development or function.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors aim to elucidate the mechanisms by which grid cells in the medial entorhinal cortex generate predictive representations of spatial location. To address this, they built a computational model integrating intrinsic neuronal dynamics with structured network connectivity. Specifically, they combine a conductance-based single-cell model incorporating biologically realistic HCN channels with a continuous attractor network that reflects known properties of grid cell circuitry. Their simulations show that HCN conductance can shift grid fields forward by approximately 5% of their diameter, consistent with experimental observations in layer II grid cells. Additionally, by introducing asymmetry in the connectivity of interneurons, the model produces larger forward shifts, which parallel properties observed in layer III grid cells. Together, these two mechanisms provide a unified framework for explaining layer-specific predictive coding in the entorhinal cortex.

Strengths:

A major strength of the study lies in its conceptual contribution. The authors propose two distinct mechanisms to generate forward-shifted grid fields for predictive coding. One mechanism is intrinsic and depends on the time constants associated with HCN channels. The other is network-based and results from asymmetries in interneuron connectivity. These two mechanisms correspond to different observed properties of grid cells in layer II and layer III, respectively. The modeling is based on previously validated frameworks of continuous attractor network models (e.g., Burak & Fiete; Kang & DeWeese), but it incorporates several novel features, including the incorporation of biophysically realistic HCN channels, a network architecture that excludes stellate-stellate connections and relies on interneurons, and asymmetric interneuron connectivity.

Weaknesses:

One of the proposed mechanisms for predictive coding, namely asymmetric interneuron connectivity, is a novel idea. However, this type of connectivity has not yet been demonstrated experimentally in the medial entorhinal cortex. Therefore, the biological plausibility of this mechanism remains uncertain and will need to be evaluated in future empirical studies.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper addresses an important and topical issue: how temporal context - at various time scales - affects various psychophysical measures, including reaction times, accuracy and localization. It offers interesting insights, with separate mechanisms for different phenomena, which are well discussed.

Strengths:

The paradigm used is original and effective. The analyses are rigorous.

Comments on revised version:

I think the authors have dealt adequately with my issues, none of which were fundamental.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Zung et al. describes a curated library of genetic lines labeling a class of important neurons called Descending Neurons in the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. These neurons are especially important in their critical role in relaying information from the brain to motor circuits within the ventral nerve cord - the insect analogy of the vertebrate spinal cord. The authors screened through a vast resource of Gal4 lines to generate 500 new genetic lines that allow for the precise labeling of 190 (40%) of all Descending Neurons. The tools introduced here will allow researchers to perform precise circuit dissection of the exact roles these neurons play in linking the brain to the ventral nerve cord.

Strengths:

This manuscript represents an important follow-up to the author's 2018 paper in the extension of the genetic toolkit from 178 genetic lines that target 65 Descending Neuron (DN) classes to 806 lines that target 190 DN classes. The presentation of this toolkit is comprehensive with confocal images, informative classifications of lines based on specificity/consistency, and identification of the neuron types - when possible - in the EM dataset.

Weaknesses:

No weaknesses were identified by this reviewer.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

SARS-CoV-2 encodes a macrodomain (Mac1) within the nsp3 protein that removes ADP-ribose groups from proteins. However, its role during infection is not well understood. Evidence suggests that Mac1 antagonizes the host interferon response by counteracting the wave of ADP ribosylation that occurs during infection. Indeed, several PARPs are interferon-stimulated genes. While multiple targets have been proposed, the mechanistic links between ADP ribosylation and a robust antiviral response remain unclear.

Genetic inactivation of Mac1 abrogates viral replication in vivo, suggesting that small-molecule inhibitors of Mac1 could be developed into antivirals to treat COVID-19 and other emerging coronaviruses. The authors report a potent and selective small molecule inhibitor targeting Mac1 (AVI-4206) that demonstrates efficacy in human airway organoids and animal models of SARS-CoV-2 infection. While these results are compelling and provide proof of concept for the therapeutic targeting of Mac1, I am particularly intrigued by the potential of this compound as a probe to elucidate the mechanistic connections between infection-induced ADP ribosylation and the host antiviral response.

The precise function of Mac1 remains unclear. Given its presence in multiple viruses, it likely acts on a fundamental host immune pathway(s). AVI-4206, while promising as a lead compound for the development of antivirals targeting coronaviruses, could also be a valuable tool for uncovering the function of the Mac1 domain. This may lead to fundamental insights into the host immune response to viral infection.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript, by Xu and Peng, et al. investigates whether co-expression of 2 T cell receptor (TCR) clonotypes can be detected in FoxP3+ regulatory CD4+ T cells (Tregs) and if it is associated with identifiable phenotypic effects. This paper presents data reanalyzing publicly available single-cell TCR sequencing and transcriptional analysis, convincingly demonstrating that dual TCR co-expression can be detected in Tregs, both in peripheral circulation as well as among Tregs in tissues. They then compare metrics of TCR diversity between single-TCR and dual TCR Tregs, as well as between Tregs in different anatomic compartments, finding the TCR repertoires to be generally similar though with dual TCR Tregs exhibiting a less diverse repertoire and some moderate differences in clonal expansion in different anatomic compartments. Finally, they examine the transcriptional profile of dual TCR Tregs in these datasets, finding some potential differences in expression of key Treg genes such as Foxp3, CTLA4, Foxo3, Foxo1, CD27, IL2RA, and Ikzf2 associated with dual TCR-expressing Tregs, which the authors postulate implies a potential functional benefit for dual TCR expression in Tregs.

Strengths:

This report examines an interesting and potentially biologically significant question, given recent demonstrations that dual TCR co-expression is a much more common phenomenon than previously appreciated (approximately 15-20% of T cells) and that dual TCR co-expression has been associated with significant effects on the thymic development and antigenic reactivity of T cells. This investigation leverages large existing datasets of single-cell TCRseq/RNAseq to address dual TCR expression in Tregs. The identification and characterization of dual TCR Tregs is rigorously demonstrated and presented, providing convincing new evidence of their existence.

Weaknesses:

The existence of dual TCR expression by Tregs has previously been demonstrated in mice and humans, limiting the novelty of the reported findings. The presented results should be considered in the context of these prior important findings. The focus on self-citation of their previous work, using the same approach to measure dual TCR expression in other datasets. limits the discussion of other more relevant and impactful published research in this area. Also, Reference #7 continues to list incorrect authors. The authors do not present a balanced or representative description of the available knowledge about either dual TCR expression by T cells or TCR repertoires of Tregs.

The approach used follows a template used previously by this group for re-analysis of existing datasets generated by other research groups. The descriptions and interpretations of the data as presented are still shallow, lacking innovative or thoughtful approaches that would potentially be innovation or provide new insight.

This demonstration of dual TCR Tregs is notable, though the authors do not compare the frequency of dual TCR co-expression by Tregs with non-Tregs. This limits interpreting the findings in the context of what is known about dual TCR co-expression in T cells. The response to this criticism in a previous review is considered non-responsive and does not improve the data or findings.

Comparison of gene expression by single- and dual TCR Tregs is of interest, but as presented is difficult to interpret. The interpretations of the gene expression analyses are somewhat simplistic, focusing on single-gene expression of some genes known to have function in Tregs. However, the investigators continue to miss an opportunity to examine larger patterns of coordinated gene expression associated with developmental pathways and differential function in Tregs (Yang. 2015. Science. 348:589; Li. 2016. Nat Rev Immunol. Wyss. 2016. 16:220; Nat Immunol. 17:1093; Zenmour. 2018. Nat Immunol. 19:291). No attempt to define clusters is made. No comparison is made of the proportions of dual TCR cells in transcriptionally-defined clusters. The broad assessment of key genes by single- and dual TCR cells is conceptually interesting, but likely to be confounded by the heterogeneity of the Treg populations. This would need to be addressed and considered to make any analyses meaningful.

The study design, re-analysis of existing datasets generated by other scientific groups, precludes confirmation of any findings by orthogonal analyses.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This work proposes a new approach to analyse cell-count data from multiple brain regions. Collecting such data can be expensive and time-intensive, so, more often than not, the dimensionality of the data is larger than the number of samples. The authors argue that Bayesian methods are much better suited to correctly analyse such data compared to classical (frequentist) statistical methods. They define a hierarchical structure, partial pooling, in which each observation contributes to the population estimate to more accurately explain the variance in the data. They present two case studies in which their method proves more sensitive in identifying regions where there are significant differences between conditions, which otherwise would be hidden.

Strengths:

The model is presented clearly, and the advantages of the hierarchical structure are strongly justified. Two alternative ways are presented to account for the presence of zero counts. The first involves the use of a horseshoe prior, which is the more flexible option, while the second involves a modified Poisson likelihood, which is better suited to datasets with a large number of zero counts, perhaps due to experimental artifacts. The results show a clear advantage of the Bayesian method for both case studies.<br /> The code is freely available, and it does not require a high-performance cluster to execute for smaller datasets. As Bayesian statistical methods become more accessible in various scientific fields, the whole scientific community will benefit from the transition away from p-values. Hierarchical Bayesian models are an especially useful tool that can be applied to many different experimental designs. However, while conceptually intuitive, their implementation can be difficult. The authors provide a good framework with room for improvement.

Weaknesses:

As with any Bayesian model, the choice of prior can significantly influence the results. The authors explain how the methodology can be adapted to different data properties, though selecting an appropriate prior or likelihood may not always be straightforward. They propose a 'standard workflow' as an alternative to traditional approaches, which could and should be used alongside established methods while Bayesian techniques continue to evolve and improve.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary

Xu et al. use transcriptomic comparisons of mouse cochlear and vestibular hair to show that the vestibular hair cells alone are enriched in gene expression for proteins necessary for cilia motility and to further argue that such motility is a normal function of the kinocilia.

Background:

Cilia are prominent in sensory receptors, including vertebrate photoreceptors, olfactory neurons, and mechanosensitive hair cells of the inner ear and lateral line. Cilia can be motile or nonmotile depending on their axonemal structure: motile cilia require dynein and the inner 2 singlet microtubules of the 9+2 array. Primary cilia, present early in development, are considered to have sensory functions and to be nonmotile (Mill et al., Nature Rev Gen 2023).

