Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study investigates the sex determination mechanism in the clonal ant Ooceraea biroi, focusing on a candidate complementary sex determination (CSD) locus-one of the key mechanisms supporting haplodiploid sex determination in hymenopteran insects. Using whole genome sequencing, the authors analyze diploid females and the rarely occurring diploid males of O. biroi, identifying a 46 kb candidate region that is consistently heterozygous in females and predominantly homozygous in diploid males. This region shows elevated genetic diversity, as expected under balancing selection. The study also reports the presence of an lncRNA near this heterozygous region, which, though only distantly related in sequence, resembles the ANTSR lncRNA involved in female development in the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile (Pan et al. 2024). Together, these findings suggest a potentially conserved sex determination mechanism across ant species. However, while the analyses are well conducted and the paper is clearly written, the insights are largely incremental. The central conclusion - that the sex determination locus is conserved in ants - was already proposed and experimentally supported by Pan et al. (2024), who included O. biroi among the studied species and validated the locus's functional role in the Argentine ant. The present study thus largely reiterates existing findings without providing novel conceptual or experimental advances.

Although it is true that Pan et al., 2024 demonstrated (in Figure 4 of their paper) that the synteny of the region flanking ANTSR is conserved across aculeate Hymenoptera (including O. biroi), Reviewer 1’s claim that that paper provides experimental support for the hypothesis that the sex determination locus is conserved in ants is inaccurate. Pan et al., 2024 only performed experimental work in a single ant species (Linepithema humile) and merely compared reference genomes of multiple species to show synteny of the region, rather than functionally mapping or characterizing these regions.

Other comments:

The mapping is based on a very small sample size: 19 females and 16 diploid males, and these all derive from a single clonal line. This implies a rather high probability for false-positive inference. In combination with the fact that only 11 out of the 16 genotyped males are actually homozygous at the candidate locus, I think a more careful interpretation regarding the role of the mapped region in sex determination would be appropriate. The main argument supporting the role of the candidate region in sex determination is based on the putative homology with the lncRNA involved in sex determination in the Argentine ant, but this argument was made in a previous study (as mentioned above).

Our main argument supporting the role of the candidate region in sex determination is not based on putative homology with the lncRNA in L. humile. Instead, our main argument comes from our genetic mapping (in Fig. 2), and the elevated nucleotide diversity within the identified region (Fig. 4). Additionally, we highlight that multiple genes within our mapped region are homologous to those in mapped sex determining regions in both L. humile and Vollenhovia emeryi, possibly including the lncRNA.

In response to the Reviewer’s assertion that the mapping is based on a small sample size from a single clonal line, we want to highlight that we used all diploid males available to us. Although the primary shortcoming of a small sample size is to increase the probability of a false negative, small sample sizes can also produce false positives. We used two approaches to explore the statistical robustness of our conclusions. First, we generated a null distribution by randomly shuffling sex labels within colonies and calculating the probability of observing our CSD index values by chance (shown in Fig. 2). Second, we directly tested the association between homozygosity and sex using Fisher’s Exact Test (shown in Supplementary Fig. S2). In both cases, the association of the candidate locus with sex was statistically significant after multiple-testing correction using the Benjamini-Hochberg False Discovery Rate. These approaches are clearly described in the “CSD Index Mapping” section of the Methods.

We also note that, because complementary sex determination loci are expected to evolve under balancing selection, our finding that the mapped region exhibits a peak of nucleotide diversity lends orthogonal support to the notion that the mapped locus is indeed a complementary sex determination locus.

The fourth paragraph of the results and the sixth paragraph of the discussion are devoted to explaining the possible reasons why only 11/16 genotyped males are homozygous in the mapped region. The revised manuscript will include an additional sentence (in what will be lines 384-388) in this paragraph that includes the possible explanation that this locus is, in fact, a false positive, while also emphasizing that we find this possibility to be unlikely given our multiple lines of evidence.

In response to Reviewer 1’s suggestion that we carefully interpret the role of the mapped region in sex determination, we highlight our careful wording choices, nearly always referring to the mapped locus as a “candidate sex determination locus” in the title and throughout the manuscript. For consistency, the revised manuscript version will change the second results subheading from “The O. biroi CSD locus is homologous to another ant sex determination locus but not to honeybee csd” to “O. biroi’s candidate CSD locus is homologous to another ant sex determination locus but not to honeybee csd,” and will add the word “candidate” in what will be line 320 at the beginning of the Discussion, and will change “putative” to “candidate” in what will be line 426 at the end of the Discussion.

In the abstract, it is stated that CSD loci have been mapped in honeybees and two ant species, but we know little about their evolutionary history. But CSD candidate loci were also mapped in a wasp with multi-locus CSD (study cited in the introduction). This wasp is also parthenogenetic via central fusion automixis and produces diploid males. This is a very similar situation to the present study and should be referenced and discussed accordingly, particularly since the authors make the interesting suggestion that their ant also has multi-locus CSD and neither the wasp nor the ant has tra homologs in the CSD candidate regions. Also, is there any homology to the CSD candidate regions in the wasp species and the studied ant?

In response to Reviewer 1’s suggestion that we reference the (Matthey-Doret et al. 2019) study in the context of diploid males being produced via losses of heterozygosity during asexual reproduction, the revised manuscript will include (in what will be lines 123-126) the highlighted portion of the following sentence: “Therefore, if O. biroi uses CSD, diploid males might result from losses of heterozygosity at sex determination loci (Fig. 1C), similar to what is thought to occur in other asexual Hymenoptera that produce diploid males (Rabeling and Kronauer 2012; Matthey-Doret et al. 2019).”

We note, however, that in their 2019 study, Matthey-Doret et al. did not directly test the hypothesis that diploid males result from losses of heterozygosity at CSD loci during asexual reproduction, because the diploid males they used for their mapping study came from inbred crosses in a sexual population of that species.

We address this further below, but we want to emphasize that we do not intend to argue that O. biroi has multiple CSD loci. Instead, we suggest that additional, undetected CSD loci is one possible explanation for the absence of diploid males from any clonal line other than clonal line A. In response to Reviewer 1’s suggestion that we reference the (Matthey-Doret et al. 2019) study in the context of multilocus CSD, the revised manuscript version will include the following additional sentence in the fifth paragraph of the discussion (in what will be lines 372-374): “Multi-locus CSD has been suggested to limit the extent of diploid male production in asexual species under some circumstances (Vorburger 2013; Matthey-Doret et al. 2019).”

Regarding Reviewer 2’s question about homology between the putative CSD loci from the (Matthey-Doret et al. 2019) study and O. biroi, we note that there is no homology. The revised manuscript version will have an additional Supplementary Table (which will be the new Supplementary Table S3) that will report the results of this homology search. The revised manuscript will also include the following additional sentence in the Results, in what will be lines 172-174: “We found no homology between the genes within the O. biroi CSD index peak and any of the genes within the putative L. fabarum CSD loci (Supplementary Table S3).”

The authors used different clonal lines of O. biroi to investigate whether heterozygosity at the mapped CSD locus is required for female development in all clonal lines of O. biroi (L187-196). However, given the described parthenogenesis mechanism in this species conserves heterozygosity, additional females that are heterozygous are not very informative here. Indeed, one would need diploid males in these other clonal lines as well (but such males have not yet been found) to make any inference regarding this locus in other lines.

We agree that a full mapping study including diploid males from all clonal lines would be preferable, but as stated earlier in that same paragraph, we have only found diploid males from clonal line A. We stand behind our modest claim that “Females from all six clonal lines were heterozygous at the CSD index peak, consistent with its putative role as a CSD locus in all O. biroi.” In the revised manuscript version, this sentence (in what will be lines 199-201) will be changed slightly in response to a reviewer comment below: “All females from all six clonal lines (including 26 diploid females from clonal line B) were heterozygous at the CSD index peak, consistent with its putative role as a CSD locus in all O. biroi.”

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The manuscript by Lacy et al. is well written, with a clear and compelling introduction that effectively conveys the significance of the study. The methods are appropriate and well-executed, and the results, both in the main text and supplementary materials, are presented in a clear and detailed manner. The authors interpret their findings with appropriate caution.

This work makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of the evolution of complementary sex determination (CSD) in ants. In particular, it provides important evidence for the ancient origin of a non-coding locus implicated in sex determination, and shows that, remarkably, this sex locus is conserved even in an ant species with a non-canonical reproductive system that typically does not produce males. I found this to be an excellent and well-rounded study, carefully analyzed and well contextualized.

That said, I do have a few minor comments, primarily concerning the discussion of the potential 'ghost' CSD locus. While the authors acknowledge (line 367) that they currently have no data to distinguish among the alternative hypotheses, I found the evidence for an additional CSD locus presented in the results (lines 261-302) somewhat limited and at times a bit difficult to follow. I wonder whether further clarification or supporting evidence could already be extracted from the existing data. Specifically:

We agree with Reviewer 2 that the evidence for a second CSD locus is limited. In fact, we do not intend to advocate for there being a second locus, but we suggest that a second CSD locus is one possible explanation for the absence of diploid males outside of clonal line A. In our initial version, we intentionally conveyed this ambiguity by titling this section “O. biroi may have one or multiple sex determination loci.” However, we now see that this leads to undue emphasis on the possibility of a second locus. In the revised manuscript, we will split this into two separate sections: “Diploid male production differs across O. biroi clonal lines” and “O. biroi lacks a tra-containing CSD locus.”

(1) Line 268: I doubt the relevance of comparing the proportion of diploid males among all males between lines A and B to infer the presence of additional CSD loci. Since the mechanisms producing these two types of males differ, it might be more appropriate to compare the proportion of diploid males among all diploid offspring. This ratio has been used in previous studies on CSD in Hymenoptera to estimate the number of sex loci (see, for example, Cook 1993, de Boer et al. 2008, 2012, Ma et al. 2013, and Chen et al., 2021). The exact method might not be applicable to clonal raider ants, but I think comparing the percentage of diploid males among the total number of (diploid) offspring produced between the two lineages might be a better argument for a difference in CSD loci number.

We want to re-emphasize here that we do not wish to advocate for there being two CSD loci in O. biroi. Rather, we want to explain that this is one possible explanation for the apparent absence of diploid males outside of clonal line A. We hope that the modifications to the manuscript described in the previous response help to clarify this.

Reviewer 2 is correct that comparing the number of diploid males to diploid females does not apply to clonal raider ants. This is because males are vanishingly rare among the vast numbers of females produced. We do not count how many females are produced in laboratory stock colonies, and males are sampled opportunistically. Therefore, we cannot report exact numbers. However, we will add the highlighted portion of the following sentence (in what will be lines 268-270) to the revised manuscript: “Despite the fact that we maintain more colonies of clonal line B than of clonal line A in the lab, all the diploid males we detected came from clonal line A.”

(2) If line B indeed carries an additional CSD locus, one would expect that some females could be homozygous at the ANTSR locus but still viable, being heterozygous only at the other locus. Do the authors detect any females in line B that are homozygous at the ANTSR locus? If so, this would support the existence of an additional, functionally independent CSD locus.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion, and again we emphasize that we do not want to argue in favor of multiple CSD loci. We just want to introduce it as one possible explanation for the absence of diploid males outside of clonal line A.

The 26 sequenced diploid females from clonal line B are all heterozygous at the mapped locus, and the revised manuscript will clarify this in what will be lines 199-201. Previously, only six of those diploid females were included in Supplementary Table S2, and that will be modified accordingly.

(3) Line 281: The description of the two tra-containing CSD loci as "conserved" between Vollenhovia and the honey bee may be misleading. It suggests shared ancestry, whereas the honey bee csd gene is known to have arisen via a relatively recent gene duplication from fem/tra (10.1038/nature07052). It would be more accurate to refer to this similarity as a case of convergent evolution rather than conservation.

In the sentence that Reviewer 2 refers to, we are representing the assertion made in the (Miyakawa and Mikheyev 2015) paper in which, regarding their mapping of a candidate CSD locus that contains two linked tra homologs, they write in the abstract: “these data support the prediction that the same CSD mechanism has indeed been conserved for over 100 million years.” In that same paper, Miyakawa and Mikheyev write in the discussion section: “As ants and bees diverged more than 100 million years ago, sex determination in honey bees and V. emeryi is probably homologous and has been conserved for at least this long.”

As noted by Reviewer 2, this appears to conflict with a previously advanced hypothesis: that because fem and csd were found in Apis mellifera, Apis cerana, and Apis dorsata, but only fem was found in Mellipona compressipes, Bombus terrestris, and Nasonia vitripennis, that the csd gene evolved after the honeybee (Apis) lineage diverged from other bees (Hasselmann et al. 2008). However, it remains possible that the csd gene evolved after ants and bees diverged from N. vitripennis, but before the divergence of ants and bees, and then was subsequently lost in B. terrestris and M. compressipes. This view was previously put forward based on bioinformatic identification of putative orthologs of csd and fem in bumblebees and in ants [(Schmieder et al. 2012), see also (Privman et al. 2013)]. However, subsequent work disagreed and argued that the duplications of tra found in ants and in bumblebees represented convergent evolution rather than homology (Koch et al. 2014). Distinguishing between these possibilities will be aided by additional sex determination locus mapping studies and functional dissection of the underlying molecular mechanisms in diverse Aculeata.

Distinguishing between these competing hypotheses is beyond the scope of our paper, but the revised manuscript will include additional text to incorporate some of this nuance. We will include these modified lines below (in what will be lines 287-295), with the additions highlighted:

“A second QTL region identified in V. emeryi (V.emeryiCsdQTL1) contains two closely linked tra homologs, similar to the closely linked honeybee tra homologs, csd and fem (Miyakawa and Mikheyev 2015). This, along with the discovery of duplicated tra homologs that undergo concerted evolution in bumblebees and ants (Schmieder et al. 2012; Privman et al. 2013) has led to the hypothesis that the function of tra homologs as CSD loci is conserved with the csd-containing region of honeybees (Schmieder et al. 2012; Miyakawa and Mikheyev 2015). However, other work has suggested that tra duplications occurred independently in honeybees, bumblebees, and ants (Hasselmann et al. 2008; Koch et al. 2014), and it remains to be demonstrated that either of these tra homologs acts as a primary CSD signal in V. emeryi.”

(4) Finally, since the authors successfully identified multiple alleles of the first CSD locus using previously sequenced haploid males, I wonder whether they also observed comparable allelic diversity at the candidate second CSD locus. This would provide useful supporting evidence for its functional relevance.

As is already addressed in the final paragraph of the results and in Supplementary Fig. S4, there is no peak of nucleotide diversity in any of the regions homologous to V.emeryiQTL1, which is the tra-containing candidate sex determination locus (Miyakawa and Mikheyev 2015). In the revised manuscript, the relevant lines will be 307-310. We want to restate that we do not propose that there is a second candidate CSD locus in O. biroi, but we simply raise the possibility that multi-locus CSD *might* explain the absence of diploid males from clonal lines other than clonal line A (as one of several alternative possibilities).

Overall, these are relatively minor points in the context of a strong manuscript, but I believe addressing them would improve the clarity and robustness of the authors' conclusions.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The sex determination mechanism governed by the complementary sex determination (CSD) locus is one of the mechanisms that support the haplodiploid sex determination system evolved in hymenopteran insects. While many ant species are believed to possess a CSD locus, it has only been specifically identified in two species. The authors analyzed diploid females and the rarely occurring diploid males of the clonal ant Ooceraea biroi and identified a 46 kb CSD candidate region that is consistently heterozygous in females and predominantly homozygous in males. This region was found to be homologous to the CSD locus reported in distantly related ants. In the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile, the CSD locus overlaps with an lncRNA (ANTSR) that is essential for female development and is associated with the heterozygous region (Pan et al. 2024). Similarly, an lncRNA is encoded near the heterozygous region within the CSD candidate region of O. biroi. Although this lncRNA shares low sequence similarity with ANTSR, its potential functional involvement in sex determination is suggested. Based on these findings, the authors propose that the heterozygous region and the adjacent lncRNA in O. biroi may trigger female development via a mechanism similar to that of L. humile. They further suggest that the molecular mechanisms of sex determination involving the CSD locus in ants have been highly conserved for approximately 112 million years. This study is one of the few to identify a CSD candidate region in ants and is particularly noteworthy as the first to do so in a parthenogenetic species.

Strengths:

(1) The CSD candidate region was found to be homologous to the CSD locus reported in distantly related ant species, enhancing the significance of the findings.

(2) Identifying the CSD candidate region in a parthenogenetic species like O. biroi is a notable achievement and adds novelty to the research.

Weaknesses

(1) Functional validation of the lncRNA's role is lacking, and further investigation through knockout or knockdown experiments is necessary to confirm its involvement in sex determination.

See response below.

(2) The claim that the lncRNA is essential for female development appears to reiterate findings already proposed by Pan et al. (2024), which may reduce the novelty of the study.

We do not claim that the lncRNA is essential for female development in O. biroi, but simply mention the possibility that, as in L. humile, it is somehow involved in sex determination. We do not have any functional evidence for this, so this is purely based on its genomic position immediately adjacent to our mapped candidate region. We agree with the reviewer that the study by Pan et al. (2024) decreases the novelty of our findings. Another way of looking at this is that our study supports and bolsters previous findings by partially replicating the results in a different species.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

L307-308 should state homozygous for either allele in THE MAJORITY of diploid males.

This will be fixed in the revised manuscript, in what will be line 321.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

The association between heterozygosity in the CSD candidate region and female development in O. biroi, along with the high sequence homology of this region to CSD loci identified in two distantly related ant species, is not sufficient to fully address the evolution of the CSD locus and the mechanisms of sex determination.

Given that functional genetic tools, such as genome editing, have already been established in O. biroi, I strongly recommend that the authors investigate the role of the lncRNA through knockout or knockdown experiments and assess its impact on the sex-specific splicing pattern of the downstream tra gene.

Although knockout experiments of the lncRNA would be illuminating, the primary signal of complementary sex determination is heterozygosity. As is clearly stated in our manuscript and that of (Pan et al. 2024), it does not appear to be heterozygosity within the lncRNA that induces female development, but rather heterozygosity in non-transcribed regions linked to the lncRNA. Therefore, future mechanistic studies of sex determination in O. biroi, L. humile, and other ants should explore how homozygosity or heterozygosity of this region impacts the sex determination cascade, rather than focusing (exclusively) on the lncRNA.

With this in mind, we developed three sets of guide RNAs that cut only one allele within the mapped CSD locus, with the goal of producing deletions within the highly variable region within the mapped locus. This would lead to functional hemizygosity or homozygosity within this region, depending on how the cuts were repaired. We also developed several sets of PCR primers to assess the heterozygosity of the resultant animals. After injecting 1,162 eggs over several weeks and genotyping the hundreds of resultant animals with PCR, we confirmed that we could induce hemizygosity or homozygosity within this region, at least in ~1/20 of the injected embryos. Although it is possible to assess the sex-specificity of the splice isoform of tra as a proxy for sex determination phenotypes (as done by (Pan et al. 2024)), the ideal experiment would assess male phenotypic development at the pupal stage. Therefore, over several more weeks, we injected hundreds more eggs with these reagents and reared the injected embryos to the pupal stage. However, substantial mortality was observed, with only 12 injected eggs developing to the pupal stage. All of these were female, and none of them had been successfully mutated.

In conclusion, we agree with the reviewer that functional experiments would be useful, and we made extensive attempts to conduct such experiments. However, these experiments turned out to be extremely challenging with the currently available protocols. Ultimately, we therefore decided to abandon these attempts.  

We opted not to include these experiments in the paper itself because we cannot meaningfully interpret their results. However, we are pleased that, in this response letter, we can include a brief description for readers interested in attempting similar experiments.

Since O. biroi reproduces parthenogenetically and most offspring develop into females, observing a shift from female- to male-specific splicing of tra upon early embryonic knockout of the lncRNA would provide much stronger evidence that this lncRNA is essential for female development. Without such functional validation, the authors' claim (lines 36-38) seems to reiterate findings already proposed by Pan et al. (2024) and, as such, lacks sufficient novelty.

We have responded to the issue of “lack of novelty” above. But again, the actual CSD locus in both O. biroi and L. humile appears to be distinct from (but genetically linked to) the lncRNA, and we have no experimental evidence that the putative lncRNA in O. biroi is involved in sex determination at all. Because of this, and given the experimental challenges described above, we do not currently intend to pursue functional studies of the lncRNA.

References

Hasselmann M, Gempe T, Schiøtt M, Nunes-Silva CG, Otte M, Beye M. 2008. Evidence for the evolutionary nascence of a novel sex determination pathway in honeybees. Nature 454:519–522.

Koch V, Nissen I, Schmitt BD, Beye M. 2014. Independent Evolutionary Origin of fem Paralogous Genes and Complementary Sex Determination in Hymenopteran Insects. PLOS ONE 9:e91883.

Matthey-Doret C, van der Kooi CJ, Jeffries DL, Bast J, Dennis AB, Vorburger C, Schwander T. 2019. Mapping of multiple complementary sex determination loci in a parasitoid wasp. Genome Biology and Evolution 11:2954–2962.

Miyakawa MO, Mikheyev AS. 2015. QTL mapping of sex determination loci supports an ancient pathway in ants and honey bees. PLOS Genetics 11:e1005656.

Pan Q, Darras H, Keller L. 2024. LncRNA gene ANTSR coordinates complementary sex determination in the Argentine ant. Science Advances 10:eadp1532.

Privman E, Wurm Y, Keller L. 2013. Duplication and concerted evolution in a master sex determiner under balancing selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 280:20122968.

Rabeling C, Kronauer DJC. 2012. Thelytokous parthenogenesis in eusocial Hymenoptera. Annual Review of Entomology 58:273–292.

Schmieder S, Colinet D, Poirié M. 2012. Tracing back the nascence of a new sex-determination pathway to the ancestor of bees and ants. Nature Communications 3:1–7.

Vorburger C. 2013. Thelytoky and Sex Determination in the Hymenoptera: Mutual Constraints. Sexual Development 8:50–58.

everything in this block of text is important because it compares and contrasts and gives us insight to the similarities between two scholars

ex from the reading

the volumes had a bunch of diversity and a ton of different opinions represented

first book mentioned

what is she referring to when talking about the information age

Her first point in making that we are not sheltered from tons of information and change through various sources

the book is not mainstream and rather a different type of research?

giving them a warning as to say there is so much information available that it might interfere with their opinion or research?

The Jean Piaget Society: Society for the Study of Knowledge and Development is an international, interdisciplinary organization dedicated to exploring the developmental construction of human knowledge. Established in 1970, it draws inspiration from the work of Swiss developmental psychologist Jean Piaget (1896–1980), who pioneered theories on cognitive development, genetic epistemology, and the active role of children in constructing knowledge. piaget.org for membership, conference details, and resources.

this is going over a girl with poor time managements.

talking about the poor time management skills.

seems to contradict the above

concept of nobility as stemming from heroic acts

great causal walk-through

the lightest is associated with essence and spirit

how rain happens

cf oxygen isotopes! lol

so this describes the fit between constitutions and waters

eLife Assessment

The manuscript presents important findings that advance our understanding of how microglia adapt their surveillance strategies during chronic neurodegeneration. The evidence presented is convincing, with appropriate and validated methodology broadly supporting the claims given by the authors.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Subhramanian et al. carefully examined how microglia adapt their surveillance strategies during chronic neurodegeneration, specifically in prion-infected mice. The authors used ex vivo time-lapse imaging and in vitro strategies, finding that reactive microglia exhibit a highly mobile, "kiss-and-ride" behavior, which contrasts with the more static surveillance typically observed in homeostatic microglia. The manuscript provides fundamental mechanistic insights into the dynamics of microglia-neuron interactions, implicates P2Y6 signaling in regulating mobility, and suggests that intrinsic reprogramming of microglia might underlie this behavior. The conclusions are therefore compelling.

Strengths:

(1) The novelty of the study is high, in particular, the demonstration that microglia lose territorial confinement and dynamically migrate from neuron to neuron under chronic neurodegeneration.

(2) The possible implications of a stimulus-independent high mobility in reactive microglia are particularly striking. Although this is not fully explored (see comments below).

(3) The use of time-lapse imaging in organotypic slices rather than overexpression models provided a more physiological approach.

(4) Microglia-neuron interactions in neurodegeneration have broad implications for understanding the progression of other diseases that are associated with chronic inflammation, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

Weaknesses:

(1) The Cx3cr1/EGFP line labels all myeloid cells, which makes it difficult to conclude that all observed behaviors are attributable to microglia rather than infiltrating macrophages. The authors refer to this and include it as a limitation. Nonetheless, complementary confirmation by additional microglia markers would strengthen their claims.

(2) Although the authors elegantly describe dynamic surveillance and envelopment hypothesis, it is unclear what the role of this phenotype is for disease progression, i.e., functional consequences. For example, are the neurons that undergo sustained envelopment more likely to degenerate?

(3) Moreover, although the increase in mobility is a relevant finding, it would be interesting for the authors to further comment on what the molecular trigger(s) is/are that might promote this increase. These adaptations, which are at least long-lasting, confer apparent mobility in the absence of external stimuli.

(4) The authors performed, as far as I could understand, the experiments in cortical brain regions. There is no clear rationale for this in the manuscript, nor is it clear whether the mobility is specific to a particular brain region. This is particularly important, as microglia reactivity varies greatly depending on the brain region.

(5) It would be relevant information to have an analysis of the percentage of cells in normal, sub-clinical, early clinical, and advanced stages that became mobile. Without this information, the speed/distance alone can have different interpretations.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This is a nice paper focused on the response of microglia to different clinical stages of prion infection in acute brain slices. The key here is the use of time-lapse imaging, which captures the dynamics of microglial surveillance, including morphology, migration, and intracellular neuron-microglial contacts. The authors use a myeloid GFP-labeled transgenic mouse to track microglia in SSLOW-infected brain slices, quantifying differences in motility and microglial-neuron interactions via live fluorescence imaging. Interesting findings include the elaborate patterns of motility among microglia, the distinct types and duration of intracellular contacts, the potential role of calcium signaling in facilitating hypermobility, and the fact that this motion-promoting status is intrinsic to microglia, persisting even after the cells have been isolated from infected brains. Although largely a descriptive paper, there are mechanistic insights, including the role of calcium in supporting movement of microglia, where bursts of signaling are identified even within the time-lapse format, and inhibition studies that implicate the purinergic receptor and calcium transient regulator P2Y6 in migratory capacity.