In hair cells, the kinocilium anchors and polarizes the mechanosensitive hair bundle of specialized microvilli. The kinocilium matures from the primary cilium of a newborn hair cell; behind it, the bundle of mechanosensory microvilli rises in a descending staircase of rows. During maturation of the mammalian cochlea, all hair cells lose the kinocilium, though not the associated basal body. The consensus for many years has been that most vertebrate kinocilia, and especially mammalian kinocilia, are nonmotile, based largely on the lack of spontaneous motility in excised mammalian vestibular organs, but also on the impression that the rare examples of spontaneous beating motility even in non-mammalian hair cells are associated with deterioration of the preparation (Rüsch & Thurm 1990).

Strengths

In comparing RNA expression across the 4 major types of mouse hair cells - 2 cochlear and 2 vestibular - Xu et al. noted that some ciliary genes related to motility are expressed by vestibular but not cochlear hair cells. They curated the ciliary genes into types known to be associated with different aspects of beating motility, and also investigated the expression of genes typical of primary cilia, which are considered to have sensory and cell signaling functions and to be nonmotile. They add immunostaining to back up some of the RNA data, and also evaluate relative expression by neonatal mouse cochlear and vestibular hair cells from a published dataset. The focus on kinociliary genes is an appropriate use of the comparative expression data for cochlear and vestibular hair cells, and the paper overall is readable and interesting. The transcriptome data are rounded off by comparing the authors' results in adult hair cells with published neonatal mouse cochlear and vestibular transcriptomes.

Weaknesses:

(1) Data:

a) The main weakness in the data is the lack of functional and anatomical data from mouse hair bundles. While the authors compensate in part for this difficulty with bullfrog crista bundles, those data are also fragmentary - one TEM and 2 exemplar videos. Much of the novelty of the EM depends on the different appearance of stretches of a single kinocilium - can we be sure of the absence of the central microtubule singlets at the ends?

b) While it was a good idea to compare ciliary motility expression in published P2 datasets for mouse cochlear and vestibular hair cells for comparison with the authors' adult hair cell data, the presentation is too superficial to assess (Figure 6C-E; text from line 336) - it is hard to see the basis for concluding that motility genes are specifically lower in P2 cochlear hair cells than vestibular hair cells. Visually, it is striking that CHCs have much darker bands for about 10 motility-related genes.

(2) Interpretation:

The authors take the view that kinociliary motility is likely to be normally present but is rare in their observations because the conditions are not right. But while others have described some (rare) kinociliary motility in fish organs (Rusch & Thurm 1990), they interpreted its occurrence as a sign of pathology. Indeed, in this paper, it is not clear, or even discussed, how kinociliary motility would help with mechanosensitivity in mature hair bundles. Rather, the presence of an autonomous rhythm would actively interfere with generating temporally faithful representations of the head motions that drive vestibular hair cells.

Could kinociliary beating play other roles, possibly during development - for example, by interacting with forming accessory structures (but see Whitfield 2020) or by activating mechanosensitivity cell-autonomously, before mature stimulation mechanisms are in place? Then a latent capacity to beat in mature vestibular hair cells might be activated by stressful conditions, as speculated regarding persistent Piezo channels that are normally silent in mature cochlear hair cells but may reappear when TMC channel gating is broken (Beurg and Fettiplace 2017). While these are highly speculative thoughts, there is a need in the paper for more nuanced consideration of whether the observed motility is normal and what good it would do.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aim to explore the effects of the electrogenic sodium-potassium pump (Na+/K+-ATPase) on the computational properties of highly active spiking neurons, using the weakly-electric fish electrocyte as a model system. Their work highlights how the pump's electrogenicity, while essential for maintaining ionic gradients, introduces challenges in neuronal firing stability and signal processing, especially in cells that fire at high rates. The study identifies compensatory mechanisms that cells might use to counteract these effects, and speculates on the role of voltage dependence in the pump's behavior, suggesting that Na+/K+-ATPase could be a factor in neuronal dysfunctions and diseases

Strengths:

(1) The study explores a less-examined aspect of neural dynamics-the effects of Na+/K+-ATPase electrogenicity. It offers a new perspective by highlighting the pump's role not only in ion homeostasis but also in its potential influence on neural computation.

(2) The mathematical modeling used is a significant strength, providing a clear and controlled framework to explore the effects of the Na+/K+-ATPase on spiking cells. This approach allows for the systematic testing of different conditions and behaviors that might be difficult to observe directly in biological experiments.

(3) The study several interesting compensatory mechanisms, such as sodium leak channels and extracellular potassium buffering, which provide useful theoretical frameworks for understanding how neurons maintain firing rate control despite the pump's effects.

Comments on revisions:proposes

The revised manuscript is notably improved.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors developed a sequence-based method to predict drug-interacting residues in IDP, based on their recent work, to predict the transverse relaxation rates (R2) of IDP trained on 45 IDP sequences and their corresponding R2 values. The discovery is that the IDPs interact with drugs mostly using aromatic residues that are easy to understand, as most drugs contain aromatic rings. They validated the method using several case studies, and the predictions are in accordance with chemical shift perturbations and MD simulations. The location of the predicted residues serves as a starting point for ligand optimization.

Strengths:

This work provides the first sequence-based prediction method to identify potential drug-interacting residues in IDP. The validity of the method is supported by case studies. It is easy to use, and no time-consuming MD simulations and NMR studies are needed.

Weaknesses:

The method does not depend on the information of binding compounds, which may give general features of IDP-drug binding. However, due to the size and chemical structures of the compounds (for example, how many aromatic rings), the number of interacting residues varies, which is not considered in this work. Lacking specific information may restrict its application in compound optimization, aiming to derive specific and potent binding compounds.

Comments on revised version:

I'm satisfied with the authors' response and the public review does not need further changes.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors explore a novel mechanism linking aging to chromosome mis-segregation and aneuploidy in yeast cells. They reveal that, in old yeast mother cells, chromosome loss occurs through asymmetric partitioning of chromosomes to daughter cells, a process coupled with the inheritance of an old Spindle Pole Body. Remarkably, the authors identify that remodeling of the nuclear pore complex (NPC), specifically the displacement of its nuclear basket, triggers these asymmetric segregation events. This disruption also leads to the leakage of unspliced pre-mRNAs into the cytoplasm, highlighting a breakdown in RNA quality control. Through genetic manipulation, the study demonstrates that removing introns from key chromosome segregation genes is sufficient to prevent chromosome loss in aged cells. Moreover, promoting pre-mRNA leakage in young cells mimics the chromosome mis-segregation observed in old cells, providing further evidence for the critical role of nuclear envelope integrity and RNA processing in aging-related genome instability.

Strengths:

The findings presented are not only intriguing but also well-supported by robust experimental data, highlighting a previously unrecognized connection between nuclear envelope integrity, RNA processing, and genome stability in aging cells, deepening our understanding of the molecular basis of chromosome loss in aging.

Weaknesses:

The authors have satisfactorily addressed my concerns.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors demonstrate with a simple stochastic model that the initial composition of the community is important in achieving a target frequency during the artificial selection of a community.

Strengths:

To my knowledge, the intra-collective selection during artificial selection has not been seriously theoretically considered. However, in many cases, the species dynamics during the incubation of each selection cycle is important and relevant to the outcome of the artificial selection experiment. Stochasticity from birth and death (demographic stochasticity) plays a big role in these species' abundance dynamics. This work uses a simple framework to tackle this idea meticulously.

This work may or may not be related to hysteresis (path dependency). If this is true, maybe it would be nice to have a discussion paragraph talking about how this may be the case. Then, this work would even attract the interest of people studying dynamical systems.

Weaknesses:

(1) Connecting structure and function.<br /> In typical artificial selection literature, most of them select the community based on collective function. Here in this paper, the authors are selecting a target composition. Although there is a schematic cartoon illustrating the relationship between collective function (y-axis) and the community composition in the main figure 1, there is no explicit explanation or justification of what may be the origin of this relationship. I think giving the readers a naïve idea about how this structure-function relationship arises in the introduction section would help. This is because the conclusion of this paper is that the intra-collective selection makes it hard to artificially select for a community that has an intermediate frequency of f (or s). If there is really evidence or theoretical derivation from this framework that indeed the highest function comes from the intermediate frequency of f, then the impact of this paper would increase because the conclusions of this stochastic model could allude to the reasons for the prevalent failures of artificial selection in literature.

(2) Explain intra-collective and inter-collective selection better for readers.<br /> The abstract, the introduction, and the result section use these terms or intra-collective and inter-collective selection without much explanation. For the wide readership of eLife, a clear definition in the beginning would help the audience grasp the importance of this paper, because these concepts are at the core of this work.

(3) Achievable target frequency strongly depending on the degree of demographic stochasticity.<br /> I would expect that the experimentalists would find these results interesting and would want to consider these results during their artificial selection experiments. The main figure 4 indicates that the Newborn size N0 is a very important factor to consider during the artificial selection experiment. This would be equivalent to how much bottleneck you impose on the artificial selection process in every iteration step (i.e., the ratio of serial dilution experiment). However, with a low population size, all target frequencies can be achieved, and therefore in these regimes, the initial frequency now does not matter much. It would be great for the authors to provide what the N0 parameter actually means during the artificial selection experiments. Maybe relative to some other parameter in the model. I know this could be very hard. But without this, the main result of this paper (initial frequency matters) cannot be taken advantage of by the experimentalists.

(4) Consideration of environmental stochasticity.<br /> The success (gold area of Figure 2d) in this framework mainly depends on the size of the demographic stochasticity (birth-only model) during the intra-collective selection. However, during experiments, a lot of environmental stochasticity appears to be occurring during artificial selection. This may be out of the scope of this study. But it would definitely be exciting to see how much environmental stochasticity relative to the demographic stochasticity (variation in the Gaussian distribution of F and S) matters in succeeding in achieving the target composition from artificial selection.

(5) Assumption about mutation rates<br /> If setting the mutation rates to zero does not change the result of the simulations and the conclusion, what is the purpose of having the mutation rates \mu? Also, is the unidirectional (S -> F -> FF) mutation realistic? I didn't quite understand how the mutations could fit into the story of this paper.

(6) Minor points<br /> In Figure 3b, it is not clear to me how the frequency difference for the Intra-collective and the Inter-collective selection is computed.<br /> In Figure 5b, the gold region (success) near the FF is not visible. Maybe increase the size of the figure or have an inset for zoom-in. Why is the region not as big as the bottom gold region?

Comments on revisions:

I thank the authors for addressing many points raised by the reviewers. Overall, the readability of the manuscript has improved with more context provided around why they were solving this specific problem. However, I've found many of the responses to be too terse. It would have been nicer if there had been more discussion and description of the thought process that led up to the conclusions they made for each comment or question. Instead, many of the responses only showed the screenshot of the text they added.

Most of my comments or questions were answered. Below are my comments on some of the authors' responses.

(2) Explain intra-collective and inter-collective selection better for readers.<br /> In the Abstract and Introduction, you've added more sentences about the intra-collective or inter-collective selection. However, these are either making analogies to the waterfall or just describing the result of the intra/inter-collective selection. I would still appreciate a proper definition of those terms, which is paramount for readers to understand the entire paper.

(4) Consideration of environmental stochasticity.<br /> I think providing the reason 'why' the paper focuses on demographic stochasticity and not environmental stochasticity will greatly justify the paper's work. For example, citing papers that actually performed artificial selection and pointing out that your model captures the stochasticity from those kinds of experiments would be great.

(5) Assumption about mutation rates.<br /> It would be great if you could add a citation in the added sentence to support your claim: "This scenario is encountered in biotechnology: .....".

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The present work studies the coevolution of HIV-1 and the immune response in clinical patient data. Using the Marginal Path Likelihood (MPL) framework, they infer selection coefficients for HIV mutations from time-series data of virus sequences as they evolve in a given patient.

Strengths:

The authors analyze data from two human patients, consisting of HIV population sequence samples at various points in time during the infection. They inferred selection coefficients from the observed changes in sequence abundance using MPL. Most beneficial mutations appear in viral envelop proteins. The authors also analyze SHIV samples in rhesus macaques, and find selection coefficients that are compatible with those found in the corresponding human samples.

The manuscript is well written and organized.

Comments on revisions:

In their revised version the authors have addressed most of these points satisfactorily.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Ever since the surprising discovery of the membrane-associated Periodic Skeleton (MPS) in axons, a significant body of published work has been aimed at trying to understand its assembly mechanism and function. Despite this, we still lack a mechanistic understanding of how this amazing structure is assembled in neuronal cells. In this article, the authors report a "gap-and-patch" pattern of labelled spectrin in iPSC-derived human motor neurons grown in culture. The mid-sections of these axons exhibit patches with reasonably well-organized MPS that are separated by gaps lacking any detectable MPS and having low spectrin content. Further, they report that the intensity modulation of spectrin is correlated with intensity modulations of tubulin as well. However, neurofilament fluorescence does not show any correlation. Using DIC imaging, the authors show that often the axonal diameter remains uniform across segments, showing a patch-gap pattern. Gaps are seen more abundantly in the midsection of the axon, with the proximal section showing continuous MPS and the distal segment showing continuous spectrin fluorescence but no organized MPS. The authors show that spectrin degradation by caspase/calpain is not responsible for gap formation, and the patches are nascent MPS domains. The gap and patch pattern increases with days in culture and can be enhanced by treating the cells using the general kinase inhibitor staurosporine. Treatment with the actin depolymerizing agent Latrunculin A reduces gap formation. The reasons for the last two observations are not well understood/explained.

Strengths:

The claims made in the paper are supported by extensive imaging work and quantification of MPS. Overall, the paper is well written and the findings are interesting. Although much of the reported data are from axons treated with staurosporine, this may be a convenient system to investigate the dynamics of MPS assembly, which is still an open question.

Weaknesses:

Much of the analysis is on staurosporine-treated cells, and the effects of this treatment can be broad. The increase in patch-gap pattern with days in culture is intriguing, and the reason for this needs to be checked carefully. It would have been nice to have live cell data on the evolution of the patch and gap pattern using a GFP tag on spectrin. The evolution of individual patches and possible coalescence of patches can be observed even with confocal microscopy if live cell super-resolution observation is difficult.

Some more comments:

(1) Axons can undergo transient beading or regularly spaced varicosity formation during media change if changes in osmolarity or chemical composition occur. Such shape modulations can induce cytoskeletal modulations as well (the authors report modulations in microtubule fluorescence). The authors mention axonal enlargements in some instances. Although they present DIC images to argue that the axons showing gaps are often tubular, possible beading artefacts need to be checked. Beading can be transient and can be checked by doing media changes while observing the axons on a microscope.

(2) Why do microtubules appear patchy? One would imagine the microtubule lengths to be greater than the patch size and hence to be more uniform.

(3) Why do axons with gaps increase with days in culture? If patches are nascent MPS that progressively grow, one would have expected fewer gaps with increasing days in culture. Is this indicative of some sort of degeneration of axons?

(4) It is surprising that Latrunculin A reduces gap formation induced by staurosporine (also seems to increase MPS correlation) while it decreases actin filament content. How can this be understood? If the idea is to block actin dynamics, have the authors tried using Jasplakinolide to stabilize the filaments?

(5) The authors speculate that the patches are formed by the condensation of free spectrins, which then leaves the immediate neighborhood depleted of these proteins. This is an interesting hypothesis, and exploring this in live cells using spectrin-GFP constructs will greatly strengthen the article. Will the patch-gap regions evolve into continuous MPS? If so, do these patches expand with time as new spectrin and actin are recruited and merge with neighboring patches, or can the entire patch "diffuse" and coalesce with neighboring patches, thus expanding the MPS region?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors describe a massively parallel reporter assays (MPRA) screen focused at identifying polymorphisms in 5' and 3' UTRs that affect translation efficiency and thus might have a functional impact on cells. The topic is of timely interest, and indeed, several related efforts have recently been published and preprinted (e.g., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37516102/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10635273/). This study has several major issues with the results and their presentation.

Major comments:

• The main issue remains that it appears that the screen has largely failed, and the reasons for that remain unclear, which make it difficult to interpret how useful is the resulting data. The authors mention batch effects as a potential contributor. The authors start with a library that includes ~6,000 variants, which makes it a medium-size MPRA. But then, only 483 pairs of WT/mutated UTRs yield high confidence information, which is already a small number for any downstream statistical analysis, particularly since most don't actually affect translation in the reporter screen setting (which is not unexpected). It is unclear why >90% of the library did not give high-confidence information. The profiles presented as base-case examples in Fig. 2B don't look very informative or convincing. All the subsequent analysis is done on a very small set of UTRs that have an effect, and it is unclear to this reviewer how these can yield statistically significant and/or biologically-relevant associations.

• From the variants that had an effect, the authors go on to carry out some protein-level validations, and see some changes, but it is not clear if those changes are in the same direction was observed in the screen. In their rebuttal the authors explain that they largely can not infer directionality of changes form the screen, which further limits its utility.

• It is particularly puzzling how the authors can build a machine learning predictor with >3,000 features when the dataset they use for training the model has just a few dozens of translation-shifting variants.

Comments on revisions:

It appears that the authors have extracted the information they could from the problematic dataset they obtained. Repeating the experiments in a cleaner setting, obtaining data for the >6000 UTRs they intended will allow the authors to achieve the goals they set out to achieve in establishing the screen.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In their current study, Cummings et al have approached this fundamental biochemical problem using a combination of purified enzyme-substrate reactions, MS/MS and microscopy in vitro to provide key insights into the hierarchy of generating polyglycylation in cilia and flagella. They first establish that TTLL8 is a monoglycylase, with the potential to add multiple mono glycine residues on both α- and β-tubulin. They then go on to establish that the monoglycylation is essential for TTLL10 binding and catalytic activity, which progressively reduces as the level of polyglycylation increases. This provides an interesting mechanism of how level of polyglycylation is regulated in the absence of a deglycylase. Finally, the authors also establish that for efficient TTLL10 activity, it is not just monoglycylation, but also polyglutamylation that is necessary, giving a key insight into how both these modifications interact with each other to ensure there is a balanced level of PTMs on the axonemes for efficient cilia function.

Strengths:

The manuscript is well written, and experiments are succinctly planned and outlined. The experiments used provide the conclusions to what the authors were hypothesising and provide some new novel possible mechanistic insights into the whole process of regulation of tubulin glycylation in motile cilia.

Weaknesses:

There were some weaknesses in the initial submission of the manuscript, but the authors have addressed these in their revised version either by giving clear explanations in the text or through additional experiments.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Mou and Ji investigate the relationship between firing rates in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and CA1 neurons during observational learning. They found trajectory-selective responses in the ACC, coordinated activity between ACC and CA1 place cells for specific trajectories, and reactivation of these ensembles during sharp-wave ripples (SWRs), particularly during hippocampal replay events. The study is methodologically sound, the data are clearly presented, and the conclusions are well supported. The work is both novel and highly relevant to our understanding of social learning. Compared to the previous version of the paper, they have added substantial characterization of neuronal properties related to their firing during the task and replay events. I believe that the authors have therefore addressed most of my concerns and recommend the paper for publication as is.

Strengths:

The study is well designed, the data presented is very clear and the conclusions are appropriate regarding their results. The study is novel and of high relevance for the understanding of social learning.

Weaknesses:

All previous weaknesses have been addressed.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript presents a deep learning framework for predicting T cell receptor (TCR) binding to antigens (peptide-MHC) using a combination of data augmentation techniques to address class imbalance in experimental datasets, and introduces both peptide-specific and pan-specific models for TCR-MHC-I binding prediction. The authors leverage a large, curated dataset of experimentally validated TCR-MHC-I pairs and apply a data augmentation strategy based on generative modeling to generate new TCR sequences. The approach is evaluated on benchmark datasets, and the resulting models demonstrate improved accuracy and robustness.

Strengths:

The most significant contribution of the manuscript lies in its data augmentation approach to mitigate class imbalance, particularly for rare but immunologically relevant epitope classes. The authors employ a generative strategy based on two deep learning architectures:

(1) a Restricted Boltzmann Machine (RBM) and

(2) a BERT-based language model, which is used to generate new CDR3B sequences of TCRs that are used as synthetic training data for creating a class balance of TCR-pMHC binding pairs.

The distinction between peptide-specific (HLA allele-specific) and pan-specific (generalized across HLA alleles) models is well-motivated and addresses a key challenge in immunogenomics: balancing specificity and generalizability. The peptide-specific models show strong performance on known HLA alleles, which is expected, but the pan-specific model's ability to generalize across diverse HLA types, especially those not represented in training, is critical.