Strengths:

(1) The focus on microglia activation and activity in the context of prion disease is interesting.

(2) Two different prions produce largely the same response.

(3) Use of time-lapse provides insight into the dynamics of microglia, distinguishing between types of contact - mobility vs motility - and providing insight into the duration/transience and reversibility of extensive somatic contacts that include brief and focused connections in addition to soma envelopment.

(4) Imaging window selection (3 hours) guided by prior publications documenting preserved morphology, activity, and gene expression regulation up to 4 hours.

(5) The distinction between high mobility and low mobility microglia is interesting, especially given that hyper mobility seems to be an innate property of the cells.

(6) The live-imaging approach is validated by fixed tissue confocal imaging.

(7) The variance in duration of neuron/microglia contacts is interesting, although there is no insight into what might dictate which status of interaction predominates.

(8) The reversibility of the enveloping action, that is not apparently a commitment to engulfment, is interesting, as is the fact that only neurons are selected for this activity.

(9) The calcium studies use the fluorescent dye calbryte-590 to pick up neuronal and microglial bursts - prolonged bursts are detected in enveloped neurons and in the hyper-mobile microglia - the microglial lead is followed up using MRS-2578 P2Y6 inhibitor that blunts the mobility of the microglia.

Weaknesses:

(1) The number of individual cells tracked has been provided, but not the number of individual mice. The sex of the mice is not provided.

(2) The statistical approach is not clear; was each cell treated as a single observation?

(3) The potential for heterogeneity among animals has not been addressed.

(4) Validation of prion accumulation at each clinical stage of the disease is not provided.

(5) How were the numerous captures of cells handled to derive morphological quantitative values? Based on the videos, there is a lot of movement and shape-shifting.

(6) While it is recognized that there are limits to what can be measured simultaneously with live imaging, the authors appear to have fixed tissues from each time point too - it would be very interesting to know if the extent or prion accumulation influences the microglial surveillance - i.e., do the enveloped ones have greater pathology>

Suggestion:

We provide access to an online submission and workflow management system to support the publication process in Purdue e-Pubs. Editors and organizers are responsible for managing submissions, communication with authors, and any peer review activities. Library Publishing Services offers limited technical support for system setup and basic troubleshooting.

Suggestion:

We provide technical support for the publication of select open access journals affiliated with Purdue University. Our team sets up and maintains journal spaces in the repository, assists with technical configuration, and publishes journal content online. Due to limited staff capacity, Library Publishing Services does not provide editorial or production support.

Suggestion:

We provide guidance to help authors select the Creative Commons license that best reflects how they want their work to be used and shared. During publication in Purdue e-Pubs, the chosen license is applied to the work to ensure clear and transparent reuse permissions. Authors can explore license options using the Creative Commons License Chooser

to define this for my second defining annotation: an eruption of the body in this context refers to disease, such as a rash, abrasion, or infection. -cherryb history 211

I felt another annotation of this was important because I think while this Author describes deplorable conditions and struggles such as inadequate food, and rough seas, i cant help but think of the deplorable conditions discussed in the previous chapters abord the salve ships. Those people were subjected to things far worse than this, with little to no food at all, cramped conditions, rampant sickness, and they did not have the ability to fully stand in some instances let alone lay down. It is wild to think about the privilege of this man in comparison, despite his self proclaimed inconveniences and experiences. -cherryb history 211

This highlights the relationship with religion the author has, with him also citing psalm 107 earlier in the text. He claims that it is God that has allowed the boat to stay together and arrive in one peace, noting that if they did not do so, it was the devil's or the "evil ones" doing. So, not so much luck, or the work of the captain and crew. but divine intervention. -cherryb history 211

This part of the article describes the mental toll being at sea and working the boat had on the members of the crew during this time. Was it a form of post traumatic stress, or was it side effects from spoiled food.. I desire more context on what insanity looked like or really was, as we understand within a modern lens, that the understanding of insanity and mental illness were very different historically. I think a perspective we are missing is the crew members of the boat, and if the crew member who was deemed insane had the faculties to write, his perspective might be vital in understanding the voyage form a crew memebers perspective. Cherryb history 211

This shows that the rough seas, storms, and sickness were not only the things faced, but the rations were horrible. He describes the salted fish and meats as "rancid smelling". I also think, contextually, it is interesting to see that beer was considered an essential part of rations. There is a mention of fresh water, but its fascinating to me that the amount of beer given in rations exceeds the allocation of water twofold. What were the beliefs surrounding alcohol at this time, was it believed to have supplemental health effects? - cherryb history 211

This is interesting because it provides us with the historical context that some passengers abord this ship did not have the same destination as others, some chose to get oof the boat early at Upton instead of getting off at Philadelphia, like the author. He states that getting off at Upland would arguably be more unpleasant, citing many inconveniences. What kind of inconveniences is he referring to, I wonder? - cherry b history 211

This describes the important who, what, and when of historical context, with the who being Francis Daniel Pastorious, and the ocean voyage he underwent being the what. Finally, the voyage took place in the year 1684. This is important because it gives us an understanding of what sea voyages were like in the 1600's and as the subtitle highlights.. shows the "discomfort and dangers of oceanic travel in the 17th century -cherryb history 211

I thought this was interesting. It highlights the unpleasant conditions of taking embarking on a sea voyage at this time. I'm thinking about one of the very important questions related to annotating documents which is what other perspectives are missing? I would want to hear the perspective of the Crefelder family, who lost a daughter on the voyage. What would it be like to experience loss at sea in this way, and do they see her death as being lessened by the birth of two other children? -cherryb

eLife Assessment

This study introduces a valuable new metric-phenological lag-to help partition the drivers of observed versus expected shifts in spring phenology under climate warming. The conceptual framework is clearly presented and supported by an extensive dataset, and the revisions have improved the manuscript, though some concerns-particularly regarding uncertainty quantification, spatial analysis, and modeling assumptions-remain only partially addressed. The strength of evidence is generally solid, but further analysis would help to validate the study's conclusions.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors developed a new phenological lag metric and applied this analytical framework to a global dataset to synthesize shifts in spring phenology and assess how abiotic constraints influence spring phenology.

Strengths:

The dataset developed in this study is extensive, and the phenological lag metric is valuable.

Weaknesses:

The stability of the method used to calculate forcing requirements needs improvement, for example by including different base temperature thresholds. In addition, the visualization of the results should be improved.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Reviewer #1 (Public review): 

Jiang et al. present a measure of phenological lag by quantifying the effects of abiotic constraints on the differences between observed and expected phenological changes, using a combination of previously published phenology change data for 980 species, and associated climate data for study sites. They found that, across all samples, observed phenological responses to climate warming were smaller than expected responses for both leafing and flowering spring events. They also show that data from experimental studies included in their analysis exhibited increased phenological lag compared to observational studies, possibly as a result of reduced sensitivity to climatic changes. Furthermore, the authors present evidence that spatial trends in phenological responses to warming may differ than what would be expected from phenological sensitivity, due to the seasonal timing of when warming occurs. Thus, climate change may not result in geographic convergences of phenological responses. This study presents an interesting way to separate the individual effects of climate change and other abiotic changes on the phenological responses across sites and species. 

Strengths: 

A straightforward mathematical definition of phenological lag allows for this method to potentially be applied in different geographic contexts. Where data exists, other researchers can partition the effects of various abiotic forcings on phenological responses that differ from those expected from warming sensitivity alone. 

Identifying phenological lag, and associated contributing factors, provides a method by which more nuanced predictions of phenological responses to climate change can be made. Thus, this study could improve ecological forecasting models. 

Weaknesses: 

The analysis here could be more robust. A more thorough examination of phenological lag would provide stronger evidence that the framework presented has utility. The differences in phenologica lag by study approach, species origin, region, and growth form are interesting, and could be expanded. For example, the authors have the data to explore the relationships between phenological lag and the quantitative variables included in the final model (altitude, latitude, mean annual temperature) and other spatial or temporal variables. This would also provide stronger evidence for the author's claims about potential mechanisms that contribute to phenological lag. 

We did examine the relationships of phenological lag with geographic or climatic variables in our analyses. Other than the weak correlations with latitude and altitude cited in the discussion section (lines 292-293), phenological lag was not related to mean annual temperature or long-term precipitation for both leafing and flowering.  

The authors include very little data visualizations, and instead report results and model statistics in tables. This is difficult to interpret and may obscure underlying patterns in the data. Including visual representations of variable distributions and between-variable relationships, in addition to model statistics, provides stronger evidence than model statistics alone. 

Table 2 shows the influences of geographic or climatic variables, particularly those related to drivers of spring phenology, i.e., budburst temperature, forcing change, and phenological lag, on phenological changes. As quantitative contributions of these drivers have been extracted, the influences of remaining variables are either minor or insignificant. Thus, examination of variable distributions, which has been done in previous syntheses, is probably not necessary.         

Some of independent variables were apparently correlated (r <0.6), e.g., MAT with altitude and latitude, budburst temperature with forcing change and spring warming, and forcing change with spring warming.

Reviewer #3 (Public review): 

Summary: 

The authors developed a new phenological lag metric and applied this analytical framework to a global dataset to synthesize shifts in spring phenology and assess how abiotic constraints influence spring phenology. 

Strengths: 

The dataset developed in this study is extensive, and the phenological lag metric is valuable. 

Weaknesses: 

The stability of the method used in this study needs improvement, particularly in the calculation of forcing requirements. In addition, the visualization of the results (such as Table 1) should be enhanced. 

Not clear how to improve the calculation of forcing accumulation.    

Recommendations for the authors: 

Editor (Recommendations for the authors): 

To improve the robustness of the metric and the conclusions drawn, we recommend that the authors: 

Test the sensitivity of their results to different base temperature thresholds and to nonlinear forcing response models, even for a subset of species. The proposed framework relies on an accurate understanding of species-specific thermal responses, which remain poorly resolved.

Different above-zero base temperatures have been used previously, although justifications are mostly following previous work. As we indicated in our first responses, the use of above-zero base temperatures underestimates forcing from low temperatures, which has more impacts on species with early spring phenology or in areas of cold climate due to greater proportions of forcing accumulations from low temperatures. The use of high base temperatures can lead to an interpretation that early season species require little or no forcing to break buds, which is biologically incorrect. Thus, the use of above-zero base temperatures would be more appropriate for particular locations or species than for meta-analysis across different spring phenology and climatic conditions. 

The research on multiple warming is limited in terms of levels of warming used (mostly one and occasionally two) for assessing non-linear forcing responses. This can be the focus of future work.  

Our framework is based on drivers of spring phenology and not dependent on “accurate understanding of species-specific thermal responses”. However, a good understanding of species- and site-specific responses to phenological constraints (e.g., insufficient winter chilling, photoperiod, and environmental stresses) does help determine the nature of phenological lag. All these are explained in our paper.     

Analyze relationships between phenological lag and additional geographic or climatic gradients already available in the dataset (e.g., latitude, mean annual temperature, interannual variability). 

We did examine the relationships of phenological lag with geographic or climatic variables in our analyses. Other than the weak correlations with latitude and altitude cited in the discussion section (lines 292-293), phenological lag was not related to mean annual temperature or long-term precipitation for both leafing and flowering.  

Our objective is to understand changes in spring phenology and differences in plant phenological responses across different functional groups or climatic regions, although our approach can be used to study interannual variability of spring phenology. Our metadata are compiled for comparing warmer vs control treatments (often multiyear averages), not for assessing interannual variability.      

Improve data visualization to better convey how phenological lag varies across environmental and biological contexts. 

See responses above.

Consider incorporating explicit uncertainty estimates around phenological lag calculations.  These steps would improve the interpretability and generalizability of the framework, helping it move from a useful heuristic to a more robust and empirically grounded analytical tool. 

The calculation of phenological lag is based on drivers of spring phenology with uncertainty depending primarily on uncertainty in phenological observations. Previous uncertainty assessments can be used here (see a few selected studies below).   

Alles, G.R., Comba, J.L., Vincent, J.M., Nagai, S. and Schnorr, L.M., 2020. Measuring phenology uncertainty with large scale image processing. Ecological Informatics, 59, p.101109.

Liu G, Chuine I, Denéchère R, Jean F, Dufrêne E, Vincent G, Berveiller D, Delpierre N. Higher sample sizes and observer intercalibration are needed for reliable scoring of leaf phenology in trees. Journal of Ecology. 2021 Jun;109(6):2461-74.

Tang, J., Körner, C., Muraoka, H., Piao, S., Shen, M., Thackeray, S.J. and Yang, X., 2016.Emerging opportunities and challenges in phenology: a review. Ecosphere, 7(8), p.e01436. 

Nagai, S., Inoue, T., Ohtsuka, T., Yoshitake, S., Nasahara, K.N. and Saitoh, T.M., 2015. Uncertainties involved in leaf fall phenology detected by digital camera. Ecological Informatics, 30, pp.124-132.

Fought against youth drinking/partying unlike Franklin who enjoyed those things.

Edwards studied spiders. similar to Franklin's kite experiment, shows both had scientific curiosity. But Edwards chose religion over science

reflects they're deitist beliefs

Secular = focused on life NOW rather than afterlife/heaven. Franklin cared about improving life on earth, not about the after life: opposite of religious focus.

experiment showing Franklin's scientific curiosity and search for reasoning through siicence

method of socrates: asking questions to find truth instead of accepting what you're told.

Proved natural laws could be discovered through science, not religion.

Enlightenment belief that humans can use logic to understand how world works. Don't need the Bible to get answers.

Print shops = where books/newspapers made. Access to new ideas.

Here is a summary of the article and a step-by-step process for disagreeing constructively based on its findings.

Summary: How to Disagree Constructively

Disagreements can be highly beneficial, leading to better decisions and preventing errors. However, they often escalate into damaging conflicts. The common advice—to be empathetic and adopt open body language—often fails because there is an "intention-behavior gap." Your counterpart cannot read your mind; they only know what your words and actions communicate.

The problem is that our words often fail to convey our good intentions. For example, intending to be curious, we might ask, "How can you believe that?" which sounds judgmental.

Research by Julia Minson, Hanne Collins, and Michael Yeomans shows that the key to constructive disagreement is translating positive mental states (like curiosity and respect) into observable, verbal behaviors.

A 5-Step Procedure for Constructive Disagreement

This process focuses on using specific language to make your positive intentions clear to your counterpart, lowering the temperature and fostering a productive conversation.

Step 1: Explicitly Signal Your Desire to Learn

Instead of just feeling curious, you must state your curiosity. This signals that you want to understand, not attack.

• Why it works: It frames the disagreement as a mutual learning exercise rather than a battle.
• Example Language:
  • "It seems we are seeing this differently. I am curious how you think about XYZ."
  • "I'd like to understand more about your perspective on this."

Step 2: Acknowledge Their Perspective

People in a conflict need to know they have been heard. The most effective way to do this is to restate the core of their argument to prove you were listening.

• Why it works: It validates the other person and ensures you are arguing against their actual point, not a misunderstanding of it.
• Example Language:
  • "So, if I'm understanding you correctly, your main concern is..."
  • "What I'm hearing you say is that..."
  • (If you don't understand): "Could you clarify what you mean by...?"

Step 3: Find and State Common Ground

No matter how significant the disagreement, you can usually find shared beliefs, goals, or values if you "zoom out."

• Why it works: This reminds both parties that you are on the same general team, reinforcing the collaborative (not competitive) nature of the conversation.
• Example Language:
  • "I agree with some of what you’re saying, especially..."
  • "I think we both want what's best for the project."
  • "We both agree that the current situation isn't working."

Step 4: Hedge Your Claims

Research shows that in factual disagreements, the average person is wrong at least 50% of the time. Acknowledge this possibility by showing humility instead of asserting absolute certainty.

• Why it works: It leaves open the possibility that you could be wrong, which makes you appear more open-minded and less threatening.
• Example Language:
  • "From my viewpoint..."
  • "The way I've been thinking about it is..."
  • "Sometimes it is the case that..."
  • "I might be missing something, but..."

Step 5: Share Your Story (When Appropriate)

Strong beliefs are often rooted in personal experiences. Sharing the story behind your belief can be more effective for building trust than relying solely on facts and data.

• Why it works: It humanizes your position, explains the emotion behind your logic, and builds an interpersonal bridge.
• Example Language:
  • "The reason I feel strongly about this is because I had an experience where..."
  • "My perspective on this was shaped when I..."

Note for Leaders

To foster this culture, leaders should model these five verbal behaviors and actively train employees in these specific conversational skills—not just tell them to "be curious" or "be respectful."

This storm was deadly.

Typing shouldn't be taught until around 6th grade I feel like being taught typing while still learning to write can be confusing and stunt both writing and typing.

having Chromebooks has negatively effected the amount of people reading paper copy books as well as how well people understand a text.

If technology is known to be decreasing performance why is it still so widely used in school.

I have always had an easier time reading on paper and understanding then reading it over and over on a computer. The computer makes it hard to focus.

This article really helps me understand the idea behind banning phones in Texas.

He and his wife renounced their titles as the Duke and Duchess of York. They both gave up their royal privileges as they were further isolated from the throne.

Before the leak of the picture, there was an attempt to cover up

add to essay

eLife Assessment

This study provides novel and convincing evidence that both dopamine D1 and D2 expressing neurons in the nucleus accumbens shell are crucial for the expression of cue-guided action selection, a core component of decision-making. The research is systematic and rigorous in using optogenetic inhibition of either D1- or D2-expressing medium spiny neurons in the NAc shell to reveal attenuation of sensory-specific Pavlovian-Instrumental transfer, while largely sparing value-based decision on an instrumental task. The important findings in this report build on prior research and resolve some conflicts in the literature regarding decision-making.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In the current article, Octavia Soegyono and colleagues study "The influence of nucleus accumbens shell D1 and D2 neurons on outcome-specific Pavlovian instrumental transfer", building on extensive findings from the same lab. While there is a consensus about the specific involvement of the Shell part of the Nucleus Accumbens (NAc) in specific stimulus-based actions in choice settings (and not in General Pavlovian instrumental transfer - gPIT, as opposed to the Core part of the NAc), mechanisms at the cellular and circuitry levels remain to be explored. In the present work, using sophisticated methods (rat Cre-transgenic lines from both sexes, optogenetics and the well-established behavioral paradigm outcome-specific PIT - sPIT), Octavia Soegyono and colleagues decipher the differential contribution of dopamine receptors D1 and D2 expressing-spiny projection neurons (SPNs).

After validating the viral strategy and the specificity of the targeting (immunochemistry and electrophysiology), the authors demonstrate that while both NAc Shell D1- and D2-SPNs participate in mediating sPIT, NAc Shell D1-SPNs projections to the Ventral Pallidum (VP, previously demonstrated as crucial for sPIT), but not D2-SPNs, mediates sPIT. They also show that these effects were specific to stimulus-based actions, as value-based choices were left intact in all manipulations.

This is a well-designed study and the results are well supported by the experimental evidence. The paper is extremely pleasant to read and add to the current literature.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Soegyono et a. describes a series of experiments designed to probe the involvement of dopamine D1 and D2 neurons within the nucleus accumbens shell in outcome-specific Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (osPIT), a well-controlled assay of cue-guided action selection based on congruent outcome associations. They used an optogenetic approach to phasically silence NAc shell D1 (D1-Cre mice) or D2 (A2a-Cre mice) neurons during a subset of osPIT trials. Both manipulations disrupted cue-guided action selection but had no effects on negative control measures/tasks (concomitant approach behavior, separate valued guided choice task), nor were any osPIT impairments found in reporter only control groups. Separate experiments revealed that selective inhibition of NAc shell D1 but not D2 inputs to ventral pallidum were required for osPIT expression, thereby advancing understanding of the basal ganglia circuitry underpinning this important aspect of decision making.

Strengths:

The combinatorial viral and optogenetic approaches used here were convincingly validated through anatomical tract-tracing and ex vivo electrophysiology. The behavioral assays are sophisticated and well-controlled to parse cue and value guided action selection. The inclusion of reporter only control groups is rigorous and rules out nonspecific effects of the light manipulation. The findings are novel and address a critical question in the literature. Prior work using less decisive methods had implicated NAc shell D1 neurons in osPIT but suggested that D2 neurons may not be involved. The optogenetic manipulations used in the current study provides a more direct test of their involvement and convincingly demonstrate that both populations play an important role. Prior work had also implicated NAc shell connections to ventral pallidum in osPIT, but the current study reveals the selective involvement of D1 but not D2 neurons in this circuit. The authors do a good job of discussing their findings, including their nuanced interpretation that NAc shell D2 neurons may contribute to osPIT through their local regulation of NAc shell microcircuitry.

Weaknesses:

The current study exclusively used an optogenetic approach to probe the function of D1 and D2 NAc shell neurons. Providing a complementary assessment with chemogenetics or other appropriate methods would strengthen conclusions, particularly the novel demonstration for D2 NAc shell involvement. Likewise, the null result of optically inhibiting D2 inputs to ventral pallidum leaves open the possibility that a more complete or sustained disruption of this pathway may have impaired osPIT.

Conclusions:

The research described here was successful in providing critical new insights into the contributions of NAc D1 and D2 neurons in cue-guided action selection. The authors' data interpretation and conclusions are well reasoned and appropriate. They also provide a thoughtful discussion of study limitations and implications for future research. This research is therefore likely to have a significant impact on the field.

Comments on the previous version:

I have reviewed the rebuttal and revised manuscript and have no remaining concerns.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Reviewer#1 (Public Review):

In the current article, Octavia Soegyono and colleagues study "The influence of nucleus accumbens shell D1 and D2 neurons on outcome-specific Pavlovian instrumental transfer", building on extensive findings from the same lab. While there is a consensus about the specific involvement of the Shell part of the Nucleus Accumbens (NAc) in specific stimulus-based actions in choice settings (and not in General Pavlovian instrumental transfer - gPIT, as opposed to the Core part of the NAc), mechanisms at the cellular and circuitry levels remain to be explored. In the present work, using sophisticated methods (rat Cre-transgenic lines from both sexes, optogenetics and the well-established behavioral paradigm outcome-specific PIT - sPIT), Octavia Soegyono and colleagues decipher the diOerential contribution of dopamine receptors D1 and D2 expressing-spiny projection neurons (SPNs).

After validating the viral strategy and the specificity of the targeting (immunochemistry and electrophysiology), the authors demonstrate that while both NAc Shell D1- and D2SPNs participate in mediating sPIT, NAc Shell D1-SPNs projections to the Ventral Pallidum (VP, previously demonstrated as crucial for sPIT), but not D2-SPNs, mediates sPIT. They also show that these eOects were specific to stimulus-based actions, as valuebased choices were left intact in all manipulations.

This is a well-designed study and the results are well supported by the experimental evidence. The paper is extremely pleasant to read and add to the current literature.

We thank the Reviewer for their positive assessment.

Comments on revisions:  

We thank the authors for their detailed responses and for addressing our comments and concerns.

To further improve consistency and transparency, we kindly request that the authors provide, for Supplemental Figures S1-S4, panels E (raw data for lever presses during the PIT test), the individual data points together with the corresponding statistical analyses in the figure legends.

Panel E of Figures S1-S4 now includes the individual data points. The outcome-specific data have already been analysed, and we report these analyses in the main manuscript. These analyses are more informative than those requested by the Reviewer since they report the net eFects of the stimuli on choice between actions while controlling for potential individual baseline instrumental performance. All data remain fully transparent and are publicly available on an online repository in accordance with eLife policies (see relevant section in Materials and Methods).  

In addition, regarding Supplemental Figure S3, panel E, we note the absence of a PIT eOect in the eYFP group under the ON condition, which appears to diOer from the net response reported in the main Figure 5, panel B. Could the authors clarify this apparent discrepancy?

We apologize for the error, which has now been corrected. 

We also note a discrepancy between the authors' statement in their response ("40 rats excluded based on post-mortem analyses") and the number of excluded animals reported in the Materials and Methods section, which adds up to 47. We kindly ask the authors to clarify this point for consistency.

We thank the Reviewer for identifying the error reported in our initial response. The total number of animals excluded was 47, as reported in the manuscript. 

Finally, as a minor point, we suggest indicating the total number of animals used in the study in the Materials and Methods section.

The total number of animals has been included in the Materials and Methods section.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Soegyono et a. describes a series of experiments designed to probe the involvement of dopamine D1 and D2 neurons within the nucleus accumbens shell in outcome-specific Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (osPIT), a well-controlled assay of cueguided action selection based on congruent outcome associations. They used an optogenetic approach to phasically silence NAc shell D1 (D1-Cre mice) or D2 (A2a-Cre mice) neurons during a subset of osPIT trials. Both manipulations disrupted cue-guided action selection but had no eOects on negative control measures/tasks (concomitant approach behavior, separate valued guided choice task), nor were any osPIT impairments found in reporter only control groups. Separate experiments revealed that selective inhibition of NAc shell D1 but not D2 inputs to ventral pallidum were required for osPIT expression, thereby advancing understanding of the basal ganglia circuitry underpinning this important aspect of decision making.

Strengths:

The combinatorial viral and optogenetic approaches used here were convincingly validated through anatomical tract-tracing and ex vivo electrophysiology. The behavioral assays are sophisticated and well-controlled to parse cue and value guided action selection. The inclusion of reporter only control groups is rigorous and rules out nonspecific eOects of the light manipulation. The findings are novel and address a critical question in the literature. Prior work using less decisive methods had implicated NAc shell D1 neurons in osPIT but suggested that D2 neurons may not be involved. The optogenetic manipulations used in the current study provides a more direct test of their involvement and convincingly demonstrate that both populations play an important role. Prior work had also implicated NAc shell connections to ventral pallidum in osPIT, but the current study reveals the selective involvement of D1 but not D2 neurons in this circuit. The authors do a good job of discussing their findings, including their nuanced interpretation that NAc shell D2 neurons may contribute to osPIT through their local regulation of NAc shell microcircuitry.

We thank the Reviewer for their positive assessment.

Weaknesses:

The current study exclusively used an optogenetic approach to probe the function of D1 and D2 NAc shell neurons. Providing a complementary assessment with chemogenetics or other appropriate methods would strengthen conclusions, particularly the novel demonstration for D2 NAc shell involvement. Likewise, the null result of optically inhibiting D2 inputs to ventral pallidum leaves open the possibility that a more complete or sustained disruption of this pathway may have impaired osPIT.