Weaknesses:

The paper would benefit from a more rigorous analysis of the biological validity of the augmented data. Specifically, how do the synthetic CDR3B sequences compare to real CDR3B in terms of sequence similarity, motif conservation? The authors should provide a quantitative assessment (via t-SNE or UMAP projections) of real vs. augmented sequences, or by measuring the overlap in known motif positions, before and after augmentation. Without such validation, the risk of introducing "hallucinated" sequences that distort model learning remains a concern. Moreover, it would strengthen the argument if the authors demonstrated that performance gains are not merely due to overfitting on synthetic data, but reflect genuine generalization to unseen real data. Ultimately, this can only be performed through elaborate experimental wet-lab validation experiments, which may be outside the scope of this study.

While generative modeling for sequence data is increasingly common, the choice of RBM, which is a relatively older architecture, could benefit from stronger justification, especially given the emergence of more powerful and scalable alternatives (e.g., ProGen, ESM, or diffusion-based models). While BERT was used, it will be valuable in the future to explore other architectures for data augmentation.

The manuscript would be more compelling if the authors performed a deeper analysis of the pan-specific model's behavior across HLA supertypes and allele groups. Are the learned representations truly "pan" or merely a weighted average of the most common alleles? The authors should assess whether the pan-specific model learns shared binding motifs (anchor residue preferences) and whether these features are interpretable through attention maps. A failure to identify such patterns would raise concerns about the model's interpretability and biological relevance.

The exclusive focus on CDR3β for TCR modeling is biologically problematic. TCRs are heterodimers composed of α and β chains, and both CDR1, CDR2, and CDR3 regions of both chains contribute to antigen recognition. The CDR3β loop is often more diverse and critical, but CDR3α and the CDR1/2 loops also play significant roles in binding affinity and specificity. By generating only CDR3B sequences and not modeling the full TCR αβ heterodimer, the authors risk introducing a systematic bias toward β-chain-dominated recognition, which will not reflect the full complexity of TCR-peptide-MHC interactions.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Guin and colleagues establish a microscopy-based CRISPR screen to find new factors involved in global chromatin organization. As a proxy of global chromatin organization, they use centromere clustering in two different cell lines. They find 52 genes whose CRISPR depletion leads to centromere clustering defects in both cell lines. Using cell cycle synchronisation, they demonstrate that centromeres-redistribution upon depletion of these hits necessitates cell cycle progression through mitosis.

Strengths:

This manuscript explores the mechanisms of global chromatin organization, which is a scale of chromatin organization that remains poorly understood. The imaging-based CRISPR screen is very elegant, and the use of appropriate positive and negative controls reinforces the solidity of the findings.

Weaknesses:

Although the data are generally solid and well interpreted, a control showing that protein depletion works properly in cell-cycle arrested cells is lacking, both when using siRNAs and degron-based depletion.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Multiple waves of follicles have been proven to exist in multiple species, and different waves of follicles contribute differently to oogenesis and fertility. This work characterizes the wave 1 follicles in mouse comprehensively and compares different waves of follicles regarding their cellular and molecular features. Elegant mouse genetics methods are applied to provide lineage tracing of the wave 1 folliculogenesis, together with sophisticated microscopic imaging and analyses. Single-cell RNA-seq is further applied to profile the molecular features of cells in mouse ovaries from week 2 until week 6. While extensive details about the wave 1 follicles, especially the atresia process, are provided, the authors also identified another group of follicles located in the medullary-cortical boundary, which could also be labeled by the FoxL2-mediated lineage tracing method. The "boundary" or "wave 1.5" follicles are proposed by the authors to be the earliest wave 2 follicles, which contribute to the early fertility of puberty mice, instead of the wave 1 follicles, which undergo atresia with very few oocytes generated. The wave 1 follicle atresia, which degrades most oocytes, on the other hand, expands the number of theca cells and generates the interstitial gland cells in the medulla, where the wave 1 follicles are located. These gland cells likely contribute to the generation of androgen and estrogen, which shape oogenesis and animal development. By comparing scRNA-seq data from cells collected from week 2 until week 6 ovaries, the author profiled the changes in numbers of different cells and identified key genes that differ between wave 1 and wave 2 follicles, which could potentially be another driver of different waves of folliculogenesis. In summary, the authors provide a high amount of new results with good quality that illustrate the molecular and cellular features of different waves of mouse follicles, which could be further reused by other researchers in related fields. The findings related to the boundary follicles could potentially bring many new findings related to oogenesis.

This paper is overall well-written with solid and intriguing conclusions that are well supported. The reviewer only has some minor comments for the authors' consideration that could potentially help with the readability of the paper.

(1) The authors identify the wave 1.5 follicles at the medullary-cortex boundary, which begin to develop shortly after 2 weeks. Since the authors already collected scRNA-seq data from week 2 until week 6, could any special gene expression patterns be identified that make wave 1.5 follicle cells different from wave 1 and wave 2?

(2) Are Figures 1C and 1E Z projections from multiple IF slices? If so, please provide representative IF slice(s) from Figures 1C and 1E and clearly label wave 1 and wave 2 follicles to better illustrate how the wave 1 follicles are clarified and quantified.

(3) For Figure 3D, please also provide an image showing the whole ovary section, like in Figures 3A and 3C, to better illustrate the localization and abundance of different cells.

(4) In Figure 4H, expressions of HSD3B1 and PLIN1 seem to be detected in almost all medulla cells. Does this mean all medulla cells gain gland cell features? Or there is only a subset of the medulla cells that are actively expressing these 2 proteins. Please provide image(s) with higher magnification to show more clearly how the expression of these 2 proteins differs among different cells.

(5) Figure 5: The authors discussed cell number changes for different types of cells from week 2 to week 6. A table, or some plots, visualizing numbers of different cell types, instead of just providing original clusters in Dataset S6, at different time points, would make the changes easier to observe.

(6) Figure S7: It would be more helpful to directly show the number of wave 1 follicles.

(7) Did the fluorescence cryosection staining (Line 587 - 595) use the same buffers as in the whole-mount staining (Line 575 - 586)? Please clarify.

(8) In Line 618, what tissue samples were collected? Please point out clearly.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have conducted the largest to date Mendelian Randomization (MR) analysis of the association between genetically predicted measures of adiposity and risk of head and neck cancer (HNC) overall and by subsites within HNC. MR uses genetic predictors of an exposure, such as gene variants associated with high BMI or tobacco use, rather than data from individual physical exams or questionnaires and if it can be done in its idealized state, there should be no problems with confounding. Traditional epidemiologic studies have reported a variety of associations between BMI (and a few other measures of adiposity) and risk of HNC that typically differs by the smoking status of the subjects. Those findings are controversial given the complex relationship between tobacco and both BMI and HNC risk. Tobacco smokers are often thinner than no-smokers so this could create an artificial ('confounded') association that may not be fully adjusted away in risk models. The findings of a BMI-HNC association are often attributed to residual confounding and this seems ripe for an MR approach if suitable genetic instrumental variables can be created. Here the authors built a variety of genetic instrumental variables for BMI and other measures of adiposity as well as two instrumental variables for smoking habits and then tested their hypotheses in a large case-controls set of HNC and controls with genetic data.

The authors found that the genetic model for BMI was associated with HNC risk in simple models, but this association disappeared when using models that better accounted for pleiotropy, the condition when genetic variants are associated with more than one trait such as both BMI and tobacco use. When they used both adiposity and tobacco use genetic instruments in a single model, there was a strong association with genetically predicted tobacco use (as is expected) but there was no remaining association with genetic predictors of adiposity. They conclude that high BMI/adiposity is not a risk factor for HNC.

Strengths:

The primary strength was the expansive use of a variety of different genetic instruments for BMI/adiposity/body size along with employing a variety of MR model types, several of which are known to be less sensitive to pleiotropy. They also used the largest case-control sample size to date.

Weaknesses:

The lack of pleiotropy is an unconfirmable assumption of MR and the addition of those models is therefore quite important as this is a primary weakness of the MR approach. Given that concern, I read the sensitivity analyses using pleiotropy-robust models as the main result and in that case, they are more limited in their ability to test their hypothesis as these models do not show a robust BMI instrumental variable association.

Comments on the revised manuscript:

After the first round of review, the authors have improved the manuscript by (1) adding the requested power calculations and adding text to help the reader integrate that additional information; (2) adding the main effects for the tobacco instruments; (3) updating the comparison of their results to the prior literature; (4) and some other edits to the text. They have declined to include the smoking stratified estimates and provide a rationale for this decision that references the potential for collider bias. While true that yet another bias might be introduced, that gets added to the list and the careful reader would know that. Many important questions in cancer etiology can only be addressed via observational approaches and each observational approach has the potential for a long list of biases. The best inference comes from integrating the totality of the data and realizing that most conclusions are subject to updating as we conduct more work and learn more.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors use high-throughput gene editing technology in larval zebrafish to address whether microexons play important roles in the development and functional output of larval circuits. They find that individual microexon deletions rarely impact behavior, brain morphology, or activity, and raise the possibility that behavioral dysregulation occurs only with more global loss of microexon splicing regulation. Other possibilities exist: perhaps microexon splicing is more critical for later stages of brain development, perhaps microexon splicing is more critical in mammals, or perhaps the behavioral phenotypes observed when microexon splicing is lost are associated with loss of splicing in only a few genes.

Strengths:

- The authors provide a qualitative analysis of microexon inclusion during early zebrafish development

- The authors provide comprehensive phenotyping of microexon mutants, addressing the role of individual microexons in the regulation of brain morphology, activity, and behavior.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study aims to elucidate the mechanisms by which stress-induced α2A-adrenergic receptor (α2A-AR) internalization leads to cytosolic noradrenaline (NA) accumulation and subsequent neuronal dysfunction in the locus coeruleus (LC). While the manuscript presents an interesting but ambitious model involving calcium dynamics, GIRK channel rundown, and autocrine NA signaling, several key limitations undermine the strength of the conclusions.

First, the revision does not include new experiments requested by reviewers to validate core aspects of the mechanism. Specifically, there is no direct measurement of cytosolic NA levels or MAO-A enzymatic activity to support the link between receptor internalization and neurochemical changes. The authors argue that such measurements are either not feasible or beyond the scope of the study, leaving a significant gap in the mechanistic chain of evidence.