We acknowledge the reviewer's valuable suggestion that demonstrating NAc-S D1- and D2-SPNs engagement in outcome-specific PIT through another technique would strengthen our optogenetic findings. Several approaches could provide this validation. Chemogenetic manipulation, as the reviewer suggested, represents one compelling option. Alternatively, immunohistochemical assessment of phosphorylated histone H3 at serine 10 (P-H3) oFers another promising avenue, given its established utility in reporting striatal SPNs plasticity in the dorsal striatum (Matamales et al., 2020). We hope to complete such an assessment in future work since it would address the limitations of previous work that relied solely on ERK1/2 phosphorylation measures in NAc-S SPNs (Laurent et al., 2014). The manuscript was modified to report these future avenues of research (page 12). 

Regarding the null result from optical silencing of D2 terminals in the ventral pallidum, we agree with the reviewer's assessment. While we acknowledge this limitation in the current manuscript (page 13), we aim to address this gap in future studies to provide a more complete mechanistic understanding of the circuit.

Conclusions:

The research described here was successful in providing critical new insights into the contributions of NAc D1 and D2 neurons in cue-guided action selection. The authors' data interpretation and conclusions are well reasoned and appropriate. They also provide a thoughtful discussion of study limitations and implications for future research. This research is therefore likely to have a significant impact on the field.

We thank the Reviewer for their positive assessment.

Comments on revisions:

I have reviewed the rebuttal and revised manuscript and have no remaining concerns.

We are pleased to have addressed the Reviewer’s query.

References

Laurent, V., Bertran-Gonzalez, J., Chieng, B. C., & Balleine, B. W. (2014). δ-Opioid and Dopaminergic Processes in Accumbens Shell Modulate the Cholinergic Control of Predictive Learning and Choice. J Neurosci, 34(4), 1358-1369. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4592-13.2014

Matamales, M., McGovern, A. E., Mi, J. D., Mazzone, S. B., Balleine, B. W., & BertranGonzalez, J. (2020). Local D2- to D1-neuron transmodulation updates goal-directed learning in the striatum. Science, 367(6477), 549-555. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz5751

This section gives the conceptual critique of historicism

whole section is the history of geo-historicization primarily through one rendering

cf Nietzsche

hacking emphasizing predicaments

Yes, and also the subjectivity of the angel of history, of roadside picnic, of being railed by history that looks to the past to understand wtf has happened to us

idk, at least some experience is that the historical process implies fatedness, the very difficulty of steering that process. but overall I see what he is saying./

delete "of the fact"

add glossary entry: མྱ་ངན་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱི་མུན་པ་ངེས་པར་འཇོམས་པ་ mya ngan thams cad kyi mun pa nges par 'joms pa/ [no Sanskrit]/Vanquishing the Darkness of All Sorrow/ A bodhisattva present in the audience for this discourse.

untag 'Eon' and please add a glossary entry for the whole term: bskal pa bzang po/ bhadrakalpa/AD/Fortunate Eon/ The name of the current eon, so-called because one thousand buddhas are prophesied to appear during this time.

eLife Assessment

This paper addresses the significant question of quantifying epistasis patterns, which affect the predictability of evolution, by reanalyzing a recently published combinatorial deep mutational scan experiment. The findings are useful, showing that epistasis is fluid, i.e. strongly background dependent, but that fitness effects of mutations are statistically predictable based on the background fitness. While the general approach appears solid, some claims remain incompletely supported by the analysis, as arbitrary cutoffs are used and the description of methods lacks specifics. This analysis should be of interest to the community working on fitness landscapes.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The paper reports some interesting patterns in epistasis in a recently published large fitness landscape dataset. The results may have implications for our understanding of fitness landscapes and protein evolution. However, this version of the paper remains fairly descriptive and has significant deficiencies in clarity and rigor.

The authors have addressed some of my criticisms (e.g., I appreciate the additional analysis of synonymous mutations, and a more rigorous approach to calling fitness peaks), but many of the issues raised in my first round of review remain in the current version. Frankly, I am quite disappointed that the authors did not address my comments point by point, which is the norm. The remaining (and some new) issues are below.

(1a) (Modified from first round) I previously suggested to dissect what appears to be three different patterns of epistasis: "strong" and "weak" global epistasis and what one can could "purely idiosyncratic", i.e., not dependent on background fitness. The authors attempted to address this, but I don't think what they have done is sufficient. They make a statement "The lethal mutations have a slope smaller than -0.7 and average slope of -0.98. The remaining mutations all have a slope greater than -0.56" (LL 274-276)", but there is no evidence provided to support this claim. This is a strong and I think interesting statement (btw, how is "lethal" defined?) and warrants a dedicated figure. This statement suggests that the mixed patterns shown in Figure 5 can actually be meaningfully separated. Why don't the authors show this? Instead, they still claim "overall, global epistasis is not very strong on the folA landscape" (LL. 273-274). I maintain that this claim does not quite capture the observations.

Later in the text there is a whole section called "Only a small fraction of mutations exhibit strong global epistasis", which also seems related to this issue. First, I don't follow the logic here. Why is this section separate from this initial discussion? Second, here the authors claim "only a small subset of mutations exhibits strong global epistasis (R^2 > 0.5)" and then "This sharp contrast suggests a binary behavior of mutations: they either exhibit strong global epistasis (R2 > 0.5), or not (R2 < 0.5)." But this R^2 threshold seems arbitrary, and I don't see any statistical support for this binary nature.

(1b) (Verbatim from first round) Another rather remarkable feature of this plot is that the slopes of the strong global epistasis patterns sem to be very similar across mutations. Is this the case? Is there anything special about this slope? For example, does this slope simply reflect the fact that a given mutation becomes essentially lethal (i.e., produces the same minimal fitness) in a certain set of background genotypes?

(1c) (Verbatim from first round) Finally, how consistent are these patterns with some null expectations? Specifically, would one expect the same distribution of global epistasis slopes on an uncorrelated landscape? Are the pivot points unusually clustered relative to an expectation on an uncorrelated landscape?

(1d) (Verbatim from first round) The shapes of the DFE shown in Figure 7 are also quite interesting, particularly the bimodal nature of the DFE in high-fitness (HF) backgrounds. I think this bimodalilty must be a reflection of clustering of mutation-background combinations mentioned above. I think the authors ought to draw this connection explicitly. Do all HF backgrounds have a bimodal DFE? What mutations occupy the "moving" peak?

(1e) (Modified from first round). I still don't understand why there are qualitative differences in the shape of the DFE between functional and non-functional backgrounds (Figure 8B,C). Why is the transition between bimodal DFE in Figure 8B and unimodal DFE in Figure 8C is so abrupt? Perhaps the authors can plot the DFEs for all backgrounds on the same plot and just draw a line that separates functional and non-functional backgrounds so that the reader can better see whether DFE shape changes gradually or abruptly.

(1f) (Modified from first round) I am now more convinced that synonymous mutations alter epistasis and behave differently than non-synonymous mutations, but I still have some questions. (i) I would have liked a side-by-side comparison of synonymous and non-synonymous mutations, both in terms of their effects on fitness and on epistasis.<br /> (ii) The authors claim (LL 278-286) that "synonymous substitutions tend to follow two recurring behaviors" but this is not shown. To demonstrate this, the authors ought to plot (for example) the distribution of slopes of regression lines. Is this distribution actually bimodal? (iii) Later in the same paragraph the authors say "synonymous changes do not exhibit very strong background fitness-dependence". I don't see how this follows from the previous discussion.

(2) The authors claim to have improved statistical rigor of their analysis, but the Methods section is really thin and inadequate for understanding how the statistical analyses were done.

(3) In general, I notice a regrettable lack of attention to detail in the text, which makes me worried about a similar problem in the actual data analysis. Here are a few examples. (i) Throughout the text, the authors now refer to functional and non-functional genotypes, but several figures and captions retained the old HF and LF designations. (ii) Figure 7 is called Figure 8. (iii) Figure 3B is not discussed, though it logically precedes Figure 3A and 3C. (iv) Many of my comments, especially minor, were not addressed at all.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have studied a previously published large dataset on the fitness landscape of a 9 base-pair region of the folA gene. The objective of the paper is to understand various aspects of epistasis in this system, which the authors have achieved through detailed and computationally expensive exploration of the landscape. The authors describe epistasis in this system as "fluid", meaning that it depends sensitively on the genetic background, thereby reducing the predictability of evolution at the genetic level. However, the study also finds some robust patterns. The first is the existence of a "pivot point" for a majority of mutations, which is a fixed growth rate at which the effect of mutations switches from beneficial to deleterious (consistent with a previous study on the topic). The second is the observation that the distribution of fitness effects (DFE) of mutations is predicted quite well by the fitness of the genotype, especially for high-fitness genotypes. While the work does not offer a synthesis of the multitude of reported results, the information provided here raises interesting questions for future studies in this field.

Strengths:

A major strength of the study is its multifaceted approach, which has helped the authors tease out a number of interesting epistatic properties. The study makes a timely contribution by focusing on topical issues like global epistasis, the existence of pivot points, and the dependence of DFE on the background genotype and its fitness.

The authors have classified pairwise epistasis into six types, and found that the type of epistasis changes depending on background mutations. Switches happen more frequently for mutations at functionally important sites. Interestingly, the authors find that even synonymous mutations can alter the epistatic interaction between mutations in other codons, and this effect is uncorrelated with the direct fitness effects of the synonymous mutations. Alongside the observations of "fluidity", the study reports limited instances of global epistasis (which predicts a simple linear relationship between the size of a mutational effect and the fitness of the genetic background in which it occurs). Overall, the work presents strong evidence for the genetic context-dependent nature of epistasis in this system.

Weaknesses:

Despite the wealth of information provided by the study, there are a few points of concern.

The authors find that in non-functional genotypic backgrounds, most pairs of mutations display no epistasis. However, we do not know if this simply because a significant epistatic signal is hard to detect since all the fitness values involved in calculating epistasis are small (and therefore noise-prone). A control can be done by determining whether statistically significant differences exist among the fitness values themselves. In the absence of such information, it is hard to understand whether the classification of epistasis for non-functional backgrounds into discrete categories, such as in Fig 1C, is meaningful.

The authors have looked for global epistasis (i.e. a negative dependence of mutational fitness effect on background fitness) in all 108 (9x12) mutations in the landscape. They report that the majority of the mutations (77/108 or about 71 per cent) display weak correlation between fitness effect and background fitness (R^2<0.2), and a relatively small proportion show particularly strong correlation (R^2>0.5). They therefore conclude that global epistasis in this system is 'binary'-meaning that strong global epistasis is restricted to a few sites, whereas weak global epistasis occurs in the rest (Figure 5). Precise definitions of 'strong' and 'weak' are not given in the text, but the authors do mention that they are interested here primarily in detecting whether a correlation with background fitness exists or not. This again raises the question of the extent to which the low (and possibly noisy) fitness values of non-functional backgrounds can confound the results. For example, would the results be much the same if the analysis was repeated with only high-fitness backgrounds or only those sets of genotypes where the fitness differences between backgrounds and mutants were significant?<br /> Apart from this, I am also a bit conceptually perplexed by the term 'binary behavior', which suggests that the R^2 values should belong to two distinct classes; but, even assuming that the reported results are robust, Figure S12 shows that most values are 0.2 or less whereas higher values are more or less evenly distributed in the range 0.2-1.0, rather than showing an overall bimodal pattern. An especially confusing remark by the authors in this regard is the following; "This sharp contrast suggests a binary behavior of mutations: they either exhibit strong global epistasis (R^2 > 0.5), or not (R^2 < 0.5)'.

Conclusions: As large datasets on empirical fitness landscapes become increasingly available, more computational studies are needed to extract as much information from them as possible. The authors have made a timely effort in this direction. It is particularly instructive to learn from the work that higher-order epistasis is pervasive in the studied intragenic landscape, at least in functional genotypic backgrounds. Some of the analysis and interpretations in the paper require careful scrutiny, and the lack of a synthesis of the multitude of reported results leaves something to be desired. But the paper contains intriguing observations that can fuel further research into the factors shaping the topography of complex landscapes.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Reviewer #1 (Public review): 

This paper describes a number of patterns of epistasis in a large fitness landscape dataset recently published by Papkou et al. The paper is motivated by an important goal in the field of evolutionary biology to understand the statistical structure of epistasis in protein fitness landscapes, and it capitalizes on the unique opportunities presented by this new dataset to address this problem. 

The paper reports some interesting previously unobserved patterns that may have implications for our understanding of fitness landscapes and protein evolution. In particular, Figure 5 is very intriguing. However, I have two major concerns detailed below. First, I found the paper rather descriptive (it makes little attempt to gain deeper insights into the origins of the observed patterns) and unfocused (it reports what appears to be a disjointed collection of various statistics without a clear narrative. Second, I have concerns with the statistical rigor of the work. 

(1) I think Figures 5 and 7 are the main, most interesting, and novel results of the paper. However, I don't think that the statement "Only a small fraction of mutations exhibit global epistasis" accurately describes what we see in Figure 5. To me, the most striking feature of this figure is that the effects of most mutations at all sites appear to be a mixture of three patterns. The most interesting pattern noted by the authors is of course the "strong" global epistasis, i.e., when the effect of a mutation is highly negatively correlated with the fitness of the background genotype. The second pattern is a "weak" global epistasis, where the correlation with background fitness is much weaker or non-existent. The third pattern is the vertically spread-out cluster at low-fitness backgrounds, i.e., a mutation has a wide range of mostly positive effects that are clearly not correlated with fitness. What is very interesting to me is that all background genotypes fall into these three groups with respect to almost every mutation, but the proportions of the three groups are different for different mutations. In contrast to the authors' statement, it seems to me that almost all mutations display strong global epistasis in at least a subset of backgrounds. A clear example is C>A mutation at site 3. 

(1a) I think the authors ought to try to dissect these patterns and investigate them separately rather than lumping them all together and declaring that global epistasis is rare. For example, I would like to know whether those backgrounds in which mutations exhibit strong global epistasis are the same for all mutations or whether they are mutation- or perhaps positionspecific. Both answers could be potentially very interesting, either pointing to some specific site-site interactions or, alternatively, suggesting that the statistical patterns are conserved despite variation in the underlying interactions. 

(1b) Another rather remarkable feature of this plot is that the slopes of the strong global epistasis patterns seem to be very similar across mutations. Is this the case? Is there anything special about this slope? For example, does this slope simply reflect the fact that a given mutation becomes essentially lethal (i.e., produces the same minimal fitness) in a certain set of background genotypes? 

(1c) Finally, how consistent are these patterns with some null expectations? Specifically, would one expect the same distribution of global epistasis slopes on an uncorrelated landscape? Are the pivot points unusually clustered relative to an expectation on an uncorrelated landscape? 

(1d) The shapes of the DFE shown in Figure 7 are also quite interesting, particularly the bimodal nature of the DFE in high-fitness (HF) backgrounds. I think this bimodality must be a reflection of the clustering of mutation-background combinations mentioned above. I think the authors ought to draw this connection explicitly. Do all HF backgrounds have a bimodal DFE? What mutations occupy the "moving" peak? 

(1e) In several figures, the authors compare the patterns for HF and low-fitness (LF) genotypes. In some cases, there are some stark differences between these two groups, most notably in the shape of the DFE (Figure 7B, C). But there is no discussion about what could underlie these differences. Why are the statistics of epistasis different for HF and LF genotypes? Can the authors at least speculate about possible reasons? Why do HF and LF genotypes have qualitatively different DFEs? I actually don't quite understand why the transition between bimodal DFE in Figure 7B and unimodal DFE in Figure 7C is so abrupt. Is there something biologically special about the threshold that separates LF and HF genotypes? My understanding was that this was just a statistical cutoff. Perhaps the authors can plot the DFEs for all backgrounds on the same plot and just draw a line that separates HF and LF backgrounds so that the reader can better see whether the DFE shape changes gradually or abruptly.

(1f) The analysis of the synonymous mutations is also interesting. However I think a few additional analyses are necessary to clarify what is happening here. I would like to know the extent to which synonymous mutations are more often neutral compared to non-synonymous ones. Then, synonymous pairs interact in the same way as non-synonymous pair (i.e., plot Figure 1 for synonymous pairs)? Do synonymous or non-synonymous mutations that are neutral exhibit less epistasis than non-neutral ones? Finally, do non-synonymous mutations alter epistasis among other mutations more often than synonymous mutations do? What about synonymous-neutral versus synonymous-non-neutral. Basically, I'd like to understand the extent to which a mutation that is neutral in a given background is more or less likely to alter epistasis between other mutations than a non-neutral mutation in the same background. 

(2) I have two related methodological concerns. First, in several analyses, the authors employ thresholds that appear to be arbitrary. And second, I did not see any account of measurement errors. For example, the authors chose the 0.05 threshold to distinguish between epistasis and no epistasis, but why this particular threshold was chosen is not justified. Another example: is whether the product s12 × (s1 + s2) is greater or smaller than zero for any given mutation is uncertain due to measurement errors. Presumably, how to classify each pair of mutations should depend on the precision with which the fitness of mutants is measured. These thresholds could well be different across mutants. We know, for example, that low-fitness mutants typically have noisier fitness estimates than high-fitness mutants. I think the authors should use a statistically rigorous procedure to categorize mutations and their epistatic interactions. I think it is very important to address this issue. I got very concerned about it when I saw on LL 383-388 that synonymous stop codon mutations appear to modulate epistasis among other mutations. This seems very strange to me and makes me quite worried that this is a result of noise in LF genotypes. 

Thank you for your review of the manuscript. In the revised version, we have addressed both major criticisms, as detailed below.

When carefully examining the plots in Figure 5 independently, we indeed observe that the fitness effect of a mutation on different genetic backgrounds can be classified into three characteristic patterns. Our reasoning for these patterns is as follows:

Strong correlation: Typically observed when the mutation is lethal across backgrounds. Linear regression of mutations exhibiting strong global epistasis shows slopes close to −1 and pivot points near −0.7 (Table S4). Since the reported fitness threshold is −0.508, these mutations push otherwise functional backgrounds into the non-functional range, consistent with lethal effects.

Weak correlation: Observed when a mutation has no significant effect on fitness across backgrounds, consistent with neutrality.

No correlation: Out of the 261,333 reported variants, 243,303 (93%) lie below the fitness threshold of −0.508, indicating that the low-fitness region is densely populated by nonfunctional variants. The “strong correlation” and “weak correlation” lines intersect in this zone. Most mutations in this region have little effect (neutral), but occasional abrupt fitness increases correspond to “resurrecting” mutations, the converse of lethal changes. For example, mutations such as X→G at locus 4 or X→A at locus 5 restore function, while the reverse changes (e.g. C→A at locus 3) are lethal.

Thus, the “no-correlation” pattern is largely explained by mutations that reverse the effect of lethal changes, effectively resurrecting non-functional variants. In the revised manuscript, we highlight these nuances within the broader classification of fitness effect versus background fitness (pp. 10–13).

Additional analyses included in the revision:

Synonymous vs. non-synonymous pairs: We repeated the Figure 1 analysis for synonymous–synonymous pairs. As expected, synonymous pairs exhibit lower overall frequencies of epistasis, consistent with their greater neutrality. However, the qualitative spectrum remains similar: positive and negative epistasis dominate, while sign epistasis is rare (Supplementary Figs. S6–S7, S9–S10).

Fitness effect vs. epistasis change: We tested whether the mean fitness effect of a mutation correlates with the percent of cases in which it changes the nature of epistasis. No correlation was found (R² ≈ 0.11), and this analysis is now included in the revised manuscript.

Epistasis-modulating ability: Non-synonymous mutations more frequently alter the interactions between other mutations than synonymous substitutions. Within synonymous substitutions, the subset with measurable fitness effects disproportionately contributes to epistasis modulation. Thus, the ability of synonymous substitutions to modulate epistasis arises primarily from the non-neutral subset.

These analyses clarify the role of synonymous mutations in reshaping epistasis on the folA landscape.

Revision of statistical treatment of epistasis:

In our original submission, we used an arbitrary threshold of 0.05 to classify the presence or absence of epistasis, following Papkou et al., who based conclusions on a single experimental replicate. However, as the reviewer correctly noted, this does not adequately account for measurement variability across different genotypes.

In the revised manuscript, we adopt a statistically rigorous framework that incorporates replicate-based error directly. Specifically, we now use the mean fitness across six independent replicates, together with the corresponding standard deviation, to classify fitness peaks and epistasis. This eliminates arbitrary thresholds and ensures that epistatic classifications reflect the precision of measurements for each genotype.

This revision led to both quantitative and qualitative changes:

For high-fitness genotypes, the core patterns of higher-order (“fluid”) epistasis remain robust (Figures 2–3).

For low-fitness genotypes, incorporating replicate-based error removed spurious fluidity effects, yielding a more accurate characterization of epistasis (Figures 2–3; Supplementary Figs. S6–S7, S9–S10).

We describe these methodological changes in detail in the revised Methods section and provide updated code.

Together, these revisions directly address the reviewer’s concerns. They improve the statistical rigor of our analysis, strengthen the robustness of our conclusions, and underscore the importance of accounting for measurement error in large-scale fitness landscape studies—a point we now emphasize in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review): 

Significance: 

This paper reanalyzes an experimental fitness landscape generated by Papkou et al., who assayed the fitness of all possible combinations of 4 nucleotide states at 9 sites in the E. coli DHFR gene, which confers antibiotic resistance. The 9 nucleotide sites make up 3 amino acid sites in the protein, of which one was shown to be the primary determinant of fitness by Papkou et al. This paper sought to assess whether pairwise epistatic interactions differ among genetic backgrounds at other sites and whether there are major patterns in any such differences. They use a "double mutant cycle" approach to quantify pairwise epistasis, where the epistatic interaction between two mutations is the difference between the measured fitness of the double-mutant and its predicted fitness in the absence of epistasis (which equals the sum of individual effects of each mutation observed in the single mutants relative to the reference genotype). The paper claims that epistasis is "fluid," because pairwise epistatic effects often differs depending on the genetic state at the other site. It also claims that this fluidity is "binary," because pairwise effects depend strongly on the state at nucleotide positions 5 and 6 but weakly on those at other sites. Finally, they compare the distribution of fitness effects (DFE) of single mutations for starting genotypes with similar fitness and find that despite the apparent "fluidity" of interactions this distribution is well-predicted by the fitness of the starting genotype. 

The paper addresses an important question for genetics and evolution: how complex and unpredictable are the effects and interactions among mutations in a protein? Epistasis can make the phenotype hard to predict from the genotype and also affect the evolutionary navigability of a genotype landscape. Whether pairwise epistatic interactions depend on genetic background - that is, whether there are important high-order interactions -- is important because interactions of order greater than pairwise would make phenotypes especially idiosyncratic and difficult to predict from the genotype (or by extrapolating from experimentally measured phenotypes of genotypes randomly sampled from the huge space of possible genotypes). Another interesting question is the sparsity of such high-order interactions: if they exist but mostly depend on a small number of identifiable sequence sites in the background, then this would drastically reduce the complexity and idiosyncrasy relative to a landscape on which "fluidity" involves interactions among groups of all sites in the protein. A number of papers in the recent literature have addressed the topics of high-order epistasis and sparsity and have come to conflicting conclusions. This paper contributes to that body of literature with a case study of one published experimental dataset of high quality. The findings are therefore potentially significant if convincingly supported. 

Validity: 

In my judgment, the major conclusions of this paper are not well supported by the data. There are three major problems with the analysis. 

(1) Lack of statistical tests. The authors conclude that pairwise interactions differ among backgrounds, but no statistical analysis is provided to establish that the observed differences are statistically significant, rather than being attributable to error and noise in the assay measurements. It has been established previously that the methods the authors use to estimate high-order interactions can result in inflated inferences of epistasis because of the propagation of measurement noise (see PMID 31527666 and 39261454). Error propagation can be extreme because first-order mutation effects are calculated as the difference between the measured phenotype of a single-mutant variant and the reference genotype; pairwise effects are then calculated as the difference between the measured phenotype of a double mutant and the sum of the differences described above for the single mutants. This paper claims fluidity when this latter difference itself differs when assessed in two different backgrounds. At each step of these calculations, measurement noise propagates. Because no statistical analysis is provided to evaluate whether these observed differences are greater than expected because of propagated error, the paper has not convincingly established or quantified "fluidity" in epistatic effects. 

(2) Arbitrary cutoffs. Many of the analyses involve assigning pairwise interactions into discrete categories, based on the magnitude and direction of the difference between the predicted and observed phenotypes for a pairwise mutant. For example, the authors categorize as a positive pairwise interaction if the apparent deviation of phenotype from prediction is >0.05, negative if the deviation is <-0.05, and no interaction if the deviation is between these cutoffs. Fluidity is diagnosed when the category for a pairwise interaction differs among backgrounds. These cutoffs are essentially arbitrary, and the effects are assigned to categories without assessing statistical significance. For example, an interaction of 0.06 in one background and 0.04 in another would be classified as fluid, but it is very plausible that such a difference would arise due to error alone. The frequency of epistatic interactions in each category as claimed in the paper, as well as the extent of fluidity across backgrounds, could therefore be systematically overestimated or underestimated, affecting the major conclusions of the study. 

(3) Global nonlinearities. The analyses do not consider the fact that apparent fluidity could be attributable to the fact that fitness measurements are bounded by a minimum (the fitness of cells carrying proteins in which DHFR is essentially nonfunctional) and a maximum (the fitness of cells in which some biological factor other than DHFR function is limiting for fitness). The data are clearly bounded; the original Papkou et al. paper states that 93% of genotypes are at the low-fitness limit at which deleterious effects no longer influence fitness. Because of this bounding, mutations that are strongly deleterious to DHFR function will therefore have an apparently smaller effect when introduced in combination with other deleterious mutations, leading to apparent epistatic interactions; moreover, these apparent interactions will have different magnitudes if they are introduced into backgrounds that themselves differ in DHFR function/fitness, leading to apparent "fluidity" of these interactions. This is a well-established issue in the literature (see PMIDs 30037990, 28100592, 39261454). It is therefore important to adjust for these global nonlinearities before assessing interactions, but the authors have not done this. 

This global nonlinearity could explain much of the fluidity claimed in this paper. It could explain the observation that epistasis does not seem to depend as much on genetic background for low-fitness backgrounds, and the latter is constant (Figure 2B and 2C): these patterns would arise simply because the effects of deleterious mutations are all epistatically masked in backgrounds that are already near the fitness minimum. It would also explain the observations in Figure 7. For background genotypes with relatively high fitness, there are two distinct peaks of fitness effects, which likely correspond to neutral mutations and deleterious mutations that bring fitness to the lower bound of measurement; as the fitness of the background declines, the deleterious mutations have a smaller effect, so the two peaks draw closer to each other, and in the lowest-fitness backgrounds, they collapse into a single unimodal distribution in which all mutations are approximately neutral (with the distribution reflecting only noise). Global nonlinearity could also explain the apparent "binary" nature of epistasis. Sites 4 and 5 change the second amino acid, and the Papkou paper shows that only 3 amino acid states (C, D, and E) are compatible with function; all others abolish function and yield lower-bound fitness, while mutations at other sites have much weaker effects. The apparent binary nature of epistasis in Figure 5 corresponds to these effects given the nonlinearity of the fitness assay. Most mutations are close to neutral irrespective of the fitness of the background into which they are introduced: these are the "non-epistatic" mutations in the binary scheme. For the mutations at sites 4 and 5 that abolish one of the beneficial mutations, however, these have a strong background-dependence: they are very deleterious when introduced into a high-fitness background but their impact shrinks as they are introduced into backgrounds with progressively lower fitness. The apparent "binary" nature of global epistasis is likely to be a simple artifact of bounding and the bimodal distribution of functional effects: neutral mutations are insensitive to background, while the magnitude of the fitness effect of deleterious mutations declines with background fitness because they are masked by the lower bound. The authors' statement is that "global epistasis often does not hold." This is not established. A more plausible conclusion is that global epistasis imposed by the phenotype limits affects all mutations, but it does so in a nonlinear fashion. 

In conclusion, most of the major claims in the paper could be artifactual. Much of the claimed pairwise epistasis could be caused by measurement noise, the use of arbitrary cutoffs, and the lack of adjustment for global nonlinearity. Much of the fluidity or higher-order epistasis could be attributable to the same issues. And the apparently binary nature of global epistasis is also the expected result of this nonlinearity. 

We thank the reviewer for raising this important concern. We fully agree that the use of arbitrary thresholds in the earlier version of the manuscript, together with the lack of an explicit treatment of measurement error, could compromise the rigor of our conclusions. To address this, we have undertaken a thorough re-analysis of the folA landscape.

(1)  Incorporating measurement error and avoiding noise-driven artifacts

In the original version, we followed Papkou et al. in using a single experimental replicate and applying fixed thresholds to classify epistasis. As the reviewer correctly notes, this approach allows noise to propagate from single-mutant measurements to double-mutant effects, and ultimately to higher-order epistasis.

In the revised analysis, we now:

Use the mean fitness across all six independent replicates for each genotype.

Incorporate the corresponding standard deviation as a measure of experimental error.

Classify epistatic interactions only when differences between a genotype and its neighbors exceed combined error margins, rather than using a fixed cutoff.

This ensures that observed changes in epistasis are statistically distinguishable from noise. Details are provided in the revised Methods section and updated code.

(2) Replacing arbitrary thresholds with error-based criteria

Previously, we used an arbitrary ±0.05 cutoff to define the presence/absence of epistasis. As the reviewer notes, this could misclassify interactions (e.g. labeling an effect as “fluid” when the difference lies within error). In the revised framework, these thresholds have been eliminated. Instead, interactions are classified based on whether their distributions overlap within replicate variance.

This approach scales naturally with measurement precision, which differs between high-fitness and low-fitness genotypes, and removes the need for a universal cutoff.

(3) Consequences of re-analysis

Implementing this revised framework produced several important updates:

High-fitness backgrounds: The qualitative picture of higher-order (“fluid”) epistasis remains robust. The patterns reported originally are preserved.

Low-fitness backgrounds: Accounting for replicate variance revealed that part of the previously inferred “fluidity” arose from noise. These spurious effects are now removed, giving a more conservative but more accurate view of epistasis in non-functional regions.

Fitness peaks: Our replicate-aware analysis identifies 127 peaks, compared to 514 in Papkou et al. Importantly, all 127 peaks occur in functional regions of the landscape. This difference highlights the importance of replicate-based error treatment: relying on a single run without demonstrating repeatability can yield artifacts.

(4) Addressing bounding effects and terminology

We also agree with the reviewer that bounding effects, arising from the biological limits of fitness, can create apparent nonlinearities in the genotype–phenotype map. To clarify this, we made the following changes:

Terminology: We now use the term higher-order epistasis instead of fluid epistasis, emphasizing that the observed background-dependence involves more than two mutations and cannot be explained by global nonlinearities alone.

We also clarify the definitions of sign-epistasis used in this work.

By replacing arbitrary cutoffs with replicate-based error estimates and by explicitly considering bounding effects, we have substantially increased the rigor of our analysis. While this reanalysis led to both quantitative and qualitative changes in some regions, the central conclusion remains unchanged: higher-order epistasis is pervasive in the folA landscape, especially in functional backgrounds.

All analysis scripts and codes are provided as Supplementary Material.

Reviewer #3 (Public review): 

Summary: 

The authors have studied a previously published large dataset on the fitness landscape of a 9 base-pair region of the folA gene. The objective of the paper is to understand various aspects of epistasis in this system, which the authors have achieved through detailed and computationally expensive exploration of the landscape. The authors describe epistasis in this system as "fluid", meaning that it depends sensitively on the genetic background, thereby reducing the predictability of evolution at the genetic level. However, the study also finds two robust patterns. The first is the existence of a "pivot point" for a majority of mutations, which is a fixed growth rate at which the effect of mutations switches from beneficial to deleterious (consistent with a previous study on the topic). The second is the observation that the distribution of fitness effects (DFE) of mutations is predicted quite well by the fitness of the genotype, especially for high-fitness genotypes. While the work does not offer a synthesis of the multitude of reported results, the information provided here raises interesting questions for future studies in this field. 

Strengths: 

A major strength of the study is its detailed and multifaceted approach, which has helped the authors tease out a number of interesting epistatic properties. The study makes a timely contribution by focusing on topical issues like the prevalence of global epistasis, the existence of pivot points, and the dependence of DFE on the background genotype and its fitness. The methodology is presented in a largely transparent manner, which makes it easy to interpret and evaluate the results. 

The authors have classified pairwise epistasis into six types and found that the type of epistasis changes depending on background mutations. Switches happen more frequently for mutations at functionally important sites. Interestingly, the authors find that even synonymous mutations in stop codons can alter the epistatic interaction between mutations in other codons. Consistent with these observations of "fluidity", the study reports limited instances of global epistasis (which predicts a simple linear relationship between the size of a mutational effect and the fitness of the genetic background in which it occurs). Overall, the work presents some evidence for the genetic context-dependent nature of epistasis in this system. 

Weaknesses: 

Despite the wealth of information provided by the study, there are some shortcomings of the paper which must be mentioned. 

(1) In the Significance Statement, the authors say that the "fluid" nature of epistasis is a previously unknown property. This is not accurate. What the authors describe as "fluidity" is essentially the prevalence of certain forms of higher-order epistasis (i.e., epistasis beyond pairwise mutational interactions). The existence of higher-order epistasis is a well-known feature of many landscapes. For example, in an early work, (Szendro et. al., J. Stat. Mech., 2013), the presence of a significant degree of higher-order epistasis was reported for a number of empirical fitness landscapes. Likewise, (Weinreich et. al., Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev., 2013) analysed several fitness landscapes and found that higher-order epistatic terms were on average larger than the pairwise term in nearly all cases. They further showed that ignoring higher-order epistasis leads to a significant overestimate of accessible evolutionary paths. The literature on higher-order epistasis has grown substantially since these early works. Any future versions of the present preprint will benefit from a more thorough contextual discussion of the literature on higher-order epistasis.

(2) In the paper, the term 'sign epistasis' is used in a way that is different from its wellestablished meaning. (Pairwise) sign epistasis, in its standard usage, is said to occur when the effect of a mutation switches from beneficial to deleterious (or vice versa) when a mutation occurs at a different locus. The authors require a stronger condition, namely that the sum of the individual effects of two mutations should have the opposite sign from their joint effect. This is a sufficient condition for sign epistasis, but not a necessary one. The property studied by the authors is important in its own right, but it is not equivalent to sign epistasis. 

(3) The authors have looked for global epistasis in all 108 (9x12) mutations, out of which only 16 showed a correlation of R^2 > 0.4. 14 out of these 16 mutations were in the functionally important nucleotide positions. Based on this, the authors conclude that global epistasis is rare in this landscape, and further, that mutations in this landscape can be classified into one of two binary states - those that exhibit global epistasis (a small minority) and those that do not (the majority). I suspect, however, that a biologically significant binary classification based on these data may be premature. Unsurprisingly, mutational effects are stronger at the functional sites as seen in Figure 5 and Figure 2, which means that even if global epistasis is present for all mutations, a statistical signal will be more easily detected for the functionally important sites. Indeed, the authors show that the means of DFEs decrease linearly with background fitness, which hints at the possibility that a weak global epistatic effect may be present (though hard to detect) in the individual mutations. Given the high importance of the phenomenon of global epistasis, it pays to be cautious in interpreting these results. 

(4) The study reports that synonymous mutations frequently change the nature of epistasis between mutations in other codons. However, it is unclear whether this should be surprising, because, as the authors have already noted, synonymous mutations can have an impact on cellular functions. The reader may wonder if the synonymous mutations that cause changes in epistatic interactions in a certain background also tend to be non-neutral in that background. Unfortunately, the fitness effect of synonymous mutations has not been reported in the paper. 

(5) The authors find that DFEs of high-fitness genotypes tend to depend only on fitness and not on genetic composition. This is an intriguing observation, but unfortunately, the authors do not provide any possible explanation or connect it to theoretical literature. I am reminded of work by (Agarwala and Fisher, Theor. Popul. Biol., 2019) as well as (Reddy and Desai, eLife, 2023) where conditions under which the DFE depends only on the fitness have been derived. Any discussion of possible connections to these works could be a useful addition.  

We thank the reviewer for the summary of our work and for highlighting both its strengths and areas for improvement. We have carefully considered the points raised and revised the manuscript accordingly. The revised version:

(1) Clarifies the conceptual framework. We emphasize the distinction between background-dependent, higher-order epistasis and global nonlinearities. To avoid ambiguity, we have replaced the term “fluid” epistasis with higher-order epistasis throughout, in line with prior literature (e.g. Szendro et al., 2013; Weinreich et al., 2013). We now explicitly situate our results in the context of these studies and clarify our definitions of epistasis, correcting the earlier error where “strong sign epistasis” was used in place of “sign epistasis.”

(2) Improves statistical rigor. We now incorporate replicate variance and statistical error criteria in place of arbitrary thresholds. This ensures that classification of epistasis reflects experimental precision rather than fixed, arbitrary cutoffs.

(3) Expands treatment of synonymous mutations. We now explicitly analyze synonymous mutations, separating those that are neutral from those that are non-neutral. Our results show that non-neutral synonymous mutations are disproportionately responsible for altering epistatic interactions, while neutral synonymous mutations rarely do so. We also report the fitness effects of synonymous mutations directly and include new analyses showing that there is no correlation between the mean fitness effect of a synonymous mutation and the frequency with which it alters epistasis (Supplementary Fig. S11).

These revisions strengthen both the rigor and the clarity of the manuscript. We hope they address the reviewer’s concerns and make the significance of our findings, particularly the siteresolved quantification of higher-order epistasis in the folA landscape, including in synonymous mutations, more apparent.

Reviewing Editor Comments: 

Key revision suggestions: 

(1) Please quantify the impact of measurement noise on your conclusions, and perform statistical analysis to determine whether the observed differences of epistasis due to different backgrounds are statistically significant. 

(2) Please investigate how your conclusions depend on the cutoffs, and consider choosing them based on statistical criteria. 

(3) Please reconsider the possible role of global epistasis. In particular, the effect of bounds on fitness values. All reviewers are concerned that all claims, including about global epistasis, may be consistent with a simple null model where most low fitness genotypes are non-functional and variation in their fitness is simply driven by measurement noise. Please provide a convincing argument rejecting this model. 

More generally, we recommend that you consider all suggestions by reviewers, including those about results, but also those about terminology and citing relevant works. 

Thank you for your guidance. We have substantially revised the manuscript to incorporate the reviewers’ suggestions. In addition to addressing the three central issues raised, we have refined terminology, expanded the discussion of prior work, and clarified the presentation of our main results. We believe these changes significantly strengthen both the rigor and the impact of the study. We are grateful to the Reviewing Editor and reviewers for their constructive feedback.

In the revised manuscript, we address the three major points as follows:

(1) Quantifying measurement noise and statistical significance. We now use the average of six independent experimental runs for each genotype, together with the corresponding standard deviations, to explicitly quantify measurement uncertainty. Pairwise and higher-order epistasis are assessed relative to these error estimates, rather than against fixed thresholds. This ensures that differences across genetic backgrounds are statistically distinguishable from noise.

(2) Replacing arbitrary cutoffs with statistical criteria. We have eliminated the use of arbitrary thresholds. Instead, classification of interactions (positive, negative, or neutral epistasis) is based on whether fitness differences exceed replicate variance. This approach scales naturally with measurement precision. While some results change quantitatively for high-fitness backgrounds and qualitatively for low-fitness backgrounds, our central conclusions remain robust.

(3) Analysis of synonymous mutations. We now separately analyze synonymous mutations to test their role in altering epistasis. Our results show that there is no correlation between the average fitness effect of a synonymous mutation and the frequency with which it changes epistatic interactions.

We have revised terminology for clarity (replacing “fluid” with higher-order epistasis) and updated the Discussion to place our work in the broader context of the literature on higher-order epistasis.

Finally, we have rewritten the entire manuscript to improve clarity, refine the narrative flow, and ensure that the presentation more crisply reflects the subject of the study

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors): 

MINOR COMMENTS 

(1) Lines 102-107. Papkou's definition of non-functional genotypes makes sense since it is based on the fact that some genotypes are statistically indistinguishable in terms of fitness from mutants with premature stop codons in folA. It doesn't really matter whether to call them low fitness or non-functional, but it would be helpful to explain the basis for this distinction. 

Thank you for raising this point. To maintain consistency with the original dataset and analysis, we retain Papkou et al.’s nomenclature and refer to these genotypes as “functional” or “non-functional.” 

(2) Lines 111-112. I think the authors need to briefly explain here how they define the absence of epistasis. They do so in the Methods, but this information is essential and needs to be conveyed to the reader in the Results as well. 

Thank you for the suggestion. We agree that this definition is essential for readers to follow the Results. In the revised manuscript, we have added a brief explanation at the start of the Results section clarifying how we define the absence of epistasis. Specifically, we now state that two mutations are considered non-epistatic when the observed fitness of the double mutant is statistically indistinguishable (within error of six replicates) from the additive expectation based on the single mutants. This ensures that the Results section is selfcontained, while full details remain in the Methods.

(3) Lines 142 and elsewhere. The authors introduce the qualifier "fluid" to describe the fact that the value or sign of pairwise epistasis changes across genetic backgrounds. I don't see a need for this new terminology, since it is already captured adequately by the term "higher-order epistasis". The epistasis field is already rife with jargon, and I would prefer if new terms were introduced only when absolutely necessary. 

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that introducing new terminology is unnecessary here. In the revised manuscript, we have replaced the term “fluid” epistasis with “higher-order epistasis” throughout, to align with established usage and avoid adding jargon.

(4) Figure 6. I don't think this is the best way of showing that the pivot points are clustered. A histogram would be more appropriate and would take less space. However it would allow the authors to display a null distribution to demonstrate that this clustering is indeed surprising. 

(5) Lines 320-321. Mann-Whitney U tests whether one distribution is systematically shifted up or down relative to the other. Please change the language here. It looks like the authors also performed the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test, which is appropriate, but it doesn't look like the results are reported anywhere. Please report. 

(6) Lines 330-334. The fact that HF genotypes seem to have more similar DFEs than LF genotypes is somewhat counterintuitive. Could this be an artifact of the fact that any two random HF genotypes are more similar to each other than any two randomly sampled LF genotypes? 

(7) Lines 427. The sentence "The set of these selected variants are assigned their one hamming distance neighbours to construct a new 𝑛-base sequence space" is confusing. I think it is pretty clear how to construct a n-base sequence space, and this sentence adds more confusion than it removes. 

Thank you for raising this point. To maintain consistency with the original dataset and analysis, we retain Papkou et al.’s nomenclature and refer to these genotypes as “functional” or “non-functional.” 

We now start the results section of the manuscript with a brief description of how each type of epistasis is defined. Specifically, we now state that two mutations are considered non-epistatic when the observed fitness of the double mutant is statistically indistinguishable (within the error of six replicates) from the additive expectation based on the single mutants. This ensures that the Results section is self-contained, while full details remain in the Methods.

We also agree that introducing new terminology is unnecessary. In the revised manuscript, we have replaced the term “fluid” epistasis with “higher-order epistasis” throughout, to align with established usage and avoid adding jargon. Finally, we concur that the identified sentence was unnecessary and potentially confusing; it has been removed from the revised manuscript to improve clarity. In fact, we have rewritten the entire manuscript for better flow and readability. 

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors): 

(1) Supplementary Figure S2A and S3 seem to be the same. 

(3) The classification scheme for reciprocal sign/single sign/other sign epistasis differs from convention and should be made more explicit or renamed. 

(4) Re the claim that high and low fitness backgrounds have different frequencies of the various types of epistasis: 

Are the frequency distributions of the different types of epistasis statistically different between high and low fitness backgrounds statistically significant? It seems that they follow similar general patterns, and the sample size is much smaller for high fitness backgrounds so more variance in their distributions is expected. 

Do bounding of fitness measurements play a role in generating the differences in types of epistasis seen in high vs. low-fitness backgrounds? If many variants are at the lower bound of the fitness assay, then positive epistasis might simply be less detectable for these backgrounds (which seems to be the biggest difference between high/low fitness backgrounds). 

(5) In Figure 4B, points are not independent, because the mutation effects are calculated for all mutations in all backgrounds, rather than with reference to a single background or fluorescence value. The same mutations are therefore counted many times. 

(6) It is not clear how the "pivot growth rate" was calculated or what the importance of this metric is. 

(7) In the introduction, the justification for reanalyzing the Papkou et al dataset in particular is not clear. 

(8) Epistasis at the nucleotide level is expected because of the genetic code: fitness and function are primarily affected by amino acid changes, and nucleotide mutations will affect amino acids depending on the state at other nucleotide sites in the same codon. For the most part, this is not explicitly taken account of in the paper. I recommend separating apparent epistasis due to the genetic code from that attributable to dependence among codons. 

Thank you for noting this. Figure S2A shows results for high-fitness peaks only, whereas Figure S3 shows results for all peaks across the landscape. We have now made this distinction explicit in the figure legends and main text of the revised manuscript. 

In the revised analysis, peaks are defined using the average fitness across six experimental replicates along with the corresponding standard deviation. Each genotype is compared with all single-step neighbors, and it is classified as a peak only if its mean fitness is significantly higher than all neighbors (p < 0.05). This procedure explicitly accounts for measurement error and replaces the arbitrary thresholding used previously. Full details are now described in the Methods.

To avoid confusion, we now state our definitions explicitly at the start of the analysis. We have now corrected our definition in the text. We define sign epistasis as a one where at least one mutation switches from being beneficial to deleterious. 

We have clarified our motivation in the Introduction. The Papkou et al. dataset is the most comprehensive experimental map of a complete 9-bp region of folA and provides six independent replicates, making it uniquely suited for testing hypotheses about backgrounddependent epistasis. Importantly, Papkou et al. based their conclusions on a single run, whereas our reanalysis incorporates replicate means and variances, leading to substantive differences—for example, a reduction in reported peaks from 514 to 127. By recalibrating the analysis, we provide a more rigorous account of this landscape and highlight how methodological choices affect conclusions.

We also agree that some nucleotide-level epistasis reflects the structure of the genetic code (i.e., codon degeneracy and context-dependence of amino acid substitutions). In the revised manuscript, we explicitly separate epistasis attributable to codon structure from epistasis arising among codons. For example, synonymous mutations that alter epistasis within codons are treated separately from those affecting interactions across codons, and this distinction is now clearly indicated in the Results.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors): 

(1) The analysis of peak density and accessibility in the paragraph starting on line 96 seems a bit out of context. Its connection with the various forms of epistasis treated in the rest of the paper is unclear. 

(2) As mentioned in the Public Review, the term 'sign epistasis' has been used in a non-standard way. My suggestion would be to use a different term. Even a slightly modified term, such as "strong sign epistasis", should help to avoid any confusion. 

(3)  mentioned in the public review that it is not clear whether the synonymous mutations that change the type of epistasis also tend to be non-neutral. This issue could be addressed by computing, for example, the fitness effects of all synonymous mutations for backgrounds and mutation pairs where a switch in epistasis occurs, and comparing it with fitness effects where no such switch occurs. 

(4) Do the authors have any proposal for why synonymous mutations seem to cause more frequent changes in epistasis in low-fitness backgrounds? Related to this, is there any systematic difference between the types of switch caused by synonymous mutations in the low- versus high-fitness backgrounds? 

(5) It is unclear exactly how the pivot points were determined, especially since the data for many mutations is noisy. The protocol should be provided in the Methods section. 

(6) Line 303: possible typo, "accurate" --> "inaccurate". 

(7) The value of Delta used for the "phenotypic DFE" has not been mentioned in the main text (including Methods).

We agree that the connection needed to be clearer. In the revised manuscript, we (i) relocate and retitle this material as a brief “Landscape overview” preceding the epistasis analyses, (ii) explicitly link multi-peakedness and path accessibility to epistasis (e.g., multi-peak structure implies the presence of sign/reciprocal-sign epistasis; accessibility is shaped by background-dependent effects), and (iii) move derivations to the Supplement. We also recomputed peak density and accessibility using replicate-averaged fitness with replicate SDs, so the overview and downstream epistasis sections now use a single, error-aware landscape (updated in Figs. 1–3, with cross-references in the text).

We have aligned our terminology and now state definitions upfront. 

After replacing fixed cutoffs with replicate-based error criteria, switches are more frequent in high-fitness backgrounds (Fig. 3). Mechanistically, near the lower fitness bound, deleterious effects are masked (global nonlinearity), reducing apparent switching. Functional/high-fitness backgrounds allow both beneficial and deleterious outcomes, so background-dependent (higher-order) interactions manifest more readily. Switch types also vary by background fitness: high-fitness backgrounds show more sign/strong-sign switches, whereas low-fitness backgrounds show mostly magnitude reclassifications (Fig. 3C; Supplement Fig. Sx).

Finally, we corrected a typo by replacing “accurate” with “inaccurate” and now define Δ (equal to 0.05) in the main text (in Results and Figure 8 caption).

false agency. misattributed not to users.

This makes sense. For my own students, I find that they retain information better if I have them watch a video and take notes independently, versus me showing a video to the whole class and discusing it or taking notes. The visuals, audio, and re-explaining of a concept tie into this research

The context of how redundancy is used here is interesting to me. I typically think of redundancy in terms of repetition.

I feel like this is the backbone of instruction. We always want to start with the concept of what do my students know/not know, what is their ability level, how do I need to prepare the materials/text/tools so that they can independently access them?

Can we somehow set this section so once the timer hits 0, it either goes back to the calendar going straight across (probably difficult but preferred) or the timer disappears (second preference)?

eLife Assessment

Computational simulation of neuron function depends on a collection of morphological properties and ion channel biophysics. This manuscript introduces DendroTweaks, a valuable web application and Python library that eases interactive exploration, development, and validation of single-neuron models in an easily installable and well-documented package. The authors provide a convincing demonstration that their software aids with building intuition and rapid prototyping of biophysical models of neurons, which improves the accessibility of dendritic simulation.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Dendrotweaks provides to its users a solid tool to implement, visualize, tune, validate, understand, and reduce single-neuron models that incorporate complex dendritic arbors with differential distribution of biophysical mechanisms. The visualization of dendritic segments and biophysical mechanisms therein provide users an intuitive way to understand and appreciate dendritic physiology.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The paper by Makarov et al. describes the software tool called DendroTweaks, intended for examination of multi-compartmental biophysically detailed neuron models. It offers extensive capabilities for working with very complex distributed biophysical neuronal models and should be a useful addition to the growing ecosystem of tools for neuronal modeling.

Strengths

• This Python-based tool allows for visualization of a neuronal model's compartments.

• The tool works with morphology reconstructions in the widely used .swc and .asc formats.

• It can support many neuronal models using the NMODL language, which is widely used for neuronal modeling.

• It permits one to plot the properties of linear and non-linear conductances in every compartment of a neuronal model, facilitating examination of model's details.

• DendroTweaks supports manipulation of the model parameters and morphological details, which is important for exploration of the relations of the model composition and parameters with its electrophysiological activity.

• The paper is very well written - everything is clear, and the capabilities of the tool are described and illustrated with great attention to details.

Weaknesses

• Not a really big weakness, but it would be really helpful if the authors showed how the performance of their tool scales. This can be done for an increasing number of compartments - how long does it take to carry out typical procedures in DendroTweaks, on a given hardware, for a cell model with 100 compartments, 200, 300, and so on? This information will be quite useful to understand the applicability of the software.

Let me also add here a few suggestions (not weaknesses, but something that can be useful, and if the authors can easily add some of these for publication, that would strongly increase the value of the paper).

• It would be very helpful to add functionality to read major formats in the field, such as NeuroML and SONATA.

• Visualization is available as a static 2D projection of the cell's morphology. It would be nice to implement 3D interactive visualization.

• It is nice that DendroTweaks can modify the models, such as revising the radii of the morphological segments or ionic conductances. It would be really useful then to have the functionality for writing the resulting models into files for subsequent reuse.

• If I didn't miss something, it seems that DendroTweaks supports allocation of groups of synapses, where all synapses in a group receive the same type of Poisson spike train. It would be very useful to provide more flexibility. One option is to leverage the SONATA format, which has ample functionality for specifying such diverse inputs.