Second, the behavioral analysis remains insufficient to support claims of cognitive impairment. The use of a single working memory test following an anxiety test is inadequate to verify memory dysfunction behaviors. Additional cognitive assays, such as the Morris Water Maze or Novel Object Recognition, are recommended but not performed.

Third, concerns regarding the lack of rigor in differential MAO-A expression in fluorescence imaging were not addressed experimentally. Instead of clarifying the issue, the authors moved the figure to supplementary data without providing further evidence (e.g., an enzymatic assay or quantitative reanalysis of Western blot, or re-staining of IF for MAO-A) to support their interpretation.

Fourth, concerns regarding TH staining remain unresolved. In Figure S7, the α2A-AR signal appears to resemble TH staining, and vice versa, raising the possibility of labeling errors. It is recommended that the authors re-examine this issue by either double-checking the raw data or repeating the immunostaining to validate the staining.

Overall, the manuscript offers a potentially interesting framework but falls short in providing the experimental rigor necessary to establish causality. The reliance on indirect reasoning and reorganizing existing data, rather than generating new evidence, limits the overall impact and interpretability of the study.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors previously reported that Heliconius, one genus of the Heliconiini butterflies, evolved to be efficient foragers to feed pollen of specific plants and have massively expanded mushroom bodies. Using the same image dataset, the authors segmented the central complex and associated brain regions and found that the volume of the central complex relative to the rest of the brain is largely conserved across the Heliconiini butterflies. By performing immunostaining to label a specific subset of neurons, the authors found several potential sites of evolutionary divergence in the central complex neural circuits, including the number of GABAergic ellipsoid body ring neurons and the innervation patterns of Allatostatin A expressing neurons in the noduli. These neuroanatomical data will be helpful to guide future studies to understand the evolution of the neural circuits for vector-based navigation.

Strengths:

The authors used a sufficiently large scale of dataset from 307 individuals of 41 species of Heliconiini butterflies to solidify the quantitative conclusions and present new microscopy data for fine neuroanatomical comparison of the central complex.

Weaknesses:

(1) Although the figures display a concise summary of anatomical findings, it would be difficult for non-experts to learn from this manuscript to identify the same neuronal processes in the raw confocal stacks. It would be helpful to have instructive movies to show a step-by-step guide for identification of neurons of interest, segmentations, and 3D visualizations (rotation) for several examples, including ER neurons (to supplement texts in line 347-353) and Allatostatin A neurons.

(2) Related to (1), it was difficult for me to assess if the data in Figure 7 support the author's conclusions that ER neuron number increased in Heliconius Melpomene. By my understanding, the resolution of this dataset isn't high enough to trace individual axons and therefore authors do not rule out that the portion of "ER ring neurons" in Heliconius may not innervate the ER, as stated in Line 635 "Importantly, we also found that some ER neurons bypass the ellipsoid body and give rise to dense branches within distinct layers in the fan-shaped body (ER-FB)". If they don't innervate the ellipsoid body, why are they named as "ER neurons"?

(3) Discussions around the lines 577-584 require the assumption that each ellipsoid body (EB) ring neuron typically arborises in a single microglomerulus to form a largely one-to-one connection with TuBu neurons within the bulb (BU), and therefore, the number of BU microglomeruli should provide an estimation of the number of ER neurons. Explain this key assumption or provide an alternative explanation.

(4) The details of antibody information are missing in the Key resource table. Instead of citing papers, list the catalogue numbers and identifier for commercially available antibodies, and describe the antigen, and whether they are monoclonal or polyclonal. Are antigens conserved across species?

(5) I did not understand why authors assume that foraging to feed on pollens is a more difficult cognitive task than foraging to feed on nectar. Would it be possible that they are equally demanding tasks, but pollen feeding allows Heliconius to pass more proteins and nucleic acids to their offspring and therefore they can develop larger mushroom bodies?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors theoretically address the topic of interface resistance between a phase-separated condensate and the surrounding dilute phase. In a nutshell, "interface resistance" occurs if material in the dilute phase can only slowly pass through the interface region to enter the dense phase. There is some evidence from FRAP experiments that such a resistance may exist, and if it does, it could be biologically relevant insofar as the movement of material between dense and dilute phases can be rate-limiting for biological processes, including coarsening. The current study theoretically addresses interface resistance at two levels of description: first, the authors present a simple way of formulating interface resistance for a sharp interface model. Second, they derive a formula for interface resistance for a finite-width interface and present two scenarios where the interface resistance might be substantial.

Strengths:

The topic is of broad relevance to the important field of intracellular phase separation, and the work is overall credible.

Weaknesses:

There are a few problems with the study as presented - mainly that the key formula for the latter section has already been derived and presented in Reference 6 (notably also in this journal), and that the physical basis for the proposed scenarios leading to a large interface resistance is not clearly supported.

(1) As noted, Equation 32 of the current study is entirely equivalent to Equation 8 of Reference 6, with a very similar derivation presented in Appendix 1 of that paper. In fact, Equation 8 in Reference 6 takes one more step by combining Equations 32 and 35 to provide a general expression for the interface resistance in an integral form. These prior results should be properly cited in the current work - the existing citations to Reference 6 do not make this overlap apparent.

(2) The authors of the current study go on to examine cases where this shared equation (here Equation 32) might imply a large interface resistance. The examples are mathematically correct, but physically unsupported. In order to produce a substantial interface resistance, the current authors have to suppose that in the interface region between the dense and dilute phases, either there is a local minimum of the diffusion coefficient or a local minimum of the density. I am not aware of any realistic model that would produce either of these minima. Indeed, the authors do not present sufficient examples or physical arguments that would support the existence of such minima.

In my view, these two issues limit the general interest of the latter portion of the current manuscript. While point 1 can be remedied by proper citation, point 2 is not so simple to address. The two ways the authors present to produce a substantial interface resistance seem to me to be mathematical exercises without a physical basis. The manuscript will improve if the authors can provide examples or compelling arguments for a minimum of either diffusion coefficient or density between the dense and dilute phases that would address point 2.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to examine how the covariation between cognition (represented by a g-factor based on 12 features of 11 cognitive tasks) and mental health (represented by 133 diverse features) is reflected in MR-based neural markers of cognition, as measured through multimodal neuroimaging (structural, rsfMRI, and diffusion MR). To integrate multiple neuroimaging phenotypes across MRI modalities, they used a so-called stacking approach, which employs two levels of machine learning. First, they built a predictive model from each neuroimaging phenotype to predict a target variable. Next, in the stacking level, they used predicted values (i.e., cognition predicted from each neuroimaging phenotype) from the first level as features to predict the target variable. To quantify the contribution of the neural indicators of cognition explaining the relationship between cognition and mental health, they conducted commonality analyses. Results showed that when they stacked neuroimaging phenotypes within dwMRI, rsMRI, and sMRI, they captured 25.5%, 29.8%, and 31.6% of the predictive relationship between cognition and mental health, respectively. By stacking all 72 neuroimaging phenotypes across three MRI modalities, they enhanced the explanation to 48%. Age and sex shared substantial overlapping variance with both mental health and neuroimaging in explaining cognition, accounting for 43% of the variance in the cognition-mental health relationship.

Strengths:

(1) A big study population (UK Biobank with 14000 subjects).

(2) The description of the methods (including Figure 1) is helpful in understanding the approach.

(3) This revised manuscript is much improved compared to the previous version.

Weaknesses:

(1) Although the background and reason for the study are better described in this version of the manuscript, the relevance of the question is, in my opinion, still questionable. The authors aimed to determine whether neural markers of cognition explain the covariance between cognition and mental health and which of the 72 MRI-based features contribute to explaining most of the covariance. I would like to invite the authors to make a stronger case for the relevance, keeping the clinical and scientific relevance in mind (what would you explain to the clinician, what would you explain to the people with lived experience, and how can this knowledge contribute to innovation in mental health care?).

(2) The discussion on the interpretation of the positive and negative PLRS loadings is not very convincing, and the findings are partly counterintuitive. For example (1) how to explain that distress has a positive loading and anxiety/trauma has a negative loading?; (2) how to explain that mental health features like wellbeing and happiness load in the same direction as psychosis and anxiety/trauma? From both a clinical and a neuroscientific perspective, this is hard to interpret.

(3) The analysis plan has not been preregistered (e.g. at OSF).

Note: the computational aspects of the methods fall beyond my expertise.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The experiment is interesting and well executed and describes in high detail fish behaviour in thermally stratified waters. The evidence is strong but the experimental design cannot distinguish between temperature and vertical position of the treatments.

Strengths:

High statistical power, solid quantification of behaviour.

Weaknesses:

A major issue with the experimental design is the vertical component of the experiment. Many thermal preference and avoidance experiments are run using horizontal division in shuttlebox systems or in annular choice flumes. These remove the vertical stratification component so that hot and cold can be compared equally, without the vertical layering as a confounding factor. The method chosen, with its vertical stratification, is inherently unable to control for this effect because warm water is always above, and cold water is always below. This complicates the interpretations.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Egawa et al describe the developmental timeline of the assembly of nodes of Ranvier in the chick brainstem auditory circuit. In this unique system, the spacing between nodes varies significantly in different regions of the same axon from early stages, which the authors suggest is critical for accurate sound localization. Egawa et al set out to determine which factors regulate this differential node spacing. They do this by using immunohistological analyses to test the correlation of node spacing with morphological properties of the axons, and properties of oligodendrocytes, glial cells that wrap axons with the myelin sheaths that flank the nodes of Ranvier. They find that axonal structure does not vary significantly, but that oligodendrocyte density and morphology varies in the different regions traversed by these axons, which suggests this is a key determinant of the region-specific differences in node density and myelin sheath length. They also find that differential oligodendrocyte density is partly determined by secreted neuronal signals, as (presumed) blockage of vesicle fusion with tetanus toxin reduced oligodendrocyte density in the region where it is normally higher. Based on these findings, the authors propose that oligodendrocyte morphology, myelin sheath length, and consequently nodal distribution are primarily determined by intrinsic oligodendrocyte properties rather than neuronal factors such as activity.

Major comments:

(1) The authors should test the efficiency of TeNT to validate that vesicular release is indeed inhibited from expressing neurons. Additionally, the authors should clarify if their TeNT expression system results in the whole tract being silenced, or results in sparse vesicular release inhibition in only a few neurons.