• "Each session can be saved as a .json file and reuploaded when needed" - do these files contain the whole history of the session or the exact snapshot of what is visualized when the file is saved? If the latter, which variables are saved, and which are not? Please clarify.

Comments on revisions:

In this revised version of the paper, the authors addressed all my comments. While many of the suggestions were addressed by textual changes in the manuscript or an explanation in the response to the reviewers (rather than adding substantial new functionality to the tool), DendroTweaks in its current updated state does represent an advanced and useful tool. Further extensions can be added as the development of the tool continues, in interaction with the community.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Dendrotweaks provides its users with a solid tool to implement, visualize, tune, validate, understand, and reduce single-neuron models that incorporate complex dendritic arbors with differential distribution of biophysical mechanisms. The visualization of dendritic segments and biophysical mechanisms therein provide users with an intuitive way to understand and appreciate dendritic physiology.

Strengths:

(1) The visualization tools are simplified, elegant, and intuitive.

(2) The ability to build single-neuron models using simple and intuitive interfaces.

(3) The ability to validate models with different measurements.

(4) The ability to systematically and progressively reduce morphologically-realistic neuronal models.

Weaknesses:

(1) Inability to account for neuron-to-neuron variability in structural, biophysical, and physiological properties in the model-building and validation processes.

We agree with the reviewer that it is important to account for neuron-to-neuron variability. The core approach of DendroTweaks, and its strongest aspect, is the interactive exploration of how morpho-electric parameters affect neuronal activity. In light of this, variability can be achieved through the interactive updating of the model parameters with widgets. In a sense, by adjusting a widget (e.g., channel distribution or kinetics), a user ends up with a new instance of a cell in the parameter space and receives almost real-time feedback on how this change affected neuronal activity. This approach is much simpler than implementing complex optimization protocols for different parameter sets, which would detract from the interactivity aspect of the GUI. In its revised version, DendroTweaks also accounts for neuron-to-neuron morphological variability, as channel distributions are now based on morphological domains (rather than the previous segment-specific approach). This makes it possible to apply the same biophysical configuration across various morphologies. Overall, both biophysical and morphological variability can be explored within DendroTweaks. 

(2) Inability to account for the many-to-many mapping between ion channels and physiological outcomes. Reliance on hand-tuning provides a single biased model that does not respect pronounced neuron-to-neuron variability observed in electrophysiological measurements.

We acknowledge the challenge of accounting for degeneracy in the relation between ion channels and physiological outcomes and the importance of capturing neuron-to-neuron variability. One possible way to address this, as we mention in the Discussion, is to integrate automated parameter optimization algorithms alongside the existing interactive hand-tuning with widgets. In its revised version, DendroTweaks can integrate with Jaxley (Deistler et al., 2024) in addition to NEURON. The models created in DendroTweaks can now be run with Jaxley (although not all types of models, see the limitations in the Discussion), and their parameters can be optimized via automated and fast gradient-based parameter optimization, including optimization of heterogeneous channel distributions. In particular, a key advantage of integrating Jaxley with DendroTweaks was its NMODL-to-Python converter, which significantly reduced the need to manually re-implement existing ion channel models for Jaxley (see here: https://dendrotweaks.readthedocs.io/en/latest/tutorials/convert_to_jaxley.html).

(1) Michael Deistler, Kyra L. Kadhim, Matthijs Pals, Jonas Beck, Ziwei Huang, Manuel Gloeckler, Janne K. Lappalainen, Cornelius Schröder, Philipp Berens, Pedro J. Gonçalves, Jakob H. Macke Differentiable simulation enables large-scale training of detailed biophysical models of neural dynamics bioRxiv 2024.08.21.608979; doi:https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.21.608979

Lack of a demonstration on how to connect reduced models into a network within the toolbox.

Building a network of reduced models is an exciting direction, yet beyond the scope of this manuscript, whose primary goal is to introduce DendroTweaks and highlight its capabilities. DendroTweaks is designed for single-cell modeling, aiming to cover its various aspects in great detail. Of course, we expect refined single-cell models, both detailed and simplified, to be further integrated into networks. But this does not need to occur within DendroTweaks. We believe this network-building step is best handled by dedicated network simulation platforms. To facilitate the network-building process, we extended the exporting capabilities of DendroTweaks. To enable the export of reduced models in DendroTweaks’s modular format, as well as in plain simulator code, we implemented a method to fit the resulting parameter distributions to analytical functions (e.g., polynomials). This approach provided a compact representation, requiring a few coefficients to be stored in order to reproduce a distribution, independently of the original segmentation. The reduced morphologies can be exported as SWC files, standardized ion channel models as MOD files, and channel distributions as JSON files. Moreover, plain NEURON code (Python) to instantiate a cell class can be automatically generated for any model, including the reduced ones. Finally, to demonstrate how these exported models can be integrated into larger simulations, we implemented a "toy" network model in a Jupyter notebook included as an example in the GitHub repository. We believe that these changes greatly facilitate the integration of DendroTweaks-produced models into networks while also allowing users to run these networks on their favorite platforms.

(4) Lack of a set of tutorials, which is common across many "Tools and Resources" papers, that would be helpful in users getting acquainted with the toolbox.

This is an important point that we believe has been addressed fully in the revised version of the tool and manuscript. As previously mentioned, the lack of documentation was due to the software's early stage. We have now added comprehensive documentation, which is available at https://dendrotweaks.readthedocs.io. This extensive material includes API references, 12 tutorials, 4 interactive Jupyter notebooks, and a series of video tutorials, and it is regularly updated with new content. Moreover, the toolbox's GUI with example models is available through our online platform at https://dendrotweaks.dendrites.gr.  

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The paper by Makarov et al. describes the software tool called DendroTweaks, intended for the examination of multi-compartmental biophysically detailed neuron models. It offers extensive capabilities for working with very complex distributed biophysical neuronal models and should be a useful addition to the growing ecosystem of tools for neuronal modeling.

Strengths

(1) This Python-based tool allows for visualization of a neuronal model's compartments.

(2) The tool works with morphology reconstructions in the widely used .swc and .asc formats.

(3) It can support many neuronal models using the NMODL language, which is widely used for neuronal modeling.

(4) It permits one to plot the properties of linear and non-linear conductances in every compartment of a neuronal model, facilitating examination of the model's details.

(5) DendroTweaks supports manipulation of the model parameters and morphological details, which is important for the exploration of the relations of the model composition and parameters with its electrophysiological activity.

(6) The paper is very well written - everything is clear, and the capabilities of the tool are described and illustrated with great attention to detail.

Weaknesses

(1) Not a really big weakness, but it would be really helpful if the authors showed how the performance of their tool scales. This can be done for an increasing number of compartments - how long does it take to carry out typical procedures in DendroTweaks, on a given hardware, for a cell model with 100 compartments, 200, 300, and so on? This information will be quite useful to understand the applicability of the software.

DendroTweaks functions as a layer on top of a simulator. As a result, its performance scales in the same way as for a given simulator. The GUI currently displays the time taken to run a simulation (e.g., in NEURON) at the bottom of the Simulation tab in the left menu. While Bokeh-related processing and rendering also consume time, this is not as straightforward to measure. It is worth noting, however, that this time is short and approximately equivalent to rendering the corresponding plots elsewhere (e.g., in a Jupyter notebook), and thus adds negligible overhead to the total simulation time. 

(2) Let me also add here a few suggestions (not weaknesses, but something that can be useful, and if the authors can easily add some of these for publication, that would strongly increase the value of the paper).

(3) It would be very helpful to add functionality to read major formats in the field, such as NeuroML and SONATA.

We agree with the reviewer that support for major formats will substantially improve the toolbox, ensuring the reproducibility and reusability of the models. While integration with these formats has not been fully implemented, we have taken several steps to ensure elegant and reproducible model representation. Specifically, we have increased the modularity of model components and developed a custom compact data format tailored to single-cell modeling needs. We used a JSON representation inspired by the Allen Cell Types Database schema, modified to account for non-constant distributions of the model parameters. We have transitioned from a representation of parameter distributions dependent on specific segmentation graphs and sections to a more generalized domain-based distribution approach. In this revised methodology, segment groups are no longer explicitly defined by segment identifiers, but rather by specification of anatomical domains and conditional expressions (e.g., “select all segments in the apical domain with the maximum diameter < 0.8 µm”). Additionally, we have implemented the export of experimental protocols into CSV and JSON files, where the JSON files contain information about the stimuli (e.g., synaptic conductance, time constants), and the CSV files store locations of recording sites and stimuli. These features contribute toward a higher-level, structured representation of models, which we view as an important step toward eventual compatibility with standard formats such as NeuroML and SONATA. We have also initiated a two-way integration between DendroTweaks and SONATA. We developed a converter from DendroTweaks to SONATA that automatically generates SONATA files to reproduce models created in DendroTweaks. Additionally, support for the DendroTweaks JSON representation of biophysical properties will be added to the SONATA data format ecosystem, enabling models with complex dendritic distributions of channels. This integration is still in progress and will be included in the next version of DendroTweaks. While full integration with these formats is a goal for future releases, we believe the current enhancements to modularity and exportability represent a significant step forward, providing immediate value to the community.

(4) Visualization is available as a static 2D projection of the cell's morphology. It would be nice to implement 3D interactive visualization.

We offer an option to rotate a cell around the Y axis using a slider under the plot. This is a workaround, as implementing a true 3D visualization in Bokeh would require custom Bokeh elements, along with external JavaScript libraries. It's worth noting that there are already specialized tools available for 3D morphology visualization. In light of this, while a 3D approach is technically feasible, we advocate for a different method. The core idea of DendroTweaks’ morphology exploration is that each section is “clickable”, allowing its geometric properties to be examined in a 2D "Section" view. Furthermore, we believe the "Graph" view presents the overall cell topology and distribution of channels and synapses more clearly.

(5) It is nice that DendroTweaks can modify the models, such as revising the radii of the morphological segments or ionic conductances. It would be really useful then to have the functionality for writing the resulting models into files for subsequent reuse.

This functionality is fully available in local installations. Users can export JSON files with channel distributions and SWC files after morphology reduction through the GUI. Please note that for resource management purposes, file import/export is disabled on the public online demo. However, it can be enabled upon local installation by modifying the configuration file (app/default_config.json). In addition, it is now possible to generate plain NEURON (Python) code to reproduce a given model outside the toolbox (e.g., for network simulations). Moreover, it is now possible to export the simulation protocols as CSV files for locations of stimuli and recordings and JSON files for stimuli parameters.

(6) If I didn't miss something, it seems that DendroTweaks supports the allocation of groups of synapses, where all synapses in a group receive the same type of Poisson spike train. It would be very useful to provide more flexibility. One option is to leverage the SONATA format, which has ample functionality for specifying such diverse inputs.

Currently, each population of “virtual” neurons that form synapses on the detailed cell shares the same set of parameters for both biophysical properties of synapses (e.g., reversal potential, time constants) and presynaptic "population" activity (e.g., rate, onset). The parameter that controls an incoming Poisson spike train is the rate, which is indeed shared across all synapses in a population. Unfortunately, the current implementation lacks the capability to simulate complex synaptic inputs with heterogeneous parameters across individual synapses or those following non-uniform statistical distributions (the present implementation is limited to random uniform distributions). We have added this information in the Discussion (3. Discussion - 3.2 Limitations and future directions - ¶.5) to make users aware of the limitations. As it requires a substantial amount of additional work, we plan to address such limitations in future versions of the toolbox.

(7) "Each session can be saved as a .json file and reuploaded when needed" - do these files contain the whole history of the session or the exact snapshot of what is visualized when the file is saved? If the latter, which variables are saved, and which are not? Please clarify.

In the previous implementation, these files captured the exact snapshot of the model's latest state. In the new version, we adopted a modular approach where the biophysical configuration (e.g., channel distributions) and stimulation protocols are exported to separate files. This allows the user to easily load and switch the stimulation protocols for a given model. In addition, the distribution of parameters (e.g., channel conductances) is now based on the morphological domains and is agnostic of the exact morphology (i.e., sections and segments), which allows the same JSON files with biophysical configurations to be reused across multiple similar morphologies. This also allows for easy file exchange between the GUI and the standalone version.

Joint recommendations to Authors:

The reviewers agreed that the paper is well written and that DendroTweaks offers a useful collection of tools to explore models of single-cell biophysics. However, the tooling as provided with this submission has critical limitations in the capabilities, accessibility, and documentation that significantly limit the utility of DendroTweaks. While we recognize that it is under active development and features may have changed already, we can only evaluate the code and documentation available to us here.

We thank the reviewers for their positive evaluation of the manuscript and express our sincere appreciation for their feedback. We acknowledge the limitations they have pointed out and have addressed most of these concerns in our revised version.

In particular, we would emphasize:

(1) While the features may be rich, the documentation for either a user of the graphical interface or the library is extremely sparse. A collection of specific tutorials walking a GUI user through simple and complex model examples would be vital for genuine uptake. As one category of the intended user is likely to be new to computational modeling, it would be particularly good if this documentation could also highlight known issues that can arise from the naive use of computational techniques. Similarly, the library aspect needs to be documented in a more standard manner, with docstrings, an API function list, and more didactic tutorials for standard use cases.

DendroTweaks now features comprehensive documentation. The standalone Python library code is well-documented with thorough docstrings. The overall code modularity and readability have improved. The documentation is created using the widely adopted Sphinx generator, making it accessible for external contributors, and it is available via ReadTheDocs https://dendrotweaks.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html. The documentation provides a comprehensive set of tutorials (6 basic, 6 advanced) covering all key concepts and workflows offered by the toolbox. Interactive Jupyter notebooks are included in the documentation, along with the quick start guide. All example models also have corresponding notebooks that allow users to build the model from scratch.

The toolbox has its own online platform, where a quick-start guide for the GUI is available https://dendrotweaks.dendrites.gr/guide.html. We have created video tutorials for the GUI covering the basic use cases. Additionally, we have added tips and instructions alongside widgets in the GUI, as well as a status panel that displays application status, warnings, and other information. Finally, we plan to familiarize the community with the toolbox by organizing online and in-person tutorials, as the one recently held at the CNS*2025 conference (https://cns2025florence.sched.com/event/25kVa/building-intuitive-and-efficient-biophysicalmodels-with-jaxley-and-dendrotweaks). Moreover, the toolbox was already successfully used for training young researchers during the Taiwan NeuroAI 2025 Summer School, founded by Ching-Lung Hsu. The feedback was very positive.

(2) The paper describes both a GUI web app and a Python library. However, the code currently mixes these two in a way that largely makes sense for the web app but makes it very difficult to use the library aspect. Refactoring the code to separate apps and libraries would be important for anyone to use the library as well as allowing others to host their own DendroTweak servers. Please see the notes from the reviewing editor below for more details.

The code in the previous `app/model` folder, responsible for the core functionality of the toolbox, has been extensively refactored and extended, and separated into a standalone library. The library is included in the Python package index (PyPI, https://pypi.org/project/dendrotweaks).

Notes from the Reviewing Editor Comments (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) While one could import morphologies and use a collection of ion channel models, details of synapse groups and stimulation approaches appeared to be only configurable manually in the GUI. The ability to save and load full neuron and simulation states would be extremely useful for reproducibility and sharing data with collaborators or as an interactive data product with a publication. There is a line in the text about saving states as json files (also mentioned by Reviewer #2), but I could see no such feature in the version currently online.

We decided to reserve the online version for demonstration and educational purposes, with more example models being added over time. However, this functionality is available upon local installation of the app (and after specifying it in the ‘default_config.json’ in the root directory of the app). We’ve adopted a modular model representation to store separately morphology, channel models, biophysical parameters, and stimulation protocols.

(2) Relatedly, GUI exploration of complex data is often a precursor to a more automated simulation run. An easy mechanism to go from a user configuration to scripting would be useful to allow the early strength of GUIs to feed into the power of large-scale scripting.

Any model could be easily exported to a modular DendroTweaks representation and later imported either in the GUI or in the standalone version programmatically. This ensures a seamless transition between the two use cases.

(3) While the paper discusses DendroTweaks as both a GUI and a python library, the zip file of code in the submission is not in good form as a library. Back-end library code is intermingled with front-end web app code, which limits the ability to install the library from a standard python interface like PyPI. API documentation is also lacking. Functions tend to not have docstrings, and the few that do, do not follow typical patterns describing parameters and types.

As stated above, all these issues have been resolved in the new version of the toolbox. The library code is now housed in a separate repository https://github.com/Poirazi-Lab/DendroTweaks and included in PyPI https://pypi.org/project/dendrotweaks. The classes and public methods follow Numpy-style docstrings, and the API reference is available in the documentation: https://dendrotweaks.readthedocs.io/en/latest/genindex.html.

(4) Library installation is very difficult. The requirements are currently a lockfile, fully specifying exact versions of all dependencies. This is exactly correct for web app deployment to maintain consistency, but is not feasible in the context of libraries where you want to have minimal impact on a user's environment. Refactoring the library from the web app is critical for making DendroTweaks usable in both forms described in the paper.

The lockfile makes installation more or less impossible on computer setups other than that of the author. Needless to say, this is not acceptable for a tool, and I would encourage the authors to ask other people to attempt to install their code as they describe in the text. For example, attempting to create a conda environment from the environment.yml file on an M1 MacBook Pro failed because it could not find several requirements. I was able to get it to install within a Linux docker image with the x86 platform specified, but this is not generally viable. To make this be the tool it is described as in text, this must be resolved. A common pattern that would work well here is to have a requirements lockfile and Docker image for the web app that imports a separate, more minimally restrictive library package with that could be hosted on PyPI or, less conveniently, through conda-forge.

The installation of the standalone library is now straightforward via pip install dendrotweaks.On the Windows platform, however, manual installation of NEURON is required as described          in the official NEURON documentation https://nrn.readthedocs.io/en/8.2.6/install/install_instructions.html#windows.

(5) As an aside, to improve potential uptake, the authors might consider an MIT-style license rather than the GNU Public License unless they feel strongly about the GPL. Many organizations are hesitant to build on GPL software because of the wide-ranging demands it places on software derived from or using GPL code.

We thank the editor for this suggestion. We are considering changing the licence to MPL 2.0. It will maintain copyleft restrictions only on the package files while allowing end-users to freely choose their own license for any derived work, including the models, generated data files, and code that simply imports and uses our package.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Abstract: Neurons rely on the interplay between dendritic morphology and ion channels to transform synaptic inputs into a sequence of somatic spikes. Technically, this would have to be morphology, ion channels, pumps, transporters, exchangers, buffers, calcium stores, and other molecules. For instance, if the calcium buffer concentration is large, then there would be less free calcium for activating the calcium-activated potassium channels. If there are different chloride co-transporters - NKCC vs. KCC - expressed in the neuron or different parts of the neuron, that would alter the chloride reversal for all the voltage- or ligand-gated chloride channels in the neuron. So, while morphology and ion channels are two important parts of the transformation, it would be incorrect to ignore the other components that contribute to the transformation. The statement might be revised to make these two components as two critical components.

The phrase “Two critical components” was added as it was suggested by the reviewer.

(2) Section 2.1 - The overall GUI looks intuitive and simple.

(3) Section 2.2

(a) The Graph view of morphology, especially accounting for the specific d_lambda is useful.

(b) "Note that while microgeometry might not significantly affect the simulation at a low spatial resolution (small number of segments) due to averaging, it can introduce unexpected cell behavior at a higher level of spatial discretization."

It might be good to warn the users that the compartmentalization and error analyses are with reference to the electrical lambda. If users have to account for calcium microdomains, these analyses wouldn't hold given the 2 orders of magnitude differences between the electrical and the calcium lambdas (e.g., Zador and Koch, J Neuroscience, 1994). Please sensitize users that the impact of active dendrites in regulating calcium microdomains and signaling is critical when it comes to plasticity models in morphologically realistic structures.

We thank the reviewer for this important point. We have clarified in the text that our spatial discretization specifically refers to the electrical length constant. We acknowledge that electrical and chemical processes operate on fundamentally different spatial and temporal scales, which requires special consideration when modeling phenomena like synaptic plasticity. We have sensitized users about this distinction. However, we do not address such examples in the manuscript, thus leaving the detailed discussion of non-electrical compartmentalization beyond the scope of this work.

(c) I am not very sure if the "smooth" tool for diameters that is illustrated is useful. Users shouldn't consider real variability in morphology as artifacts of reconstruction. As mentioned above, while this might not be an issue with electrical compartmentalization, calcium compartmentalization will severely be affected by small changes in morphology. Any model that incorporates calcium-gated channels should appropriately compartmentalize calcium. Without this, the spread of activation of calcium-dependent conductances would be an overestimate. Even small changes in cellular shape and curvature can have large impacts when it comes to signaling in terms of protein aggregation and clustering.

Although this functionality is still available in the toolbox, we have removed the emphasis from it in the manuscript. Nevertheless, for the purpose of addressing the reviewer’s comment, we provide an example when this “smoothening” might be needed:please see Figure S1 from Tasciotti et al. 2025.

(2) Simone Tasciotti, Daniel Maxim Iascone, Spyridon Chavlis, Luke Hammond, Yardena Katz, Attila Losonczy, Franck Polleux, Panayiota Poirazi. From Morphology to Computation: How Synaptic Organization Shapes Place Fields in CA1 Pyramidal Neurons bioRxiv 2025.05.30.657022; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.30.657022

(4) Section 2.3

(a) The graphical representation of channel gating kinetics is very useful.

(b) Please warn the users that experimental measurements of channel gating kinetics are extremely variable. Taking the average of the sigmoids or the activation/deactivation/inactivation kinetics provides an illusion that each channel subtype in a given cell type has fixed values of V_1/2, k, delta, and tau, but it is really a range obtained from several experiments. The heterogeneity is real and reflects cell-to-cell variability in channel gating kinetics, not experimental artifacts. Please sensitize the readers that there is not a single value for these channel parameters.

This is a fair comment, and it refers to a general problem in neuronal modeling. In DendroTweaks, we follow the approach widely used in the community that indeed doesn't account for heterogeneity. We added a paragraph in the revised manuscript's Discussion (3. Discussion - 3.3 Limitations and future directions - ¶.3) to address this issue.

(5) Section 2.4

(a) Same as above: Please sensitize users that the gradients in channel conductances are measured as an average of measurements from several different cells. This gradient need not be present in each neuron, as there could be variability in location-dependent measurements across cells. The average following a sigmoid doesn't necessarily mean that each neuron will have the channel distributed with that specific sigmoid (or even a sigmoid!) with the specific parametric values that the average reported. This is extremely important because there is an illusion that the gradient is fixed across cells and follows a fixed functional form.

We added this information to our Discussion in the same paragraph mentioned above.

(b) Please provide an example where the half-maximal voltage of a channel varies as a function of distance (such as Poolos et al., Nature Neuroscience, 2002 or Migliore et al., 1999; Colbert and Johnston, 1997). This might require a step-like function in some scenarios. An illustration would be appropriate because people tend to assume that channel gating kinetics are similar throughout the dendrite. Again, please mention that these shifts are gleaned from the average and don't really imply that each neuron must have that specific gradient, given neuron-to-neuron variability in these measurements.

We thank the reviewer for the provided literature, which we now cite when describing parameter distributions (2. Results - 2.4 Distributing ion channels - ¶.1). Please note that DendroTweaks' programming interface and data format natively support non-linear distribution of kinetic parameters alongside the channel conductances. As for the step-like function, users can either directly apply the built-in step-like distribution function or create it by combining two constant distributions.

(6) Section 2.5

(a) It might be useful to provide a mechanism for implementing the normalization of unitary conductances at the cell body, (as in Magee and Cook, 2000; Andrasfalvy et al., J Neuroscience, 2001). Specifically, users should be able to compute AMPAR conductance values at each segment which would provide a somatic EPSP value of 0.2 mV.

This functionality is indeed useful and will be added in future releases. Currently, it has been mentioned in the list of known limitations when working with synaptic inputs (3. Discussion - 3.3 Limitations and future directions - ¶.5).

(b) Users could be sensitized about differences in decay time constants of GABA_A receptors that are associated with parvalbamin vs. somatostatin neurons. As these have been linked to slow and fast gamma oscillations and different somatodendritic locations along different cell types, this might be useful (e.g., 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.11.033;10.1523/jneurosci.0261-20.2020; 10.7554/eLife.95562.1; 10.3389/fncel.2023.1146278).

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important biological detail. DendroTweaks enables users to define model parameters specific to their cell type of interest. For practical reasons, we leave the selection of biologically relevant parameters to the users. However, we will consider adding an explicit example in our tutorials to showcase the toolbox's flexibility in this regard.

(7) Section 2.6

While reducing the morphological complexity has its advantages, users of this tool should be sensitized in this section about how the reduction does not capture all the complexity of the dendritic computation. For instance, the segregation/amplification properties of Polsky et al., 2004, Larkum et al., 2009 would not be captured by a fully reduced model. An example across different levels of reductions, implementing simulations in Figure 7F (but for synapses on the same vs. different branches), would be ideal. Demonstrate segregation/amplification in the full model for the same set of synapses - coming on the same branch/different branch (linear integration of synapses on different branches and nonlinear integration of synapses on the same branch). Then, show that with different levels of reduction, this segregation/amplification vanishes in the reduced model. In addition, while impedance-based approaches account for account for electrical computation, calcium-based computation is not something that is accountable with reduced models, given the small lambda_calcium values. Given the importance of calcium-activated conductances in electrical behaviour, this becomes extremely important to account for and sensitize users to. The lack of such sensitization results in presumptuous reductions that assume that all dendritic computation is accounted for by reduced models!

We agree with the reviewer that reduction leads to a loss in the complexity of dendritic computation. This has been stated in both the original algorithm paper (Amsalem et al., 2020) and in our manuscript (e.g., 3. Discussion - 3.2 Comparison to existing modeling software - ¶.6). In fact, to address this problem, we extended the functionality of neuron_reduce to allow for multiple levels of morphology reduction. Our motivation for integrating morphology reduction in the toolbox was to leverage the exploratory power of DendroTweaks to assess how different degrees of reduction alter cell integrative properties, determining which computations are preserved, which are lost, and at what specific reduction level these changes occur. Nevertheless, to address this comment, we've made it more explicit in the Discussion that reduction inevitably alters integrative properties and, at a certain level, leads to loss of dendritic computations.

(8) Section 2.7

(a) The validation process has two implicit assumptions:

(i) There is only one value of physiological measurements that neurons and dendrites are endowed with. The heterogeneity in these measurements even within the same cell type is ignored. The users should be allowed to validate each measurement over a range rather than a single value. Users should be sensitized about the heterogeneity of physiological measurements.

(ii) The validation process is largely akin to hand-tuning models where a one-to-one mapping of channels to measurements is assumed. For instance, input resistance can be altered by passive properties, by Ih, and by any channel that is active under resting conditions. Firing rate and patterns can be changed by pretty much every single ion channel that expresses along the somatodendritic axis.

An updated validation process that respects physiological heterogeneities in measurements and accounts for global dependencies would be more appropriate. Please update these to account for heterogeneities and many-to-many mappings between channels and measurements. An ideal implementation would be to incorporate randomized search procedures (across channel parameters spanning neuron-to-neuron variability in channel conductances/gating properties) to find a population of models that satisfy all physiological constraints (including neuron-to-neuron variability in each physiological measurement), rather than reliance on procedures that are akin to hand-tuning models. Such population-based approaches are now common across morphologically-realistic models for different cell types (e.g., Rathour and Narayanan, PNAS, 2014; Basak and Narayanan, J Physiology, 2018; Migliore et al., PLoS Computational Biology, 2018; Basak and Narayanan, Brain Structure and Function, 2020; Roy and Narayanan, Neural Networks, 2021; Roy and Narayanan, J Physiology, 2023; Arnaudon et al., iScience, 2023; Reva et al., Patterns, 2023; Kumari and Narayanan, J Neurophysiology, 2024) and do away with the biases introduced by hand-tuning as well as the assumption of one-to-one mapping between channels and measurements.

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and the suggested alternatives to our validation process. We have extended the discussion on these alternative approaches (3. Discussion - 2. Comparison to existing modeling software - ¶.5). However, it is important to note that neither one-value nor one-to-one mapping assumption is imposed in our approach. It is true that validation is performed on a given model instance with fixed single-value parameters. However, users can discover heterogeneity and degeneracy in their models via interactive exploration. In the GUI, a given parameter can be changed, and the influence of this change on model output can be observed in real time. Validation can be run after each change to see whether the model output still falls within a biologically plausible regime or not. This is, of course, time-consuming and less efficient than any automated parameter optimization.

However, and importantly, this is the niche of DendroTweaks. The approach we provide here can indeed be referred to as model hand-tuning. This is intentional: we aim to complement black-box optimization by exposing the relationship between parameters and model outputs. DendroTweaks is not aimed at automated parameter optimization and is not meant to provide the user with parameter ranges automatically. The built-in validation in DendroTweaks is intended as a lightweight, fast feedback tool to guide manual tuning of dendritic model parameters so as to enhance intuitive understanding and assess the plausibility of outputs, not as a substitute for comprehensive model validation or optimization. The latter can be done using existing frameworks, designed for this purpose, as mentioned by the reviewer. 

(b) Users could be asked to wait for RMP to reach steady state. For instance, in some of the traces in Figure 7, the current injection is provided before RMP reaches steady-state. In the presence of slow channels (HCN or calcium-activated channels), the RMP can take a while to settle down. Users might be sensitized about this. This would also bring to attention the ability of several resting channels in modulating RMP, and the need to wait for steady-state before measurements are made.

We agree with the observation and updated the validation process accordingly. We have added functionality for simulation stabilization, allowing users to pre-run a simulation before the main simulation time. For example, model.run(duration=1000, prerun_time=300) could be used to stabilize the model for a period of 300 ms before running the main simulation for 1 s.

(c) Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to obtain membrane time constant by fitting a single exponential to the initial part of the sag response (Figure 7A). This may be confirmed in the model by setting HCN to zero (strictly all active channel conductances to zero), obtaining the voltage-response to a pulse current, fitting a double exponential (as Rall showed, for a finite cable or for a real neuron, a single exponential would yield incorrect values for the tau) to the voltage response, and mapping membrane time constant to the slower of the two time-constants (in the double exponential fit). This value will be very different from what is obtained in Figure 7A. Please correct this, with references to Rall's original papers and to electrophysiological papers that use this process to assess membrane properties of neurons and their dendrites (e.g., Stuart and Spruston, J Neurosci, 1998; Golding and Spruston, J Physiology, 2005).

We updated the algorithm for calculating the membrane time constant based on the reviewer's suggestions and added the suggested references. The time constant is now obtained in a model with blocked HCN channels (setting maximal conductance to 0) via a double exponential fit, taking the slowest component.

(9) Section 3

(a) May be good to emphasize the many-to-many mapping between ion channels and neuronal functions here in detail, and on how to explore this within the Dendrotweaks framework.

We have added a paragraph in the Discussion that addresses both the problems of heterogeneity and degeneracy in biological neurons and neuronal models (3. Discussion - 3.3 Limitations and future directions - ¶.3)

(b) May be good to have a specific section either here or in results about how the different reduced models can actually be incorporated towards building a network.

As mentioned earlier, building a network of reduced models is a promising new direction. However, it is beyond the scope of this manuscript, whose primary goal is to introduce DendroTweaks and highlight its capabilities. DendroTweaks is designed for single-cell modeling and provides export capabilities that allow integrating it into broader workflows, including network modeling. We have added a paragraph in the manuscript (3. Discussion - 3.1 Conceptual and implementational accessibility - ¶.2) that addresses how DendroTweaks could be used alongside other software, in particular for scaling up single-cell models to the network level.

(10) Section 4

(a) Section 4.3: In the second sentence (line 568), the "first Kirchhoff's law" within parentheses immediately after Q=CV gives an illusion that Q=CV is the first Kirchhoff's law! Please state that this is with reference to the algebraic sum of currents at a node.

We have corrected the equations and apologize for this oversight. 

(b) Table 1: In the presence of active ion channels, input resistance, membrane time constant, and voltage attenuation are not passive properties. Input resistance is affected by any active channel that is active at rest (HCN, Kir, A-type K+ through the window current, etc). The same holds for membrane time constant and voltage attenuation as well. This could be made clear by stating if these measurements are obtained in the presence or absence of active ion channels. In real neurons, all these measurements are affected by active ion channels; so, ideally, these are also active properties, not passive! Also, please mention that in the presence of resonating channels (e.g., HCN, M-type K+), a single exponential fit won't be appropriate to obtain tau, given the presence of sag.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this ambiguity. What the term “Passive” means in Table 1 (e.g., for the input resistance, R_in) is that the minimal set of parameters needed to validate R_in are the passive ones (i.e., Cm, Ra, and Leak). We have changed the table listing to reflect this.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Figure 2B and the caption to Figure 2F show and describe the diameter of the sections, whereas the image in Figure 2F shows the radius. Which is the correct one?

The reason for this is that Figure 2B shows the sections' geometry as it is represented in NEURON, i.e., with diameters, while Figure 2F shows the geometry as it is represented in an SWC file (as these changes are made based on the SWC file). Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, we decided to remove panel F from the figure in the new version, to present a more important panel on tree graph representations.

(2) "Each segment can be viewed as an equivalent RC circuit representing a part of the membrane". The example in Figure 2B is perhaps a relatively simple case. For more complex cases where multiple nonlinear conductances are present in each section, would it be possible to show each of these conductances explicitly? If yes, it would be nice to illustrate that.

We would like to clarify that "can be viewed" here was intended to mean "can be considered," and we have updated the text accordingly. The schematic RC circuits were added to the corresponding figure for illustration purposes only and are not present in the GUI, as this would indeed be impractical for multiple conductances.

(3) Some extra citations could be added. For example, it is a little strange that BRIAN2 is mentioned, but NEST is not. It might be worth mentioning and citing it. Also, the Allen Cell Types Database is mentioned, but no citation for it is given. It could be useful to add such citations (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-019-0417-0, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02718-3).

Brian 2 is extensively used in our lab on its own and as a foundation of the Dendrify library (Pagkalos et al., 2023). As stated in the discussion, we are considering bridging reduced Hodgkin-Huxley-type models to Dendrify leaky integrate-and-fire type models. For these reasons, Brian 2 is mentioned in the discussion. However, we acknowledge that our previous overview omitted references to some key software, which have now been added to the updated manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer providing references that we had overlooked.

(3) Pagkalos, M., Chavlis, S. & Poirazi, P. Introducing the Dendrify framework for incorporating dendrites to spiking neural networks. Nat Commun 14, 131 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-35747-8

• The iLife A11 smart vacuum was found to constantly send detailed data, including 3D home maps, to manufacturer servers without explicit user consent.
• When the user blocked telemetry transmissions, the vacuum was remotely disabled by a command from the manufacturer, resulting in repeated failures.
• Reverse engineering revealed the device runs a Linux OS with an open root access port and includes software allowing the manufacturer to remotely control or disable it.
• Service centers temporarily restored functionality by reconnecting the device to manufacturer servers, but it failed again once telemetry was blocked.
• This hardware and practice are common in many smart vacuums from brands like Xiaomi, Wyze, and Viomi, raising broad privacy and control concerns.
• The case highlights significant security risks and loss of user autonomy inherent to many "smart" IoT devices relying on cloud connectivity.

at the lowest possible level.

eLife Assessment

This is an important study with convincing evidence that multi-voxel fMRI activity patterns for threat-conditioned stimuli are altered by learning CS-US contingencies. The analyses are dense, but rigorous. The protocol is quite nuanced and complex, but the authors have done a fair job of explaining and presenting the results. The work is relevant for our understanding of how effective learning changes neural stimulus representation in the human brain.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors conducted a human neuroimaging study investigating the role of context in the representation of fear associations when the contingencies between a conditioned stimulus and shock unconditioned stimulus switches between contexts. The novelty of the analysis centered on neural pattern similarity to derive a measure of context and cue stability and generalization across different regions of the brain. Given the complexity and nuance of the results, it is kind of difficult to provide a concise summary. But during fear and reversal, there was cue generalization (between current CS+ cues) in the canonical fear network, and "item stability" for cues that changed their association with the shock in the IFG and precuneus. Reinstatement was quantified as pattern similarity for items or sets of cues from the earlier phases to the test phases, and they found different patterns in the IFG and dmPFC. A similar analytical strategy was applied to contexts.

Strengths:

Overall, I found this to be a novel use of MVPA to study the role of context in reversal/extinction of human fear conditioning that yielded interesting results. The paper was overall well-written, with a strong introduction and fairly detailed methods and results. The lack of any univariate contrast results from the test phases was used as motivation for the neural pattern similarity approach, which I appreciated as a reader.

I have no additional or new comments. The authors adequately addressed my major comments and concerns.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a timely and original study on the geometry of macroscopic (2.5 mm) brain representations of multiple cues and contexts in Pavlovian fear conditioning. The authors report that these representations differ between initial learning, and reversal learning, and remain stable during extinction.

Strengths:

The authors address an important question and use a rigorous experimental methodology.

Weaknesses:

The findings are limited by the chosen spatial resolution (2.5 mm) which is far away from what modern fMRI can achieve. Also, region-of-interesting findings should be considered exploratory due to the chosen FDR method for correction for multiple comparison (which is transparently reported).

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Reviewing Editor Comments:

The study design used reversal learning (i.e. the CS+ becomes the CS- and vice versa), while the title mentions 'fear learning and extinction'. In my opinion, the paper does not provide insight into extinction and the title should be changed.

Thank you for this important point. We agree that our paradigm focuses more directly on reversal learning than on standard extinction, as the test phases represent extinction in the absence of a US but follow a reversal phase. To better reflect the core of our investigation, we have changed the title.

Proposed change in manuscript (Title): Original Title: Distinct representational properties of cues and contexts shape fear learning and extinction 

New Title: Distinct representational properties of cues and contexts shape fear and reversal learning

Secondly, the design uses 'trace conditioning', whereas the neuroscientific research and synaptic/memory models are rather based on 'delay conditioning'. However, given the limitations of this design, it would still be possible to make the implications of this paper relevant to other areas, such as declarative memory research.

This is an excellent point, and we thank you for highlighting it. Our design, where a temporal gap exists between the CS offset and US onset, is indeed a form of trace conditioning. We also agree that this feature, particularly given the known role of the hippocampus in trace conditioning, strengthens the link between our findings and the broader field of episodic memory.

Proposed change in manuscript (Methods, Section "General procedure and stimuli"): We inserted the following text (lines 218-220): "It is important to note that the temporal gap between the CS offset and potential US delivery (see Figure 1A) indicates that our paradigm employs a trace conditioning design. This form of learning is known to be hippocampus-dependent and has been distinguished from delay conditioning.

Proposed change in manuscript (Discussion): We added the following to the discussion (lines 774-779): "Furthermore, our use of a trace conditioning paradigm, which is known to engage the hippocampus more than delay conditioning does, may have facilitated the detection of item-specific, episodiclike memory traces and their interaction with context. This strengthens the relevance of our findings for understanding the interplay between aversive learning and mechanisms of episodic memory."

The strength of the evidence at this point would be described as 'solid'. In order to increase the strength (to convincing), analyses including FWE correction would be necessary. I think exploratory (and perhaps some FDR-based) analyses have their valued place in papers, but I agree that these should be reported as such. The issue of testing multiple independent hypotheses also needs to be addressed to increase the strength of evidence (to convincing). Evaluating the design with 4 cues could lead to false positives if, for example, current valence, i.e. (CS++ and CS-+) > (CS+- and CS--), and past valence (CS++ > CS+-) > (CS-+ > CS--) are tested as independent tests within the same data set. Authors need to adjust their alpha threshold.

We fully agree. As summarized in our general response, we have implemented two major changes to our statistical approach to address these concerns comprehensively. These, are stated above, are the following:

(1) Correction for Multiple Hypotheses: We previously used FWER-corrected p-values that were obtained through permutation testing. We have now applied a Bonferroni adjustment to the FWER-corrected threshold (previously 0.05) used in our searchlight analyses. For instance, in the acquisition phase, since 2 independent tests (contrasts) were conducted, the significance threshold of each of these searchlight maps was set to p <0.025 (after FWE-correction estimated through non-parametric permutation testing); in reversal, 4 tests were conducted, hence the significance threshold was set to p<0.0125. This change is now clearly described in the Methods section (section “Searchlight approach” (lines 477484). This change had no impact on our searchlight results, given that all clusters that were previously as significant with the previous FWER alpha of 0.05 were also significant at the new, Bonferroni-adjusted thresholds; we also now report the cluster-specific corrected p-values in the cluster tables in Supplementary Material.

(2) ROI Analyses: Our ROI-based analyses used FDR-based correction for within each item reinstatement/generalized reinstatement pair of each ROI. We now explicitly state in the abstract, methods and results sections that these ROI-based analyses are exploratory and secondary to the primary whole-brain results, given that the correction method used is more liberal, in accordance with the exploratory character of these analyses.

We are confident that these changes ensure both the robustness and transparency of our reported findings.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

(1) I had a difficult time unpacking lines 419-420: "item stability represents the similarity of the neural representation of an item to other representations of this same item."

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this lack of clarity. We have revised the definition to be more intuitive and have ensured it is introduced earlier in the manuscript.

Proposed change in manuscript (Introduction, lines 144-150): We introduced the concept earlier and more clearly: "Furthermore, we can measure the consistency of a neural pattern for a given item across multiple presentations. This metric, which we refer to as “item stability”, quantifies how consistently a specific stimulus (e.g., the image of a kettle) is represented in the brain across multiple repetitions of the same item. Higher item stability has been linked to successful episodic memory encoding (Xue et al., 2010)."

Proposed change in manuscript (Methods, Section "Item stability and generalization of cues"): Original text: "Thus, item stability represents the similarity of the neural representation of an item to other representations of this same item (Xue, 2018), or the consistency of neural activity across repetitions (Sommer et al., 2022)."

Revised text (lines 434-436): "Item stability is defined as the average similarity of neural patterns elicited by multiple presentations of the same item (e.g., the kettle). It therefore measures the consistency of an item's neural representation across repeated encounters."

(2) The authors use the phrase "representational geometry" several times in the paper without clearly defining what they mean by this.

We apologize for this omission. We have now added a clear and concise definition of "representational geometry" in the Introduction, citing the foundational work by Kriegeskorte et al. (2008).

Proposed change in manuscript (Introduction): We inserted the following text (lines 117-125): " By contrast, multivariate pattern analyses (MVPA), such as representational similarity analysis (RSA; Kriegeskorte et al., 2008) has emerged as a powerful tool to investigate the content and structure of these representations (e.g., Hennings et al., 2022). This approach allows us to characterize the “representational geometry” of a set of items – that is, the structure of similarities and dissimilarities between their associated neural activity patterns. This geometry reveals how the brain organizes information, for instance, by clustering items that are conceptually similar while separating those that are distinct."

(3) The abstract is quite dense and will likely be challenging to decipher for those without a specialized knowledge of both the topic (fear conditioning) and the analytical approach. For instance, the goal of the study is clearly articulated in the first few sentences, but then suddenly jumps to a sentence stating "our data show that contingency changes during reversal induce memory traces with distinct representational geometries characterized by stable activity patterns across repetitions..." this would be challenging for a reader to grok without having a clear understanding of the complex analytical approach used in the paper.

We agree with your assessment. We have rewritten it to be more accessible to a general scientific audience, by focusing on the conceptual findings rather than methodological jargon.

Proposed change in manuscript (Abstract): We revised the abstract to be clearer. It now reads: " When we learn that something is dangerous, a fear memory is formed. However, this memory is not fixed and can be updated through new experiences, such as learning that the threat is no longer present. This process of updating, known as extinction or reversal learning, is highly dependent on the context in which it occurs. How the brain represents cues, contexts, and their changing threat value remains a major question. Here, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging and a novel fear learning paradigm to track the neural representations of stimuli across fear acquisition, reversal, and test phases. We found that initial fear learning creates generalized neural representations for all threatening cues in the brain’s fear network. During reversal learning, when threat contingencies switched for some of the cues, two distinct representational strategies were observed. On the one hand, we still identified generalized patterns for currently threatening cues, whereas on the other hand, we observed highly stable representations of individual cues (i.e., item-specific) that changed their valence, particularly in the precuneus and prefrontal cortex. Furthermore, we observed that the brain represents contexts more distinctly during reversal learning. Furthermore, additional exploratory analyses showed that the degree of this context specificity in the prefrontal cortex predicted the subsequent return of fear, providing a potential neural mechanism for fear renewal. Our findings reveal that the brain uses a flexible combination of generalized and specific representations to adapt to a changing world, shedding new light on the mechanisms that support cognitive flexibility and the treatment of anxiety disorders via exposure therapy."

(4) Minor: I believe it is STM200 not the STM2000.

Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected it in the Methods section.

Proposed change in manuscript (Methods, Page 5, Line 211): Original: STM2000 -> Corrected: STM200

(5) Line 146: "...could be particularly fruitful as a means to study the influence of fear reversal or extinction on context representations, which have never been analyzed in previous fear and extinction learning studies." I direct the authors to Hennings et al., 2020, Contextual reinstatement promotes extinction generalization in healthy adults but not PTSD, as an example of using MVPA to decipher reinstatement of the extinction context during test.

Thank for pointing us towards this relevant work. We have revised the sentence to reflect the state of the literature more accurately.

Proposed change in manuscript (Introduction, Page 3): Original text: "...which have never been analyzed in previous fear and extinction learning studies." 

Revised text (lines 154-157): "...which, despite some notable exceptions (e.g., Hennings et al., 2020), have been less systematically investigated than cue representations across different learning stages."

(6) This is a methodological/conceptual point, but it appears from Figure 1 that the shock occurs 2.5 seconds after the CS (and context) goes off the screen. This would seem to be more like a trace conditioning procedure than a standard delay fear conditioning procedure. This could be a trivial point, but there have been numerous studies over the last several decades comparing differences between these two forms of fear acquisition, both behaviorally and neurally, including differences in how trace vs delay conditioning is extinguished.

Thank you for this pertinent observation; this was also pointed out by the editor. As detailed in our response to the editor, we now explicitly acknowledge that our paradigm uses a trace conditioning design, and have added statements to this effect in the Methods and Discussion sections (lines 218-220, and 774-779).

(7) In Figure 4, it would help to see the individual data points derived from the model used to test significance between the different conditions (reinstatement between Acq, reversal, and test-new).

We agree that this would improve the transparency of our results. We have revised Figure 4 to include individual data points, which are now plotted over the bar graphs. 

Reviewer #2 (Public Review & Recommendations)

Use a more stringent method of multiple comparison correction: voxel-wise FWE instead of FDR; Holm-Bonferroni across multiple hypothesis tests. If FDR is chosen then the exploratory character of the results should be transparently reported in the abstract.

Thank you for these critical comments regarding our statistical methods. As detailed in the general response and response to the editor (Comment 3), we have thoroughly revised our approach to ensure its rigor. We now clarify that our whole-brain analyses consistently use FWER-corrected pvalues. Additionally, the significance of these FWER-corrected p-values (obtained through permutation testing), which were previously considered significant against a default threshold of 0.05, are now compared with a Bonferroni-adjusted threshold equal to the number of tested contrasts in each experimental phase. We have modified the revised manuscript accordingly, in the methods section (lines 473-484) and in the supplementary material, where we added the p-values (FWER-corrected) of each cluster, evaluated against the new Bonferroni-adjusted thresholds. It is to be of note that this had no impact on our searchlight results, given that all clusters that were previously reported as significant with the alpha threshold of 0.05 were also significant at the new, corrected thresholds.

Proposed change in manuscript (Methods): We revised the relevant paragraphs (lines 473-484): "Significance corresponding to the contrast between conditions of the maps of interest was FWER-corrected using nonparametric permutation testing at the cluster level (10,000 permutations) to estimate significant cluster size. Additionally, we adjusted the alpha threshold against which we assessed the significance of the cluster-specific FWERcorrected p-values using Bonferroni correction. In this order, we divided the default alpha corrected threshold of 0.05 by the number of statistical comparisons that were conducted in each experimental phase. For example, for fear acquisition, we compared the CS+>CS- contrast for both item stability and cue generalization, resulting in 2 comparisons and hence a corrected alpha threshold of 0.025. Only clusters that had a FWER-corrected p-value below the Bonferroni-adjusted threshold were deemed significant. All searchlight analyses were restricted within a gray matter mask.”

The authors report fMRI results from line 96 onwards; all of these refer exclusively to mass-univariate fMRI which could be mentioned more transparently... The authors contrast "activation fMRI" with "RSA" (line 112). Again, I would suggest mentioning "mass-univariate fMRI", and contrasting this with "multivariate" fMRI, of which RSA is just one flavour. For example, there is some work that is clear and replicable, demonstrating human amygdala involvement in fear conditioning using SVM-based analysis of highresolution amygdala signals (one paper is currently cited in the discussion).

Thank you for this important clarification. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate your suggestions. We now introduce our initial analyses as "mass-univariate" and contrast them with the "multivariate pattern analysis" (MVPA) approach of RSA.

Proposed change in manuscript (Introduction): We revised the relevant paragraphs (lines 113-125): " While mass-univariate functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) activation studies have been instrumental in identifying the brain regions involved in fear learning and extinction, they are insensitive to the patterns of neural activity that underlie the stimulus-specific representations of threat cues and contexts. Contrastingly, multivariate pattern analyses methods, such as representational similarity analysis (RSA; Kriegeskorte et al., 2008), have emerged as a powerful tool to investigate the content and structure of these representations (e.g., Hennings et al., 2022). This approach allows us to characterize the “representational geometry” of a set of items – i.e., the structure of similarities and dissimilarities between their associated neural activity patterns. This geometry reveals how the brain organizes information, for instance, by clustering items that are conceptually similar while separating those that are distinct.”

Line 177: unclear how incomplete data was dealt with. If there are 30 subjects and 9 incomplete data sets, then how do they end up with 24 in the final sample?

We apologize for the unclear wording in our original manuscript. We have clarified the participant exclusion pipeline in the Methods section.

Proposed change in manuscript (Methods, Section "Participants"): Original text: "The number of participants with usable fMRI data for each phase was as follows: N = 30 for the first phase of day one, N = 29 for the second phase of day one, N = 27 for the first phase of day two, and N = 26 for the second phase of day two. Of the 30 participants who completed the first session, four did not return for the second day and thus had incomplete data across the four experimental phases. An additional two participants were excluded from the analysis due to excessive head movement (>2.5 mm in any direction). This resulted in a final sample of 24 participants (8 males) between 18 and 32 years of age (mean: 24.69 years, standard deviation: 3.6) with complete, low-motion fMRI data for all analyses." 

Revised text: "The number of participants with usable fMRI data for each phase was as follows: N = 30 for the first phase of day one, N = 29 for the second phase of day one, N = 27 for the first phase of day two, and N = 26 for the second phase of day two. An additional two participants were excluded from the analysis due to excessive head movement (>2.5 mm in any direction). This resulted in a final sample of 24 participants (8 males) between 18 and 32 years of age (mean: 24.69 years, standard deviation: 3.6) with complete, low-motion fMRI data for all analyses."

Typo in line 201.  

Thank you for your comment. We have re-examined line 201 (“interval (Figure 1A). A total of eight CSs were presented during each phase and”) and the surrounding text but were unable to identify a clear typographical error in the provided quote. However, in the process of revising the manuscript for clarity, we have rephrased this section.

it would be good to see all details of the US calibration procedure, and the physical details of the electric shock (e.g. duration, ...).

Thank you for your comment. We have expanded the Methods section to include these important details.

Proposed change in manuscript (Methods, Section "General procedure and stimuli"): We inserted the following text (lines 225-230): "Electrical stimulation was delivered via two Ag/AgCl electrodes attached to the distal phalanx of the index and middle fingers of the non-dominant hand. he intensity of the electrical stimulation was calibrated individually for each participant prior to the experiment. Using a stepping procedure, the voltage was gradually increased until the participant rated the sensation as 'unpleasant but not painful'.

"beta series modelling" is a jargon term used in some neuroimaging software but not others. In essence, the authors use trial-by-trial BOLD response amplitude estimates in their model. Also, I don't think this requires justification - using the raw BOLD signal would seem outdated for at least 15 years.

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have simplified the relevant sentences for improved clarity.

Proposed change in manuscript (Methods, Section "RSA"): Original text: "...an approach known as beta-series modeling (Rissman et al., 2004; Turner et al., 2012)." 