(2) The authors should revise their statistical analyses throughout, and supply additional information to explain the rationale for the statistical tests used, including e.g. data normality, paired sampling, number of samples/independent biological replicates.

(3) The main finding of the study is that the density of nodes differs between two regions of the chicken auditory circuit, probably due to morphological differences in the respective oligodendrocytes. Can the authors discuss if this finding is likely to be specific to the avian auditory circuit?

(4) The study shows a correlation between node spacing and oligodendrocyte density, but the authors did not manipulate oligodendrocyte density per se (i.e. cell-autonomously). The authors should either include such experiments, or discuss their value in supporting the interpretation of their results.

(5) The authors should discuss very pertinent prior studies, in particular to contextualize their findings with (a) known neuron-autonomous modes of node formation prior to myelination, (b) known effects of vesicular fusion directly on myelinating capacity and oligodendrogenesis, (c) known correlation of myelin length and thickness with axonal diameter, (d) regional heterogeneity in the oligodendrocyte transcriptome.

Significance:

In our view the study tackles a fundamental question likely to be of interest to a specialized audience of cellular neuroscientists. This descriptive study is suggestive that in the studied system, oligodendrocyte density determines the spacing between nodes of Ranvier, but further manipulations of oligodendrocyte density per se are needed to test this convincingly.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a high-quality and extensive study that reveals differences in the self-assembly properties of the full set of 109 human death fold domains (DFDs). Distributed amphifluoric FRET (DAmFRET) is a powerful tool that reveals the self-assembly behaviour of the DFDs, in non-seeded and seeded contexts, and allows comparison of the nature and extent of self-assembly. The nature of the barriers to nucleation is revealed in the transition from low to high AmFRET. Alongside analysis of the saturation concentration and protein concentration in the absence of seed, the subset of proteins that exhibited discontinuous transitions to higher-order assemblies was observed to have higher concentrations than DFDs that exhibited continuous transitions. The experiments probing the ~20% of DFDs that exhibit discontinuous transition to polymeric form suggest that they populate a metastable, supersaturated form in the absence of cognate signal. This is suggestive of a high intrinsic barrier to nucleation.

Strengths:

The differences in self-assembly behaviour are significant and likely identify mechanistic differences across this large family of signalling adapter domains. The work is of high quality, and the evidence for a range of behaviours is strong. This is an important and useful starting point since the different assembly mechanisms point towards specific cellular roles. However, understanding the molecular basis for these differences will require further analysis.

An impressive optogenetic approach was engineered and applied to initiate self-assembly of CASP1 and CASP9 DFDs, as a model for apoptosome initiation in these two DFDs with differing continuous or discontinuous assembly properties. This comparison revealed clear differences in the stability and reversibility of the assemblies, supporting the hypothesis that supersaturation-mediated DFD assembly underlies signal amplification in at least some of the DFDs.

The study reveals interesting correlations between supersaturation of DFD adapters in short- and long-lived cells, suggestive of a relationship between the mechanism of assembly and cellular context. Additionally, the comprehensive nature of the study provides strong evidence that the interactions are almost all homomeric or limited to members of the same DFD subfamily or interaction network. Similar approaches with bacterial proteins from innate immunity operons suggest that their polymerisation may be driven by similar mechanisms.

Weaknesses:

Only a limited investigation of assembly morphology was conducted by microscopy. There was a tendency for discontinuous structures to form fibrillar structures and continuous to populate diffuse or punctate structures, but there was overlap across all categories, which is not fully explored. The methodology used to probe oligomeric assembly and stability (SDD-AGE) does not justify the conclusions drawn regarding stability and native structure within the assemblies.

The work identifies important differences between DFDs and clearly different patterns of association. However, most of the detailed analysis is of the DFDs that exhibit a discontinuous transition, and important questions remain about the majority of other DFDs and why some assemblies should be reversible and others not, and about the nature of signalling arising from a continuous transition to polymeric form.

Some key examples of well-studied DFDs, such as MyD88 and RIPK,1 deserve more discussion, since they display somewhat surprising results. More detailed exploration of these candidates, where much is known about their structures and the nature of the assemblies from other work, could substantiate the conclusions here and transform some of the conclusions from speculative to convincing.

The study concludes with general statements about the relationship between stochastic nucleation and mortality, which provide food for thought and discussion but which, as they concede, are highly speculative. The analogies that are drawn with batteries and privatisation will likely not be clearly understood by all readers. The authors do not discuss limitations of the study or elaborate on further experiments that could interrogate the model.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This work shows that a specific adenosine deaminase protein in Dictyostelium generates the ammonia that is required for tip formation during Dictyostelium development. Cells with an insertion in the adgf gene aggregate but do not form tips. A remarkable result, shown by several different ways, is that the adgf mutant can be rescued by exposing the mutant to ammonia gas. The authors also describe other phenotypes of the adgf mutant such as increased mound size, altered cAMP signaling, and abnormal cell type differentiation. It appears that the adgf mutant has defects the expression of a large number of genes, resulting in not only the tip defect but also the mound size, cAMP signaling, and differentiation phenotypes.

Strengths:

The data and statistics are excellent.

Weaknesses:

The key weakness is understanding why the cells bother to use a diffusible gas like ammonia as a signal to form a tip and continue development. The rescue of the mutant by adding ammonia gas to the entire culture indicates that ammonia conveys no positional information within the mound. By the time the cells have formed a mound, the cells have been starving for several hours, and desperately need to form a fruiting body to disperse some of themselves as spores, and thus need to form a tip no matter what. One can envision that the local ammonia concentration is possibly informing the mound that some minimal number of cells are present (assuming that the ammonia concentration is proportional to the number of cells), but probably even a miniscule fruiting body would be preferable to the cells compared to a mound. This latter idea could be easily explored by examining the fate of the adgf cells in the mound - do they all form spores? Do some form spores? Or perhaps the ADGF is secreted by only one cell type, and the resulting ammonia tells the mound that for some reason that cell type is not present in the mound, allowing some of the cells to transdifferentiate into the needed cell type. Thus elucidating if all or some cells produce ADGF would greatly strengthen this puzzling story.

Comments on revisions:

Looks better, but I think you answered my questions (listed as weaknesses in the public review) in the reply to the reviewer but not in the paper. I'd suggest carefully thinking about my questions and addressing them in the Discussion. You did however do all of the things in the paper that were listed as "Recommendations for the authors"

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper sets out to examine the social recognition abilities of a 'solitary' jumping spider species. It demonstrates that based on vision alone spiders can habituate and dishabituate to the presence of conspecifics. The data support the interpretation that these spiders can distinguish between conspecifics on the basis of their appearance.

Strengths:

The study presents two experiments. The second set of data recapitulates the findings of the first experiment with a independent set of spiders, highlighting the strength of the results. The study also uses a highly quantitative approach to measuring relative interest between pairs of spiders based on their distance.

Weaknesses:

The study design is overly complicated, while missing key controls, and the data presented in the figures are not clearly connected to study. The discussion is challenging to understand and appears to make unsupported conclusions.

(1) Study design: The study design is rather complicated and as a result it is difficult to interpret the results. The spiders are presented with the same individual twice in a row, called a habituation trial. Then a new individual is presented twice in a row. The first of these is a dishabituation trial and the second another habituation trial (but now habituating to a second individual). This done with three pairings and then this entire structure is repeated over three sessions. The data appear to show the strong effects of differences between habituation and dishabituation trials in the first session. The decrease in differential behavior between the so-called habituation and dishabituation trials in sessions 2 and 3 are explained as a consequence of the spiders beginning to habituate in general to all of the individuals. The claim that the spiders remember specific individuals is somewhat undercut because all of the 'dishabituation' trials in session 2 are toward spiders they already met for 14 minute previously but seemingly do not remember in session 2. In session 3 it is ambiguous what is happening because the spiders no longer differentiate between the trial types. This could be due to fatigue or familiarity. A second experiment is done to show that introducing a totally novel individual, recovers a large dishabituation response, suggesting that the lack of differences between 'habituation' and 'dishabituation' trials in session 3 is the result of general habituation to all of the spiders in the session rather than fatigue. As mentioned before, these data do support the claim that the spiders differentiate among individuals.

The data from session 1 are easy to interpret. The data from sessions 2 and 3 are harder to understand, but these are the trials in which they meet an individual again after a substantial period of separation. Other studies looking at recognition in ants and wasps (cited by the authors) have done a 4 trial design in which focal animal A meets B in the first trial, then meet C in the second trial, meets B again in the third trial, and then meets D in the last trial. In that scenario trials 1, 2 and 4 are between unfamiliar individuals and trial 3 is between potentially familiar individuals. In both the ants and wasps, high aggression is seen in species with and without recognition on trial 1, with low aggression specifically for trials with familiar individuals in species with recognition. Across different tests, species or populations that lack recognition have shown a general reduction in aggression towards all individuals that becomes progressively less aggressive over time (reminiscent of the session 2 and 3 data) while others have maintained modest levels of aggression across all individuals. The 4 session design used in those other studies provides an unambiguous interpretation of the data, while controlling for 'fatigue'. That all trials in sessions 2 and 3 are always with familiar individuals make it challenging to understand how much the spiders are habituating to each other versus having some kind of associative learning of individual identity and behavior.

The data presentation is also very complicated. How is it the case that a negative proportion of time is spent? The methods reveal that this metric is derived by comparing the time individuals spent in each region relative to the previous time they saw that individual. At the very least, data showing the distribution of distances from the wall would be much easier to interpret for the reader.

(2) "Long-term social memory": It is not entirely clear what is meant by the authors when they say 'long-term social memory', though typically long-term memory refers to a form of a memory that require protein synthesis. While the precise timing of memory formation varies across species and contexts, a general rule is that long term memory should last for > 24 hours (e.g., Dreier et al 2007 Biol Letters). The longest time that spider are apart in this trial set up is something like an hour. There is no basis to claim that spiders have long term social memory as they are never asked to remember anyone after a long time apart. The odd phrasing of the 'long-term dishabutation' trial makes it seem that it is testing a long-term memory, but it is not. The spiders have never met. The fact that they are very habituated to one set of stimuli and then respond to a new stimulus is not evidence of long-term memory. To clearly test memory (which is the part really lacking from the design), the authors would need to show that spiders - upon the first instance of re-encountering a previously encountered individual are already 'habituated' to them but not to some other individuals. The current data suggest this may be the case, but it is just very hard to interpret given the design does not directly test memory of individuals in a clear and unambiguous manner.