Revised text (lines 391-393): "...an approach that allows for the estimation of trial-by-trial BOLD response amplitudes, often referred to as beta-series modeling (Rissman et al., 2004). Specifically, we used a Least Square Separate (LSS) approach..."

I found the use of "Pavlovian trace" a bit confusing. The authors are coming from memory research where "memory trace" is often used; however, in associative learning the term "trace conditioning" means something else. Perhaps this can be explained upon first occurrence, and "memory trace" instead of "Pavlovian trace" might be more common.

We are grateful for this comment, as it highlights a critical point of potential confusion, especially given that we now acknowledge our paradigm uses a trace conditioning design. To eliminate this ambiguity, we have replaced all instances of "Pavlovian trace" with "lingering fear memory trace" throughout the manuscript (lines 542 and 599).

I would suggest removing evaluative statements from the results (repeated use of "interesting").

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have reviewed the Results section and removed subjective evaluative words to maintain a more objective tone. 

Line 882: one of these references refers to a multivariate BOLD analysis using SVM, not explicitly using temporal information in the signal (although they do show session-by-session information).

Thank you for this correction. We have re-examined the cited paper (Bach et al., 2011) and removed its inclusion in the text accordingly.

eLife Assessment

This important article reports on the role of specific interneurons in the motion processing circuitry of the fruit fly, and marshals convincing evidence from neural recording, genetic manipulation, and behavioral analysis. A significant result ties the activity of C2/C3 neurons to the temporal resolution of the motion vision system. It remains unclear whether disrupting this pathway affects the dynamics of vision more generally.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Henning et al. examine the impact of GABAergic feedback inhibition on the motion-sensitive pathway of flies. Based on a previous behavioral screen, the authors determined that C2 and C3, two GABAergic inhibitory feedback neurons in the optic lobes of the fly, are required for the optomotor response. Through a series of calcium imaging and disruption experiments, connectomics analysis, and follow-up behavioral assays, the authors concluded that C2 and C3 play a role in temporally sharpening visual motion responses. While this study employs a comprehensive array of experimental approaches, I have some reservations about the interpretation of the results in their current form. I strongly encourage the authors to provide additional data to solidify their conclusions. This is particularly relevant in determining whether this is a general phenomenon affecting vision or a specific effect on motion vision. Knowing this is also important for any speculation on the mechanisms of the observed temporal deficiencies.

Strengths:

This study uses a variety of experiments to provide a functional, anatomical, and behavioral description of the role of GABAergic inhibition in the visual system. This comprehensive data is relevant for anyone interested in understanding the intricacies of visual processing in the fly.

Weaknesses:

(1) The most fundamental criticism of this study is that the authors present a skewed view of the motion vision pathway in their results. While this issue is discussed, it is important to demonstrate that there are no temporal deficiencies in the lamina, which could be the case since C2 and C3, as noted in the connectomics analysis, project strongly to laminar interneurons. If the input dynamics are indeed disrupted, then the disruption seen in the motion vision pathway would reflect disruptions in temporal processing in general and suggest that these deficiencies are inherited downstream. A simple experiment could test this. Block C2, C3, and both together using Kir2.1 and Shibire independently, then record the ERG. Alternatively, one could image any other downstream neuron from the lamina that does not receive C2 or C3 input.

(2) Figure 6c. More analysis is required here, since the authors claim to have found a loss in inhibition (ND). However, the difference in excitation appears similar, at least in absolute magnitude (see panel 6c), for PD direction for the T4 C2 and C3 blocks. Also, I predict that C2 & C3 block statistically different from C3 only, why? In any case, it would be good to discuss the clear trend in the PD direction by showing the distribution of responses as violin plots to better understand the data. It would also be good to have some raw traces to be able to see the differences more clearly, not only polar plots and averages.

(3) The behavioral experiments are done with a different disruptor than the physiological ones. One blocks chemical synapses, the other shunts the cells. While one would expect similar results in both, this is not a given. It would be great if the authors could test the behavioral experiments with Kir2.1, too.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The work by Henning et al. explores the role of feedback inhibition in motion vision circuits, providing the first identification of inhibitory inheritance in motion-selective T4 and T5 cells of Drosophila. This work advances our current knowledge in Drosophila motion vision and sets the way for further exploring the intricate details of direction-selective computations.

Strengths:

Among the strengths of this work is the verification of the GABAergic nature of C2 and C3 with genetic and immunohistochemical approaches. In addition, double-silencing C2&C3 experiments help to establish a functional role for these cells. The authors holistically use the Drosophila toolbox to identify neural morphologies, synaptic locations, network connectivity, neuronal functions, and the behavioral output.

Weaknesses:

The authors claim that C2 and C3 neurons are required for direction selectivity, as per the publication's title; however, even with their double silencing, the directional T4 & T5 responses are not completely abolished. Therefore, the contribution of this inherited feedback in direction-selective computations is not a prerequisite for its emergence, and the title could be re-adjusted.

Connectivity is assessed in one out of the two available connectome datasets; therefore, it would make the study stronger if the same connectivity patterns were identified in both datasets.

The mediating neural correlates from C2 & C3 to T4 & T5 are not clarified; rather, Mi1 is found to be one of them. The study could be improved if the same set of silencing experiments performed for C2-Mi1 were extended to C2 &C3-Tm1 or Tm4 to find the T5 neural mediators of this feedback inhibition loop. Stating more clearly from the connectomic analysis, the potential T5 mediators would be equally beneficial. Future experiments might also disentangle the parallel or separate functions of C2 and C3 neurons.

Finally, the authors' conclusions derive from the set of experiments they performed in a logical manner. Nonetheless, the Discussion could benefited from a more extensive explanation on the following matters: why do the ON-selective C2 and C3 neurons control OFF-generated behaviors, why the T4&T5 responses after C2&C3 silencing differ between stationary and moving stimuli and finally why C2 and not C3 had an effect in T5 DS responses, as the connectivity suggests C3 outputting to two out of the four major T5 cholinergic inputs.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This article is about the neural circuitry underlying motion vision in the fruit fly. Specifically, it regards the roles of two identified neurons, called C2 and C3, that form columnar connections between neurons in the lamina and medulla, including neurons that are presynaptic to the elementary motion detectors T4 and T5. The approach takes advantage of specific fly lines in which one can disable the synaptic outputs of either or both of the C2/3 cell types. This is combined with optical recording from various neurons in the circuit, and with behavioral measurements of the turning reaction to moving stimuli.

The experiments are planned logically. The effects of silencing the C2/C3 neurons are substantial in size. The dominant effect is to make the responses of downstream neurons more sustained, consistent with a circuit role in feedback or feedforward inhibition. Silencing C2/C3 also makes the motion-sensitive neurons T4/T5 less direction-selective. However, the turning response of the fly is affected only in subtle ways. Detection of motion appears unaffected. But the response fails to discriminate between two motion pulses that happen in close succession. One can conclude that C2/C3 are involved in the motion vision circuit, by sharpening responses in time, though they are not essential for its basic function of motion detection.

Strengths:

The combination of cutting-edge methods available in fruit fly neuroscience. Well-planned experiments carried out to a high standard. Convincing effects documenting the role of these neurons in neural processing and behavior.

Weaknesses:

The report could benefit from a mechanistic argument linking the effects at the level of single neurons, the resulting neural computations in elementary motion detectors, and the altered behavioral response to visual motion.

eLife Assessment

This important and compelling study establishes a robust computational and experimental framework for the large-scale identification of metallophore biosynthetic clusters. The work advances beyond current standards, providing theoretical and practical value across microbiology, bioinformatics, and evolutionary biology.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This work by Reitz, Z. L. et al. developed an automated tool for high-throughput identification of microbial metallophore biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) by integrating knowledge of chelating moiety diversity and transporter gene families. The study aimed to create a comprehensive detection system combining chelator-based and transporter-based identification strategies, validate the tool through large-scale genomic mining, and investigate the evolutionary history of metallophore biosynthesis across bacteria.

Major strengths include providing the first automated, high-throughput tool for metallophore BGC identification, representing a significant advancement over manual curation approaches. The ensemble strategy effectively combines complementary detection methods, and experimental validation using HPLC-HRMS strengthens confidence in computational predictions. The work pioneers a global analysis of metallophore diversity across the bacterial kingdom and provides a valuable dataset for future computational modeling.

Some limitations merit consideration. First, ground truth datasets derived from manual curation may introduce selection bias toward well-characterized systems, potentially affecting performance assessment accuracy. Second, the model's dependence on known chelating moieties and transporter families constrains its ability to detect novel metallophore architectures, limiting discovery potential in metagenomic datasets. Third, while the proposed evolutionary hypothesis is internally consistent, it lacks direct validation and remains speculative without additional phylogenetic studies.

The authors successfully achieved their stated objectives. The tool demonstrates robust performance metrics and practical utility through large-scale application to representative genomes. Results strongly support their conclusions through rigorous validation, including experimental confirmation of predicted metallophores via HPLC-HRMS analysis.

The work provides a significant and immediate impact by enabling the transition from labor-intensive manual approaches to automated screening. The comprehensive phylogenetic framework advances understanding of bacterial metal acquisition evolution, informing future studies on microbial metal homeostasis. Community utility is substantial, since the tool and accompanying dataset create essential resources for comparative genomics, algorithm development, and targeted experimental validation of novel metallophores.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study presents a systematic and well-executed effort to identify and classify bacterial NRP metallophores. The authors curate key chelator biosynthetic genes from previously characterized NRP-metallophore biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) and translate these features into an HMM-based detection module integrated within the antiSMASH platform.

The new algorithm is compared with a transporter-based siderophore prediction approach, demonstrating improved precision and recall. The authors further apply the algorithm to large-scale bacterial genome mining and, through reconciliation of chelator biosynthetic gene trees with the GTDB species tree using eMPRess, infer that several chelating groups may have originated prior to the Great Oxidation Event.

Overall, this work provides a valuable computational framework that will greatly assist future in silico screening and preliminary identification of metallophore-related BGCs across bacterial taxa.

Strengths:

(1) The study provides a comprehensive curation of chelator biosynthetic genes involved in NRP-metallophore biosynthesis and translates this knowledge into an HMM-based detection algorithm, which will be highly useful for the initial screening and annotation of metallophore-related BGCs within antiSMASH.

(2) The genome-wide survey across a large bacterial dataset offers an informative and quantitative overview of the taxonomic distribution of NRP-metallophore biosynthetic chelator groups, thereby expanding our understanding of their phylogenetic prevalence.

(3) The comparative evolutionary analysis, linking chelator biosynthetic genes to bacterial phylogeny, provides an interesting and valuable perspective on the potential origin and diversification of NRP-metallophore chelating groups.

Weaknesses:

(1) Although the rule-based HMM detection performs well in identifying major categories of NRP-metallophore biosynthetic modules, it currently lacks the resolution to discriminate between fine-scale structural or biochemical variations among different metallophore types.

(2) While the comparison with the transporter-based siderophore prediction approach is convincing overall, more information about the dataset balance and composition would be appreciated. In particular, specifying the BGC identities, source organisms, and Gram-positive versus Gram-negative classification would improve transparency. In the supplementary tables, the "Just TonB" section seems to include only BGCs from Gram-negative bacteria - if so, this should be clearly stated, as Gram type strongly influences siderophore transport systems.

We separate the commitment

Is ours a licence to supply or a right to use our software

Does the kb SLA commit us to providing software updates?

We invoice these separately to the licence itself

I think this is the crux of the discussion

That means the latest date is to show it in the 2026 accounts

RQ4 和 RQ5 为论文v2 版本新增。为回答RQ5，v2版本还增加了对Java的支持

create/crurate/formulate everything that comes to mind in the same page in the current focal context

This is line with the maxim of WikiNizer

Helps 1 to bring to Mind what 1 had in Mind

Worry about referencing it from all pertinent context eventually

Thus instead of going to get your diary or daily log out and switch to it to document what u do

create a back link to where it needs to be recoded and linked to

This is a major change in work/do-how

Expanding on the principle of maintaining continuity of focus

keep the flow uninterrupted

do not go to where information may eventually be stored

but create/crurate/formulate everrything that comes to min in the same page in the current focal context

Worry about referencing it from all pertinent context eventually

Thus insteead of going to get your diary or daily log out and switch to it to document what u do

create a back link to where it needs to be recoded and linked to

cf

add glossary entry for mtshams med pa lnga - Standard Definition

it also occurs later in the text (1.69) as "five deeds of immediate retribution" and at 1.75 as "deeds of immediate retribution" (without "five") -- these should also be caught by the glossary entry.

all lower case

all lower case ( as name of a samādhi)

I think the example about algorithms recommending painful memories is very real. One time, my social media showed me an old photo with my ex, and it made me feel really bad. It shows that algorithms don’t understand feelings. They only see data, not emotion. I think social media should give users more control to block or turn off certain reminders.

This article says TikTok’s recommendation system is not really “magic.” It works well because users can skip quickly, and the app learns fast from that. I agree with this idea. I also think it’s dangerous that people believe algorithms “know them,” when in fact it’s just smart design making people stay longer.

This article mainly talks about how Facebook traces users by their phone numbers in order to send them advertisements by targeting their interests. Even if the users are not willing to, the setting could not be turned off. Many users got upset and irritated because Facebook did not protect the users' privacy.

This post perfectly illustrates a systemic feedback loop: when ranking models optimize for engagement (clicks, replies, dwell time), any interaction— even hate-watching or “dunking” — becomes a positive signal. The system can then amplify exactly what you say you dislike, because your behavior says “I’m interested.” A concrete example: if I constantly quote-tweet an account to criticize it, the recommender learns that content keeps me on the platform and will surface more of that account and similar ones, deepening an echo chamber of outrage. We all should be caution for this.

This source discusses how Twitter's internal analysis of its algorithm tends to amplify right-leaning content more than it does left-leaning content. The study also showed that right-leaning politicians tend to gain more visibility than their liberal counterparts.

eLife Assessment

This study proposes a valuable and interpretable approach for predicting hematoma expansion in patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage from non-contrast computed tomography. The evidence supporting the proposed method is solid, including predictive performance evaluated through external validation. This quantitative approach has the potential to improve hematoma expansion prediction with better interpretability. The work will be of interest to medical biologists working on stroke and neuroimaging.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study explores the use of Transport-based morphometry (TBM) to predict hematoma expansion and growth 24 hours post-event, leveraging Non-Contrast Computed Tomography (NCCT) scans combined with clinical and location-based information. The research holds significant clinical potential, as it could enable early intervention for patients at high risk of hematoma expansion, thereby improving outcomes. The study is well-structured, with detailed methodological descriptions and a clear presentation of results. However, the practical utility of the predictive tool requires further validation, as the current findings are based on retrospective data. Additionally, the impact of this tool on clinical decision-making and patient outcomes needs to be further investigated.

Strengths

(1) Clinical Relevance: The study addresses a critical need in clinical practice by providing a tool that could enhance diagnostic accuracy and guide early interventions, potentially improving patient outcomes.

(2) Feature Visualization: The visualization and interpretation of features associated with hematoma expansion risk are highly valuable for clinicians, aiding in the understanding of model-derived insights and facilitating clinical application.

(3) Methodological Rigor: The study provides a thorough description of methods, results, and discussions, ensuring transparency and reproducibility.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed my concerns.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study explores the use of Transport-based morphometry (TBM) to predict hematoma expansion and growth 24 hours post-event, leveraging Non-Contrast Computed Tomography (NCCT) scans combined with clinical and location-based information. The research holds significant clinical potential, as it could enable early intervention for patients at high risk of hematoma expansion, thereby improving outcomes. The study is well-structured, with detailed methodological descriptions and a clear presentation of results. However, the practical utility of the predictive tool requires further validation, as the current findings are based on retrospective data. Additionally, the impact of this tool on clinical decision-making and patient outcomes needs to be further investigated.

Strengths:

(1) Clinical Relevance: The study addresses a critical need in clinical practice by providing a tool that could enhance diagnostic accuracy and guide early interventions, potentially improving patient outcomes.

(2) Feature Visualization: The visualization and interpretation of features associated with hematoma expansion risk are highly valuable for clinicians, aiding in the understanding of model-derived insights and facilitating clinical application.

(3) Methodological Rigor: The study provides a thorough description of methods, results, and discussions, ensuring transparency and reproducibility.

Weaknesses:

(1) The limited sample size in this study raises concerns about potential model overfitting. While the reported AUCROC of 0.71 may be acceptable for clinical use, the robustness of the model could be further enhanced by employing techniques such as k-fold crossvalidation. This approach, which aggregates predictive results across multiple folds, mimics the consensus of diagnoses from multiple clinicians and could improve the model's reliability for clinical application. Additionally, in clinical practice, the utility of the model may depend on specific conditions, such as achieving high specificity to identify patients at risk of hematoma expansion, thereby enabling timely interventions. Consequently, while AUC is a commonly used metric, it may not fully capture the model's clinical applicability. The authors should consider discussing alternative performance metrics, such as specificity and sensitivity, which are more aligned with clinical needs. Furthermore, evaluating the model's performance in real-world clinical scenarios would provide valuable insights into its practical utility and potential impact on patient outcomes.

We thank the reviewer for these thoughtful comments. We agree that k-fold cross validation is a valid approach to reduce bias associated with overfitting and account for variability in the dataset composition. During the training and optimization process, this was employed within the VISTA dataset where data were shuffled at random and separated into independent training (60%) and internal validation (40%) datasets. This process was repeated 1000 times, to generate 1000 different training and internal validation splits. Statistical analyses and data visualization were performed independently on each of the 1000 cross-validation samples, and the mean results with corresponding 95% confidence intervals are presented. The p-values were averaged using the Fisher’s method. We have included this information in the methods section. [Page 22; Paragraph 1, Lines 8-10]. External validation was performed on the ERICH dataset and analyzed only once. We chose not to perform k-fold cross validation with the test dataset in attempt to assess the model’s generalizability to unseen data from a different patient cohort. However, we agree that taking advantage of the full 1,066 ERICH cases for model validation would improve the strength of our conclusions regarding the model’s robustness. This has been included in the discussion. [Page 15; Paragraph 1; Lines 11-14].

We agree that the AUC alone will not effectively describe the clinical applicability of the intended model. We have added the sensitivity and specificity metrics for the TBM’s performance in the external dataset to the discussion. The design of the present study was primarily a pre-clinical methodological study. However, we have suggested that future external validation studies should seek to identify ideal sensitivity and specificity thresholds when evaluating the model’s translatability to a clinical setting. [Page 11; Paragraph 2; Line 22 and Page 12; Paragraph 1; Lines 2-4]. We agree that future validation studies should also assess the model’s performance in a real-world clinical setting and have emphasized this point in the discussion. [Page 13; Paragraph 2; Lines 22-23 and Page 14; Paragraph 1; Lines 1-4].

(2) The authors compared the performance of TBM with clinical and location-based information, as well as other machine learning methods. While this comparison highlights the relative strengths of TBM, the study would benefit from providing concrete evidence on how this tool could enhance clinicians' ability to assess hematoma expansion in practice. For instance, it remains unclear whether integrating the model's output with a clinician's own assessment would lead to improved diagnostic accuracy or decisionmaking. Investigating this aspect-such as through studies evaluating the combined performance of clinician judgment and model predictions-could significantly enhance the tool's practical value.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The present study intended to suggest potential advantages of the TBM method with comparison to alternate clinician-based and machine learning methods. While we agree that the TBM method warrants further evaluation in a realworld clinical setting to determine its practical utility, we propose that further optimization of TBM is first needed to improve its predictive accuracy. 

In developing TBM, our eventual goal is to produce a prediction tool, which can identify patients at risk for hematoma expansion early in the disease course, who may benefit from intervention with surgical and/or medical therapies. Current clinician-based risk stratification methods are highly variable in accuracy, inefficient, and require subjective interpretation of the NCCT scan. Our eventual goal is to aid clinical decision making with an automated, accurate and efficient model. In follow up work, we will study how to combine information derived from imaging and TBM with other assessment tools and clinical data in order to best inform clinicians. This has been incorporated into the discussion. [Page 14; Paragraph 1; Lines 1-4].

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The author presents a transport-based morphometry (TBM) approach for the discovery of noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) markers of hematoma expansion risk in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patients. The findings demonstrate that TBM can quantify hematoma morphological features and outperforms existing clinical scoring systems in predicting 24-hour hematoma expansion. In addition, the inversion model can visualize features, which makes it interpretable. In conclusion, this research has clinical potential for ICH risk stratification, improving the precision of early interventions.

Strengths:

TBM quantifies hematoma morphological changes using the Wasserstein distance, which has a well-defined physical meaning. It identifies features that are difficult to detect through conventional visual inspection (such as peripheral density distribution and density heterogeneity), which provides evidence supporting the "avalanche effect" hypothesis in hematoma expansion pathophysiology.

Weaknesses:

(1) As a methodology-focused study, the description of the methods section somewhat lacks depth and focus, which may make it challenging for readers to fully grasp the overall structure and workflow of the approach. For instance, the manuscript lacks a systematic overview of the entire process, from NCCT image input to the final prediction output. A potential improvement would be to include a workflow figure at the beginning of the manuscript, summarizing the proposed method and subsequent analytical procedures. This would help readers better understand the mechanism of the model.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have included a figure detailing the TBM workflow to improve reader understanding. [Figure 1, Page 5; Paragraph 2; Lines 19-20 and Page 30; Paragraph 1].

(2) The description of the comparison algorithms could be more detailed. Since TBM directly utilizes NCCT images as input for prediction, while SVM and K-means are not inherently designed to process raw imaging data, it would be beneficial to clarify which specific features or input data were used for these comparison models. This would better highlight the effectiveness and advantages of the TBM method.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have included additional details of the comparison with machine learning models in the methods section. While we used PCA on the extracted transport maps and raw image data for dimensionality reduction prior to classification, we agree that the machine learning methods described may not have been optimally tuned to examine the data in the format in which it was presented. Future studies should aim to compare TBM with optimized machine and deep learning methods to determine TBM’s potential as an automated clinical risk stratification tool. We have added this to the limitations section of the discussion. [Page 14; Paragraph 2; Lines 22-23 and Page 15; Paragraph 1; Lines 1-2].

(3) The relatively small training and testing dataset may limit the model's performance and generalizability. Notably, while the study mentions that 1,066 patients from the ERICH dataset met the inclusion criteria, only 170 were randomly selected for the test set. Leveraging the full 1,066 ERICH cases for model training and internal validation might potentially enhance the model's robustness and performance.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. As the reviewer highlights, the intention of the manuscript was to present a methodologically focused study which led to our small validation cohort of 170 patients from the ERICH dataset. It is our intention to further optimize and validate the TBM method in a future larger study which is underway, taking full advantage of the ERICH dataset. This has been incorporated into the discussion section. [Page 15; Paragraph 1; Lines 1114].

(4) Some minor textual issues need to be checked and corrected, such as line 16 in the abstract "Incorporating these traits into a v achieved an AUROC of 0.71 ...".

We thank the reviewer for this comment. The typographical error has been corrected. 

(5) Some figures need to be reformatted (e.g., the x-axis in Figure 2 a is blocked).

We thank the reviewer for this comment. This was intentional to demonstrate that the X-axis in Figure 2a and 2b are identical and thereby highlight image features corresponding to the regression line on the graph.

eLife Assessment

This important study presents findings on the patterned loss of Purkinje cells in the cerebellum during aging. The compelling data nicely support the conclusions of this study. This work advances understanding of mechanisms underlying neurodegeneration with aging and provides the basis for development of treatments for age-related neurological disorders.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Donofrio et al. investigated cerebellar Purkinje cell (PC) degeneration during normal aging using both mouse and human samples. They found that PC loss followed a stripe pattern rather than occurring randomly. Although this pattern resembled the pattern of zebrin II expression in the anterior cerebellum, the overall pattern was different from zebrin II expression. Surviving PCs exhibited severe degeneration, including thickened axons, axonal torpedoes and shrunken dendrites. These structural changes were accompanied by functional deficits in motor coordination and tremor. Understanding why certain PC subpopulations are more vulnerable than others may provide insight into regional susceptibility (or resilience) to aging and inform potential therapeutic strategies for age-related neurological disorders. Overall, the findings are novel and significant, supported by compelling evidence from structural and functional analyses. The authors have fully addressed my previous concerns and improved the clarity of their presentation. I believe this work will have a significant impact in the field.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The cerebellum is known to be vulnerable to aging, yet specific cell type vulnerability remains understudied. This important study convincingly demonstrate that the normal aged mouse cerebellum exhibits Purkinje cell loss, and that the vulnerable PCs to age are arranged on the basis of known Zebrin stripe pattern that represents a particular subtype of the PCs. As the authors wrote, future studies should investigate why this PC loss phenotype occurs stochastically across the population, and whether these findings parallel human cerebellar aging.

Strength:

• Banding pattern of PC loss is very clearly demonstrated by combining immunostaining for Zebrin.

• A critical methodological concern that a standard PC marker, Calbindin, could be compromised in aging has been addressed by performing control experiments with appropriate counterstaining and a transgenic mouse.

• Parallels with neurodegenerative phenotype would be helpful to understand the mechanisms of age-related PC loss in future.

Weakness:

• Limited strain diversity: The study exclusively uses C57BL/6J mice despite known genetic and motor differences among even closely related strains like C57BL/6N, weakening the generalizability of the findings. However, on the other hand, the presence of age-related PC loss makes C57BL/6J an interesting mouse model for studying aging of the cerebellum.

• Linkages with normal human aging and cerebellar function is not supported well. It remains unclear whether this PC loss phenomenon is universal or specific to a particular individual, and whether specific to human PC subtype.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Donofrio et al. report a new observation that in normal aging mice, anti-calbindin whole-mount staining and coronal immunohistochemistry in the cerebellum often show a sagittally patterned loss of Purkinje cells with age. The authors address a central concern that calbindin antibody staining alone is not sufficient to definitively assess Purkinje cell loss, and corroborate their antibody staining data with transgenic Pcp2-CRE x flox-GFP reporter mice and Neutral Red staining. The authors then investigate whether this patterned Purkinje loss correlates with the known parasagittal expression of zebrin-II, finding a strong but imperfect correlation with zebrin-II antibody staining. They next draw a connection between this age-related Purkinje loss to the age-related decline in motor function in mice, with trending but non-significant statistical association between the severity/patterning of Purkinje loss and motor phenotypes within cohorts of aged mice. Finally, the authors look at post-mortem human cerebellar tissues from deceased healthy donors between 21 and 74 years of age, finding a positive correlation between Purkinje degeneration and age, but with unknown spatial patterning.