(3) Lack of a functional explanation and the emphasis on 'asociality': It is entirely plausible that recognition is pleitropic byproduct of the overall visual cognition abilities in the spiders. However, the discussion that discounts territoriality as a potential explanation is not well laid out. First, many species that are 'asocial' nevertheless defend territories. It is perhaps best to say such species are not group living, but they have social lives because they encounter conspecifics and need to interact with them. Indeed, there are many examples of solitary living species that show the dear enemy effect, a form of individual recognition, towards familiar territorial neighbors. The authors in this case note that territorial competition is mediated by the size of color of the chelicerae (seemingly a trait that could be used to distinguish among individuals). Apparently because previous work has suggested that territorial disputes can be mediated by a trait in the absence of familiarity has led them to discount the possibility that keeping track of the local neighbors in a potentially cannibalistic species could be a sufficient functional reason. In any event, the current evidence presented certainly does not warrant discounting that hypothesis.

Comments on Revision:

The authors have not actually addressed my points and their comments conflate discrimination with recognition. The extensive discussion about how babies are tested for discrimination tasks in their rebuttal misses the point. I believe that the data do show that the spiders discriminate between individuals but whether individuals are recognized (i.e., remembered) is less clear. The authors defend their convoluted study design, but it is overly complex and challenging to interpret the data as a result.

The main issue with the design is that they do not actually test for any kind of memory of specific individuals after a substantial time of separation. Instead they show that a new individuals is still surprising/dishabituating. That is nice evidence for discrimination but does not show memory in a clear and unambiguous way.

My comments and critique are unchanged since they didn't really change the paper. New experiments were needed and they didn't do any. Perhaps it is hard to get the spiders where they are? I don't really understand why they didn't do additional experiments as part of this revision.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aim to explore how interdisciplinarity and internationalization-two increasingly prominent characteristics of scientific publishing-have evolved over the past century. By constructing entropy-based indices from a large-scale bibliometric dataset (OpenAlex), they examine both long-term trends and recent dynamics in these two dimensions across a selection of leading disciplinary and multidisciplinary journals. Their goal is to identify field-specific patterns and structural shifts that can inform our understanding of how science has become more globally collaborative and intellectually integrated.

Strengths and Weaknesses:

The paper's primary strength lies in its comprehensive temporal scope and use of a rich, openly available dataset covering over 56 million articles. The interdisciplinary and internationalization indices are well-founded and allow meaningful comparisons across fields and time. Moreover, the distinction between disciplinary and multidisciplinary journals adds valuable nuance. However, some methodological choices, such as the use of a 5-year sliding window to compute trend values, are insufficiently justified and under-explained. The paper also does not fully address disparities in data coverage across disciplines and time, which may affect the reliability of historical comparisons. Finally, minor issues in grammar and clarity reduce the overall polish of the manuscript.

Evaluation of Findings:

Overall, the authors have largely succeeded in achieving their stated aims. The findings-such as the sharp rise in internationalization in fields like Physics, and the divergence in interdisciplinarity trends across disciplines-are clearly presented and generally well-supported by the data. The authors effectively demonstrate that scientific journals have not followed a uniform trajectory in terms of structural evolution. However, greater clarity in trend estimation methods and better acknowledgment of dataset limitations would help to further substantiate the conclusions and enhance their generalizability.

Impact and Relevance:

This study makes a timely and meaningful contribution to the fields of scientometrics, sociology of science, and science policy. Its combination of scale, historical depth, and field-level comparison offers a useful framework for understanding changes in scientific publishing practices. The entropy-based indicators are simple yet flexible, and the use of open bibliometric data enhances reproducibility and accessibility for future research. Policymakers, journal editors, and researchers interested in publication dynamics will likely find this work informative, and its methods could be applied or extended to other structural dimensions of scholarly communication.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This work investigated whether cytoplasmic poroelastic properties play an important role in cellular mechanical response over length scales and time scales relevant to cell physiology. Overall, the manuscript concludes that intracellular cytosolic flows and pressure gradients are important for cell physiology and that they act of time- and length-scales relevant to mechanotransduction and cell migration.

Strengths:

Their approach integrates both computational and experimental methods. The AFM deformation experiments combined with measuring z-position of beads is a challenging yet compelling method to determine poroelastic contributions to mechanical realization.

The work is quite interesting and will be of high value to the field of cell mechanics and mechanotransduction.

Weaknesses:

The weaknesses I noted earlier were adequately addressed in the revised version.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The study presents significant findings on the role of mitochondrial depletion in axons and its impact on neuronal proteostasis. It effectively demonstrates how the loss of axonal mitochondria and elevated levels of eIF2β contribute to autophagy collapse and neuronal dysfunction. The use of Drosophila as a model organism and comprehensive proteome analysis adds robustness to the findings.

In this revision, the authors have responded thoughtfully to previous concerns. In particular, they have addressed the need for a quantitative analysis of age-dependent changes in eIF2β and eIF2α. By adding western blot data from multiple time points (7 to 63 days), they show that eIF2β levels gradually increase until middle age, then decline. In milton knockdown flies, this pattern appears shifted, supporting the idea that mitochondrial defects may accelerate aging-related molecular changes. These additions clarify the temporal dynamics of eIF2β and improve the overall interpretation.

Other updates include appropriate corrections to figures and quantification methods. The authors have also revised some of their earlier mechanistic claims, presenting a more cautious interpretation of their findings.

Overall, this work provides new insights into how mitochondrial transport defects may influence aging-related proteostasis through eIF2β. The manuscript is now more convincing, and the revisions address the main points raised earlier. I find the updated version much improved.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Zhang and colleagues examine neural representations underlying abstract navigation in the entorhinal cortex (EC) and hippocampus (HC) using fMRI. This paper replicates a previously identified hexagonal modulation of abstract navigation vectors in abstract space in EC in a novel task involving navigating in a conceptual Greeble space. In HC, the authors claim to identify a three-fold signal of the navigation angle. They also use a novel analysis technique (spectral analysis) to look at spatial patterns in these two areas and identify phase coupling between HC and EC. Finally, the authors propose an EC-HPC PhaseSync Model to understand how the EC and HC construct cognitive maps. While the wide array of techniques used is impressive and their creativity in analysis is admirable, overall, I found the paper a bit confusing and unconvincing. I recommend a significant rewrite of their paper to motivate their methods and clarify what they actually did and why. The claim of three-fold modulation in HC, while potentially highly interesting to the community, needs more background to motivate why they did the analysis in the first place, more interpretation as to why this would emerge in biology, and more care taken to consider alternative hypotheses seeped in existing models of HC function. I think this paper does have potential to be interesting and impactful, but I would like to see these issues improved first.

General comments:

(1) Some of the terminology used does not match the terminology used in previous relevant literature (e.g., sinusoidal analysis, 1D directional domain).

(2) Throughout the paper, novel methods and ideas are introduced without adequate explanation (e.g., the spectral analysis and three-fold periodicity of HC).

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The aim of the experiment reported in this paper is to examine the nature of the representation of a template of an upcoming target. To this end, participants were presented with compound gratings (consisting of tilted to the right and tilted to the left lines) and were cued to a particular orientation - red left tilt or blue right tilt (counterbalanced across participants). There two directly compared conditions: (i) no ping: where there was a cue, that was followed by a 5.5-7.5s delay, then followed by a target grating in which the cued orientation deviated from the standard 45 degrees; and (ii) ping condition in which all aspects were the same with the only difference that a ping (visual impulse presented for 100ms) was presented after the 2.5 seconds following the cue. There was also a perception task in which only the 45 degrees to the right or to the left lines were presented. It was observed that during the delay, only in the ping condition, were the authors able to decode orientation of the to be reported target using the cross-task generalization. Attention decoding, on the other hand, was decoded in both ping and non-ping conditions. It is concluded that the visual system has two different functional states associated with a template during preparation: a predominantly non-sensory representation for guidance and a latent sensory-like for prospective stimulus processing.

Strengths:

There is so much to be impressed with in this report. The writing of the manuscript is incredibly clear. The experimental design is clever and innovative. The analysis is sophisticated and also innovative -the cross-task decoding, the use of Mahalanobis distance as a function of representational similarity, the fact that the question is theoretically interesting, the excellent figures.

Comments on revisions:

I have no further comments.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study evaluates whether species can shift geographically, temporally, or both ways in response to climate change. It also teases out the relative importance of geographic context, temperature variability, and functional traits in predicting the shifts. The study system is large occurrence datasets for dragonflies and damselflies split between two time periods and two continents. Results indicate that more species exhibited both shifts than one or the other (or neither), and that geographic context and temperature variability were more influential than traits. The results have implications for future analyses (e.g. incorporating habitat availability) and for choosing winner and loser species under climate change. The results also seem to support climate vulnerability assessments for species that rely on geographic range size and geospatial climate data layers rather than more detailed information (like demographic rates, abundances, or traits) that may not be so readily available. The methodology would be useful for other taxa and study regions with strong participatory ("citizen") science and extensive occurrence data.

Strengths:

This is an organized and well written paper that builds on a popular topic and moves it forward. It has the right idea and approach, and the results are useful answers to the predictions and for conservation planning (i.e. identifying climate winners and losers). There is technical proficiency and analytical rigor driven by an understanding of the data and its limitations.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript explores behavioral responses of C. elegans to hydrogen sulfide, which is known to exert remarkable effects on animal physiology in a range of contexts. The possibility of genetic and precise neuronal dissection of responses to H2S motivates the study of responses in C. elegans. The revised manuscript does not seem to have significantly addressed what was lacking in the initial version.

The authors have added further characterization of possible ASJ sensing of H2S by calcium imaging but ASJ does not appear to be directly involved. Genetic and parallel analysis of O2 and CO2 responsive pathways do not reveal further insights regarding potential mechanisms underlying H2S sensing. Gene expression analysis extends prior work. Finally, the authors have examined how H2S-evoked locomotory behavioral responses are affected in mutants with altered stress and detoxification response to H2S, most notably hif-1 and egl-9. These data, while examining locomotion, are more suggestive that observed effects on animal locomotion are secondary to altered organismal toxicity as opposed to specific behavioral responedse

Overall, the manuscript provides a wide range of intriguing observations, but mechanistic insight or a synthesis of disparate data is lacking.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The revised manuscript addresses several reviewer concerns, and the study continues to provide useful insights into how ZIP10 regulates zinc homeostasis and zinc sparks during fertilization in mice. The authors have improved the clarity of the figures, shifted emphasis in the abstract more clearly to ZIP10, and added brief discussion of ZIP6/ZIP10 interactions and ZIP10's role in zinc spark-calcium oscillation decoupling. However, some critical issues remain only partially addressed.

(1) Oocyte health confound: The use of Gdf9-Cre deletes ZIP10 during oocyte growth, meaning observed defects could result from earlier disruptions in zinc signaling rather than solely from the absence of zinc sparks at fertilization. The authors acknowledge this and propose transcriptome profiling as a future direction. However, since mRNA levels often do not accurately reflect protein levels and activity in oocytes, transcriptomics may not be particularly informative in this context. Proteomic approaches that directly assess the molecular effects of ZIP10 loss seem more promising. Although current sensitivity limitations make proteomics from small oocyte samples challenging, ongoing improvements in this area may soon allow for more detailed mechanistic insights.

(2) ZIP6 context and focus: The authors clarified the abstract to emphasize ZIP10, enhancing narrative clarity. This revision is appropriate and appreciated.

(3) Follicular development effects: The biological consequences of ZIP6 and ZIP10 knockout during folliculogenesis are still unknown. The authors now say these effects will be studied in the future, but this still leaves a major mechanistic gap unaddressed in the current version.

(4) Zinc spark imaging and probe limitations: The addition of calcium imaging enhances the clarity of Figure 3. However, zinc fluorescence remains inadequate, and the authors depend solely on FluoZin-3AM, a dye known for artifacts and limited ability to detect subcellular labile zinc. The suggestion that C57BL/6J mice may differ from CD1 in vesicle appearance is plausible but does not fully address concerns about probe specificity and resolution. As the authors acknowledge, future studies with more selective probes would increase confidence in both the spatial and quantitative analysis of zinc dynamics.

(5) Mechanistic insight remains limited: The revised discussion now recognizes the lack of detailed mechanistic understanding but does not significantly expand on potential signaling pathways or downstream targets of ZIP10. The descriptive data are useful, but the inability to pinpoint how ZIP10 mediates zinc spark regulation remains a key limitation. Again, proteomic profiling would probably be more informative than transcriptomic analysis for identifying ZIP10-dependent pathways once technical barriers to low-input proteomics are overcome.

Overall, the authors have reasonably revised and clarified key points raised by reviewers, and the manuscript now reads more clearly. However, the main limitation, lack of mechanistic insight and the inability to distinguish between developmental and fertilization-stage roles of ZIP10, remains unresolved. These should be explicitly acknowledged when framing the conclusions.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study builds on earlier work showing that early-life odor exposure can trigger glial-mediated pruning of specific olfactory neuron terminals in Drosophila. Moving from indirect to direct functional imaging, the authors show that pruning during a narrow developmental window leads to long-lasting suppression of odor responses in one neuron type (Or42a) but not another (Or43b). The combination of calcium and voltage imaging with connectomic analysis is a strength, though the voltage imaging results are less straightforward to interpret and may not reflect synaptic output changes alone.

Strengths:

Biologically, one of the main strengths of this work is the direct comparison between two odor-responsive OSN types that differ in their long-term adaptation to early-life odor exposure. While Or42a OSNs undergo pruning and remain persistently suppressed into late adulthood, Or43b OSNs, which also respond to the same odor, show little lasting change. This contrast not only underscores the cell-type specificity of critical-period plasticity but also points to a potential role of inhibitory network architecture in determining susceptibility. The persistence of the Or42a suppression well beyond the developmental window provides compelling evidence that early glia-mediated pruning can imprint a stable, life-long functional state on selected sensory channels. By situating these functional outcomes within the context of detailed connectomic data, the study offers a framework for linking structural connectivity to long-term sensory coding stability or vulnerability.

Weaknesses:

The narrative begins with the absence of changes in PN dendrites and axons. While this establishes specificity, it is a relatively weak starting point compared to the novel OSN functional results. Calcium imaging with GCaMP, though widely used, is an indirect measure of synaptic function, and reduced signals could reflect changes in non-synaptic calcium influx as well as release probability. The interpretation of the voltage imaging results is also unclear: if suppression were solely due to impaired synaptic release, one might expect action potential-evoked voltage signals to remain unchanged. The reported changes raise the possibility of deficits in action potential initiation or propagation, which would shift the mechanistic explanation.

The difference between Or42a and Or43b OSNs is attributed to varying inhibitory input densities from connectome data, but this remains speculative without functional tests such as manipulating GABA receptor expression in OSNs. In Or43b, there is essentially no strong phenotype, making it premature to ascribe the absence of suppression solely to inhibitory connectivity. Finally, the study does not connect circuit-level changes to behavioral outcomes; assays of odor-guided attraction or discrimination could place the findings in an organismal context. Some introduction material overlaps with the authors' 2024 paper, and the novelty of the present study could be signposted more clearly.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors performed an in-depth analysis of three mouse strains with different levels of susceptibility to metabolic disease. Transcriptomics analyses of relevant deep tissues revealed many strain-specific differences in response to diet. They used gene set enrichment analysis to highlight possible biological pathways that may be involved in obesity and its metabolic consequences. These results were then confirmed using public data in both mice and humans.

Strengths:

Overall, this is an interesting study into the biological basis of differing phenotypic outcomes in response to metabolic challenges. The findings uncover several pathways that may shed light on the etiology of obesity and the associated health risks, as well as offer potential therapeutic avenues to prevent them.

Weaknesses:

While the experimental design and analysis are mostly good, some aspects of the present paper could be improved.

(1) Most results are insufficiently described. P-values are almost entirely absent in the main text. Sometimes the significance is indicated in the figures, and other times it is missing. For example, strains are sometimes described as having a higher XYZ, something that is never shown in the plots, and no p-value is ever given.

(2) While the biological methods are meticulously described, statistical methods are barely mentioned in the methods section. For example, line 578, "multiple comparisons (...) were performed using the glht function of the multcomp package". What is this? What method does it use? And how was mediation analysis done? Line 575 mentions that models were compared, with no description of how this was done. Mentioning the package (or even function) is not sufficient. The package and function are an implementation; they are not the method. The actual method needs to be clearly mentioned and (at least minimally) described, in addition to having the reference for methods that are not ubiquitous (i.e., the Benjamin-Hochberg method is well-enough established to forgo this).

(3) The methods should also be briefly introduced in the results section before describing the results of those methods.

(4) The role of immune signaling pathways and associated phenotypes (e.g., monocyte fraction) is over-interpreted. While the differences shown are convincing, they do not convincingly show a role in either obesity or disease. The parsimonious explanation is that such changes happen as a consequence of dyslipidemia rather than a cause. It is possible that these pathways play a more direct role in this, but the authors do not present compelling evidence of this, and, failing this, the language in the text needs to be toned down.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Yamazaki et al. conducted multiple microscopy-based GFP localization screens, from which they identified proteins that are associated with PM/cell wall damage stress response. Specifically, the authors identified that bud-localized TMD-containing proteins and endocytotic proteins are associated with PM damage stress. The authors further demonstrated that polarized exocytosis and CME are temporally coupled in response to PM damage, and CME is required for polarized exocytosis and the targeting of TMD-containing proteins to the damage site. From these results, the authors proposed a model that CME delivers TMD-containing repair proteins between the bud tip and the damage site.

Strengths:

Overall, this is a well-written manuscript, and the experiments are well-conducted. The authors identified many repair proteins and revealed the temporal coordination of different categories of repair proteins. Furthermore, the authors demonstrated that CME is required for targeting of repair proteins to the damage site, as well as cellular survival in response to stress related to PM/cell wall damage. Although the roles of CME and bud-localized proteins in damage repair are not completely new to the field, this work does have conceptual advances by identifying novel repair proteins and proposing the intriguing model that the repairing cargoes are shuttled between the bud tip and the damaged site through coupled exocytosis and endocytosis.

Weaknesses:

While the results presented in this manuscript are convincing, they might not be sufficient to support some of the authors' claims. Especially in the last two result sessions, the authors claimed CME delivers TMD-containing repair proteins from the bud tip to the damage site. The model is no doubt highly possible based on the data, but caveats still exist. For example, the repair proteins might not be transported from one localization to another localization, but are degraded and resynthesized. Although the Gal-induced expression system can further support the model to some extent, I think more direct verification (such as FLIP or photo-convertible fluorescence tags to distinguish between pre-existing and newly synthesized proteins) would significantly improve the strength of evidence.

Major experiment suggestions:

(1) The authors may want to provide more direct evidence for "protein shuttling" and for excluding the possibility that proteins at the bud are degraded and synthesized de novo near the damage site. For example, if the authors could use FLIP to bleach bud-localized fluorescent proteins, and the damaged site does not show fluorescent proteins upon laser damage, this will strongly support the authors' model. Alternatively, the authors could use photo-convertible tags (e.g., Dendra) to differentiate between pre-existing repair proteins and newly synthesized proteins.

(2) In line with point 1, the authors used Gal-inducible expression, which supported their model. However, the author may need to show protein abundance in galactose, glucose, and upon PM damage. Western blot would be ideal to show the level of full-length proteins, or whole-cell fluorescence quantification can also roughly indicate the protein abundance. Otherwise, we cannot assume that the tagged proteins are only expressed when they are growing in galactose-containing media.

(3) Similarly, for Myo2 and Exo70 localization in CME mutants (Figure 4), it might be worth doing a western or whole-cell fluorescence quantification to exclude the caveat that CME deficiency might affect protein abundance or synthesis.

(4) From the authors' model in Figure 7, it looks like the repair proteins contribute to bud growth. Does laser damage to the mother cell prevent bud growth due to the reduction of TMD-containing repair proteins at the bud? If the authors could provide evidence for that, it would further support the model.

(5) Is the PM repair cell-cycle-dependent? For example, would the recruitment of repair proteins to the damage site be impaired when the cells are under alpha-factor arrest?