The conclusions drawn from this study are well supported by the data provided, with image quantification corroborating visual observations. The authors highlight several examples of parasagittal patterning of Purkinje cell degeneration in disease, and they show that proper methodologies must be used to account for these patterns to avoid highly variable data in the sagittal plane. The authors aptly point out that additional work is needed to investigate the spatial patterns of Purkinje cell loss in the human cerebellum.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

While the authors have largely ruled out zebrin II as the key protein underlying PC vulnerability or resistance to age-related loss, the molecular basis of this phenomenon remains unidentified. This reviewer acknowledges the complexity of this investigation and considers it a minor issue, as the manuscript thoughtfully discusses the gap and highlights it as a future direction.

We appreciate the reviewer’s acknowledgement of the complexity of determining the molecular basis of differential Purkinje cell vulnerability. Moreover, we acknowledge that zebrin II expression/identity is not the only factor in determining vulnerability; rather, the compartmentalized map as a whole may dictate these differences. We are eager to shed light on this issue through future study.

In cases where no PC loss is observed in aged mice (Figure 1F), it is unclear whether these PCs undergo morphological degeneration, such as thickened axons and shrunken dendrites. Further characterization of these resilient PCs would help understand why the aged mice without PC loss still exhibit motor deficits (Figure 7).

Thank you for the excellent idea of examining Purkinje cell morphology in aged mice without Purkinje cell loss. Upon looking for hallmarks of neurodegeneration, such as shrunken dendrites and axonal swellings, in aged mice without Purkinje cell loss, we observed minimal axonal pathology and no shrinkage of the molecular layer.  However, we note that while the features we examined are wellstudied hallmarks of degeneration, they are specific rather than exhaustive, and subtle morphological characteristics that are beyond our methods’ detection may change. We have added these new results to Figure 2C and added these notes to the manuscript.

The histologic analysis is based on mice with different genetic backgrounds. For example, the PC-specific reporter mice include two strains: Pcp2-Cre; Ai32 and Pcp2-Cre; Ai40D. These genetic variations may contribute to the heterogeneity of PC loss (Figure 1). To improve clarity, please add the genetic background details to Table 1.

We have added the genetic backgrounds of all mice used in the study to Table 1.

Please indicate from which lobule in the anterior or posterior human cerebellum the images in Figure 8 were taken.

Unfortunately, because of the limitations of human postmortem tissue collection (in some cases, we are provided with a very small block that was collected after the pathologist completed their primary duty for that individual), we cannot with full certainty distinguish the lobules from which the images were taken. However, we are grateful that, upon our request, the pathologists were able to collect tissue mainly from the vermis, which is where we wished to begin, knowing that the vermis in rodents and non-human primates typically has the clearest and most well-studied pattern. That said, this is an important issue that we are addressing for future studies.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

(1) Limited strain diversity: The study exclusively uses C57BL/6J mice despite known genetic and motor differences even the closely related strains like C57BL/6N.

Thank you for pointing out this limitation of our study. We chose to limit this initial study to C57BL/6J mice based on their widespread use as a background strain on many currently maintained lines. That said, our study intentionally included several different crosses to provide genetic variability, even though C57BL/6J is still the predominant genetic background. In addition to the motor differences in genetic strains, we are also particularly interested in the differences in cerebellar morphology across strains (Inouye and Oda, 1980; Sillitoe and Joyner, 2007). Our use of mice maintained on the C57BL/6J background leaves open an exciting future direction: investigating age-related Purkinje cell loss in mice of different inbred and outbred strains. Given the importance of the topic, we have included new text in the discussion to alert the reader to this limitation of our study and to highlight interesting differences across strains that will be important to disentangle in our future work.

(2) No correlation quantified between the degree of PC loss, aging, and motor performance.

We sought to conduct a broad overview of motor problems that might be caused by age-related Purkinje cell loss, rather than a comprehensive investigation of how motor behavior changes with advancing Purkinje cell loss. Therefore, we agree with the reviewer’s comment, and we have added text to indicate that stronger correlations between these domains would be best tackled with deeper behavioral phenotyping conducted over time to match the potentially cooccurring progressive changes in cerebellar morphology, with a focus on Purkinje cell degeneration and eventual loss.

(3) It has not been demonstrated whether the neurodegenerative changes are indeed observed in zebrin-negative PCs.

We have added Supplementary Figure 4, which includes an example of reduced dendritic density and loss of Purkinje cell somata in zebrin II-negative stripes in lobules II and III. Please also see Figure 4B for an example of reduced dendritic density in zebrin II-negative Purkinje cells in lobules III and IV.

(4) The mechanisms of why only a subset of mice show PC loss remain unexplored and not discussed.

We agree that our manuscript would benefit from discussion of why some aged mice are resistant to age-related Purkinje cell loss. We have elaborated upon possible reasons for this differential vulnerability in the discussion.

(5) Linkages with normal human aging and cerebellar function are not well supported. While motor behavioral assays captured phenotypes that mimic aged people, correlation with PC loss is demonstrated to be absent in mice. It remains unclear whether this PC loss phenomenon is universal or specific to a particular individual; and whether specific to a human PC subtype.

In our study, we sought to show that patterned age-related Purkinje cell loss presents a promising area for future research in humans. We agree that further study is needed to solidify a link between age-related Purkinje cell loss in mice and humans and the implications for motor function. The reviewer raises a fair criticism that reflects the current state of knowledge: studies that link cerebellar aging to  motor function and cognitive decline in humans are few, as are studies of the cellular-level morphological changes of cerebellar aging –there is a pressing need for deeper study of human tissue. To address the issue raised by the reviewer, we have included new text to the discussion of our manuscript indicating these gaps in knowledge. 

(6) Analyses in the paraflocculus are currently not easy to understand. This lobule has heterogeneous PC subtypes, developmentally or molecularly. Zebrin-weak and Zebrinintense PCs are known to be arranged in stripes, which resembles the pattern of developmentally defined PC subsets (Fujita et al., 2014, Plos one; Fujita et al., 2012, J Neurosci). In the data presented, it is hard to appreciate whether the viewing angle is consistent relative to the angle of the paraflocculus. This may be a limitation of the analysis of the paraflocculus in general, that the orientation of this lobule is so susceptible to fixation and dissection. Discrepancy between PC loss stripe and zebrin pattern may be an overstatement, because appropriate analyses on the paraflocculus would require a rigorously standardized analytic method.

Thank you for your valuable insights on the complexity of analyzing the paraflocculus. We have altered our language to more accurately reflect the nuanced zebrin II expression pattern of this region. We also agree with and very much appreciate your advice that “analyses on the paraflocculus would require a rigorously standardized analytic method.” We have added these arguments to the revised manuscript text.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

(1) In Figure 3, the authors use Pcp2-CRE mice to drive GFP expression in Purkinje cells in order to avoid the confounding variable of loss of calbindin expression in aging Purkinje cells. The authors go on to say, "we argue that calbindin expression alone is not a reliable, sufficient indicator of Purkinje cell loss". However, in Figure 4, the authors return to calbindin staining alone to assess the correlation of Purkinje cell loss with zebrin-II expression. Could the authors comment on why zebrin-II co-staining experiments were not performed in GFP reporter mice to avoid potential confounds of calbindin expression? Without this experiment, should readers accept the data presented in Figure 4 as a "reliable, sufficient indicator of Purkinje cell loss", given the author's prior claim?

This is a very good point, thank you. We agree that the data presented in Figure 4 alone would not be a sufficient indicator of Purkinje cell loss. However, we prefaced our calbindin and zebrin II co-staining with calbindin and GFP costaining (Figure 3), which showed that Purkinje cell-specific reporter expression revealed the same pattern of Purkinje cell loss as calbindin expression, and Neutral Red staining (Figure 2 and Supplementary Figure 3B), which confirmed the loss of Purkinje cells independent of immunofluorescence. For this reason, we feel confident that the data in Figure 4 is representative of the striped pattern of age-related Purkinje cell loss. Still, we see and agree with the reviewer’s comment, and therefore, to further show the correlation of Purkinje cell loss with zebrin II expression, we have added a new Supplementary Fig. 4, which shows co-staining of calbindin, GFP, and zebrin II.

(2) Throughout the manuscript, there is a considerable reliance on the authors' interpretation of imaging data with no accompanying quantification (categorization of "striped" or "non-striped" PC loss, correlation of GFP/calbindin/zebrin-II staining, etc.). While this may be difficult to obtain, the results would be much stronger with a quantitative approach to support the stated categorizations/observations.

Thank you for your suggestion. Quantifying stripe properties has been a challenging task for the field, given the regionalized features of stripe compartmentalization that make its complex architecture tricky to measure in its typical organization within the 3D anatomy of lobules and fissures and even harder to interpret when there are abnormalities. However, to quantitatively support our categorization of “striped” and “non-striped” Purkinje loss and the observed correlation between calbindin and GFP expression in aged mice, we have quantified the mediolateral pixel intensity across lobules II-IV, in which Purkinje cell loss reliably occurs in zebrin II-negative stripes. The results can be found in Supplementary Figure 1B and Supplementary Figure 3.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) In Figure 1, both staining artifacts and PC degeneration appear in light color. Please clarify how these two were differentiated.

Thank you for your comment, which raises an important point about distinguishing staining artifacts from Purkinje cell degeneration. Cerebellar patterning is symmetrical across the midline, so asymmetrical abnormalities are one clue that differentiates staining artifacts from the degenerative pattern. Another indicator of a staining artifact seen in wholemount preparations is the gradual fading of the stain (seen in some hemispheres in Figure 1), which is caused by continuous rubbing of the cerebellum against the tube during the staining process. In some cases, such as in Figure 1F, the cerebellum was damaged during the dissection of the meninges after staining, and in such cases the accidental removal of cerebellar tissue (molecular layer) reveals unstained tissue beneath the surface of the cerebellum. This type of staining artifact can be identified by a missing chunk of tissue surrounded by stained Purkinje cells, compared to the smooth, unmarred tissue where PCs have degenerated. We have added new text to the results (the legends) to clarify these critical points for the reader.

(2) In Figure 7C, please consider changing "Aged without stripes" to "Aged without PC loss" to be consistent with the labeling used in other panels.

Thank you for pointing out this discrepancy. We have made the suggested changes.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

Could the authors comment on why zebrin-II co-staining experiments were not performed in GFP reporter mice to avoid potential confounds of calbindin expression? Without this experiment, should readers accept the data presented in Figure 4 as a "reliable, sufficient indicator of Purkinje cell loss", given the author's prior claim?

Thank you for this recommendation; we appreciate this advice. As we described above, our response to this suggestion reads:

This is a very good point, thank you. We agree that the data presented in Figure 4 alone would not be a sufficient indicator of Purkinje cell loss. However, we prefaced our calbindin and zebrin II co-staining with calbindin and GFP costaining (Figure 3), which showed that Purkinje cell-specific reporter expression revealed the same pattern of Purkinje cell loss as calbindin expression, and Neutral Red staining (Figure 2 and Supplementary Figure 3B), which confirmed the loss of Purkinje cells independent of immunofluorescence. For this reason, we feel confident that the data in Figure 4 is representative of the striped pattern of age-related Purkinje cell loss. Still, we see and agree with the reviewer’s comment, and therefore to further show the correlation of Purkinje cell loss with zebrin II expression, we have added a new Supplementary Fig. 4, which shows co-staining of calbindin, GFP, and zebrin II.

The note indicates that Facebook's algorithms don't merely present material; they also change how people act. This is important for figuring out false information, echo chambers, and why people feel like they're being "spied on." It links directly to the bigger idea of how technology changes democracy and identity.

Zuboff's idea shows that modern capitalism relies on gathering data from users. The strong point here is that people give up their privacy for convenience without realizing that they are helping a global profit structure. It's a new kind of exploitation that looks like ease.

This means that digital apps like Uber and Google Maps are so important that they are viewed like public utilities, even if they are still owned by private companies. This highlights how much power huge digital corporations now have over things we do every day, including getting around and finding our way.

eLife Assessment

The study presents important findings that are highly relevant for research aiming to combine transcriptomics, connectivity studies, and activity profiling in the rodent brain and the revisions improve the study. The evidence overall remains convincing as the authors use appropriate and validated methodology in line with current state-of-the-art.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In their paper entitled "Combined transcriptomic, connectivity, and activity profiling of the medial amygdala using highly amplified multiplexed in situ hybridization (hamFISH)" Edwards et al. present a new method designated as hamFISH (highly amplified multiplexed in situ hybridization) that enables sequential detection of {less than or equal to}32 genes using multiplexed branched DNA amplification. As proof-of-principle, the authors apply the new technique - in conjunction with connectivity, and activity profiling - to the medial amygdala (MeA) of the mouse, which is a critical nucleus for innate social and defensive behaviors.

As mentioned by Edwards et al., hamFISH could prove beneficial as an affordable alternative to other in situ transcriptomic methods, including commercial platforms, that are resource-intensive and require complex analysis pipelines. Thus, the authors envision that the method they present could democratize in situ cell-type identification in individual laboratories.

The data presented by Edwards et al. is convincing. The authors use the appropriate and validated methodology in line with the current state-of-the-art. The paper makes a strong case for the benefits of hamFISH when combining transcriptomics studies with connectivity tracing and immediate early gene-based activity profiling. Notably, the authors also discuss the caveats and limitations of their study/approach in an open and transparent manner.

Comments on revisions:

In their revised paper, Edwards et al. have made an effort to improve manuscript clarity. Revisions made address the non-public "recommendations for the authors." The main criticism that prevents a more enthusiastic overall assessment, i.e., absence of some more in-depth hypothesis-based analysis (though, as originally mentioned, maybe beyond the study's scope), is still valid.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors describe the development and implementation of hamFISH, a sensitive multiplexed ISH method. They leverage a pre-existing scRNA-seq dataset for the MeA to design 32 probes that combinatorically represent MeA neuronal populations - ~80% of MeA neurons express at least three of these 32 markers. Using these markers to assess the spatial organization of the MeA, the authors identify a novel population of Ndnf+ projection neurons and characterize their connectivity with anterograde and retrograde labeling. They additionally combine hamFISH with CTB labeling of three principal MeA projections sites to show that 75% of MeA neurons have only a single projection target. Finally, they engage adult male mice in encounters with other adult males (aggression), females (mating), and pups (infanticide), followed with hamFISH and c-fos labeling to relate cell identity to behavior. Their overall conclusion is that hamFISH-defined cell types are broadly active to multiple sensory stimuli. However, the data presented are not sufficient to conclude that no selectivity exists.

A strength of the manuscript is the novel hamFISH approach, which is technically innovative and could potentially be adopted by many labs. However, a weakness is that the 32 selected hamFISH marker genes employed here are predominantly neuropeptides. These genes, such as Tac1, Cartpt, Adcyap1, Calb1, and Gal, are expressed throughout the MeA, and many other brain regions and are not selective for transcriptomic cell types or developmental lineages. The use of hamFISH probes that provide a more stringent classification of cell type or cell identity could potentially provide a different picture of sensory response selectivity within the MeA. Thus, although the data in the manuscript are exemplary, the biological insight into MeA function is more limited.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Edwards et al. describe hamFISH, a customizable and cost-efficient method for performing targeted spatial transcriptomics. hamFISH utilizes highly amplified multiplexed branched DNA amplification, and the authors extensively describe hamFISH development and its advantages over prior variants of this approach.

The authors then used hamFISH to investigate an important circuit in the mouse brain for social behavior, the medial amygdala (MeA). To develop a hamFISH probe set capable of distinguishing MeA neurons, the authors mined published single cell RNA-sequencing datasets of the MeA, ultimately creating a panel of 32 hamFISH probes that mostly cover the identified MeA cell types. They evaluated over 600,000 MeA cells and classified neurons into 16 inhibitory and 10 excitatory types, many of which are spatially clustered.

The authors combined hamFISH with viral and other circuit tracer injections to determine whether the identified MeA cell populations sent and/or received unique inputs from connected brain regions, finding evidence that several cell types had unique patterns of input and output. Finally, the authors performed hamFISH on the brains of male mice that were placed in behavioral conditions that elicit aggressive, infanticidal, or mating behaviors, finding that some cell populations are selectively activated (as assessed by c-fos mRNA expression) in specific social contexts.

Strengths:

(1) The authors developed an optimized tissue preparation protocol for hamFISH and implemented oligopools instead of individually synthesized oligonucleotides to reduce costs. The branched DNA amplification scheme improved smFISH signal compared to previous methods, and multiple variants provide additional improvements in signal intensity and specificity. Compared to other spatial transcriptomics methods, the pipeline for imaging and analysis is streamlined, and is compatible with other techniques like fluorescence-based circuit tracing. This approach is cost-effective and has several advantages that make it a valuable addition to the list of spatial transcriptomics toolkits.

(2) Using 31 probes, hamFISH was able to detect 16 inhibitory and 10 excitatory neuron types in the MeA subregions, including the vast majority of cell types identified by other transcriptomics approaches. The authors quantified the distributions of these cell types along the anterior-posterior, dorsal-ventral, and medial-lateral axes, finding spatial segregation among some, but not all, MeA excitatory and inhibitory cell types. The authors additionally identified a class of inhibitory neurons expressing Ndnf (and a subset of these that express Chrna7) that project to multiple social chemosensory circuits.

(3) The authors combined hamFISH with MeA input and output mapping, finding cell-type biases in the projections to the MPOA, BNST, and VMHvl, and inputs from multiple regions.

(4) The authors identified excitatory and inhibitory cell types, and patterns of activity across cell types, that were selectively activated during various social behaviors, including aggression, mating, and infanticide, providing new insights and avenues for future research into MeA circuit function.

Weaknesses:

(1) Gene selection for hamFISH is likely to still be a limiting factor, even with the expanded (32-probe) capacity. This may have contributed to the lack of ability to identify sexually dimorphic cell types (Fig. S2B). This is an expected tradeoff for a method that has major advantages in terms of cost and adaptability.

(2) Adaptation of hamFISH, for example, to adapt it to other brain regions or tissues, may require extensive optimization. This does not preclude it from being highly useful for other brain regions with extra effort.

(3) Pairing this method with behavioral experiments is likely to require further optimization, as c-fos mRNA expression is an indirect and incomplete survey of neuronal activity (e.g. not all cell types upregulate c-fos when electrically active). As such, there is a risk of false negative results that limit its utility for understanding circuit function.

(4) The incompatibility of hamFISH with thicker tissue samples and minimal optical sectioning introduce additional technical limitations. For example, it would be difficult to densely sample larger neural circuits using serial 20 micron sections.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Reviewing Editor Comments:

Recommendations for improvement:

(1) Address data presentation, editing, and other issues of lack of clarity as pointed out by the reviewers.

We have now addressed all comments from reviewers that identify editing errors and lack of clarity issues. Regarding data presentation we have made some changes, for example including a combined heatmap to show consistency between row names (Figure 2 - figure supplement 2), but also kept some stylistic features such as the balance between main and supplemental figures that we think fits more naturally with the story of the paper.

(2) Inclusion of requested and critical details in the methodology section, an important component for broad applicability of a new methodology by other investigators.

We have added the requested details to the methods section, specifically the RCA protocol.

(3) More in-depth discussion of the limitations of the methodology and approach to capture important but more complex components of tissues of interest, for example, sexual dimorphism.

We have now edited the ‘pitfalls of study’ section in the discussion to include further detail of the limitations of the number of genes that can be used to deeply profile transcriptomic types, including sexual dimorphism. Regarding its use in other tissues of interest, we have now included a reference in the discussion (Bintu et al., 2025) where a similar strategy has been used to profile cells in the olfactory epithelium and olfactory bulb. We have also used hamFISH in other brain areas (as commented in our public reviews responses) but as this is unpublished work we will refrain from mentioning it in the main text.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

The manuscript by Edwards et al. would benefit from minor revisions. Here, we outline several points that could / should be addressed:

(1) General balance of data presentation between main and supplementary figures

(a) quantifications were often missing from main figures and only presented in the supplements

Thank you for raising this point. We believe that the balance of panels between the main and supplemental figures matches our story and results section well with quantifications included in the main figures where appropriate.

(b) more informative figure legends in supplements (e.g.: Supplementary Figure I - Figure 3)

We have now revised the figure legends and added more description where appropriate.

(c) missing subpanel in Figure 3; figure legend describes 3H, which is missing in the figure

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out and have now amended the subpanel.

stand-alone figure on inhibitory neuron cluster i3 cells

We agree that this is an important characterisation of i3 cells but decided to place this figure in the supplement as it does not fall within the main storyline (defining transcriptomic characterisation of cell types in a multimodal fashion), but rather acts as accessory information for those specifically interested in these inhibitory cell types.

statistical tests used (e.g.: Figure 1 C -, Supplementary Figure 3 - Figure 2)/ graphs shown (Supplementary Figure 1 - 1 D)

The statistical tests used are described in the figure legends.

t-SNE dimensionality reduction of positional parameters

Explanations of the t-SNE dimensionality reduction of positional parameters can be found in the materials and methods.

(d) heatmaps similarly informative and more convincing

We have included an extra heatmap (Figure 2 - figure supplement 2) in response to Reviewer 3’s comment (see below) in order to more easily follow genes across all the different clusters. We hope this helps to make the heatmaps more convincing and informative.

code availability

Code availability is described in the methods section of the manuscript.

page 6, 3rd paragraph wrong description of PMCo abbreviation

We thank the reviewer for identifying the mistake and we have now amended it.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

The pre-existing scRNA-seq dataset on which the manuscript is based is an older Drop-seq dataset for which minimal QC information is provided. The authors should include QC information (genes/cells and UMIs/cells) in the Methods. Moreover, the Seurat clustering of these cells and depiction of marker genes in feature plots are not shown.

It is therefore difficult to determine how the authors selected their 31 genes for their hamFISH panel, or how selective they are to the original Drop-seq clusters.

The QC information of this dataset can be found in the original publication (Chen et al., 2019) with our clustering methods described in the materials and methods section. We have not included individual gene names in our heatmap plots for presentation purposes (there are over 200 rows), but the data and cluster descriptions can be found in supplemental tables.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The imaging modality is not entirely clear in the methods. The microscopy technique is referenced to prior work and involves taking z-stacks, but analysis appears to be done on maximum z-projections, which seems like it would introduce the risk of false attribution of gene expression to cells that are overlapping in "z".

Thank you for pointing out the technical limitation of the microscopy. For imaging we used epifluorescence microscopy with 14x 500 nm z-steps to collect our raw data and generate a maximum intensity projection for further analysis. Because of the thin sections (10 um) used for the imaging, the overlap between cells in z is expected to be minimal. However, we cannot completely rule out misattribution raised in the comment. The method section contains this information.

(2) Supplemental Figure 1 - Figure Supplement 2B: RCA looks significantly different when compared to v2 smFISH from the representative image, although it is written as comparable. Additionally, there is no information about RCA mentioned in the Materials and Methods section. Supplemental Figure 1 - Figure Supplement 2B: The figure label for RCA is missing.

By comparable we are referring to the intensity rather than pattern as mentioned in the results section. We did not analyze the number of spots. It is true that the pattern of RCA signal is much sparser due to its inherent insensitivity compared with hamFISH. We thank the reviewer for identifying the lack of a methodological RCA description and have amended the manuscript to include this. We have also now amended the missing RCA label in the figure.

(3) Figure 2C and associated supplement: The rows (each gene) are not consistent across the subpanels (i.e. they do not line up left-to-right), this makes it difficult for the reader to follow the patterns that distinguish the cell types in each subset.

We have done this as we believe it makes for an easier interpretation of inhibitory vs excitatory clusters for the reader. However, we agree with the reviewer that one may wish to look at the dataset as a whole with a consistent gene order, and we have now provided this in the corresponding supplemental figure.  

(4) "Consistent with previous work, most inhibitory classes are localized in the dorsal and ventral subdivisions of the MeA, whereas excitatory neurons occupy primarily the ventral MeA (Figure 2D, Figure 2 - Figure Supplement 2C, Figure 1D)". - The reference to Figure 1D seems to be an error.

We thank the reviewer for identifying the mistake, and we have now amended it.

(5) Supplemental Figure 2 - Figure Supplement 1, "published by Chen et al." - should have a proper reference number to be compatible with the rest of the manuscript. Also, the lack of gene info makes it difficult to understand Panel A. Finally, the text on Panel B refers to "hamMERFISH" which seems an error.

We thank the reviewer for identifying the mistake on Panel B, it has now been amended. We have also changed the reference format. Regarding the lack of gene information in panel A, it is difficult to present all row names due to the large number of rows (>200), but this information can be found in supplemental table 2.

(6) Supplemental Figure 2 - Figure Supplement 1: there are thin dividing lines drawn on each section, but these are not described or defined, making it difficult to understand what is being delineated.

We thank the reviewer for identifying this omission and have now edited to figure legend to contain a description.

(7) Page 4, "...we found 26 clusters in cells that are positive for Slc32a1 (inhibitory) or Slc17a6 (encoding Vglut2 and therefore excitatory) positive (Figure 2 - figure supplement 1A, Table S2)."

This seems to be an error as Figure 2 - figure supplement 1A does not show this.

We double-checked that this description describes the panel accurately.

(8) "The clustering revealed that inhibitory and excitatory classes generally have different spatial properties (Figure 1E, left), although the salt-and-pepper, sparse nature of e10 (Nts+) cells is more similar to inhibitory cells than other excitatory classes".

The references to Figure 1E's should be to Figure 2E.

We thank the reviewer for identifying the mistake, and we have now amended it.

(9) "Comparison of the proportion of all cells that are cluster X vs projection neurons labelled by CTB that are cluster X". Please explain cluster X in this context.

We have now rephrased this sentence in the figure legend for clarity.

(10) Figure 3 - figure supplement 3: There appears to be quite a bit of heterogeneity in the patterns of activity across clusters even within behavioral contexts (e.g. the bottom 2 animals paired with females). It might be worth commenting on (or quantifying) whether there were any evident differences in the social behaviors observed (e.g. mating or not?) in individuals demonstrating these patterns.

We thank the reviewer for this observation. We unfortunately did not quantify the behaviors, but we agree that more work is needed to link the pattern of c-fos activity with incrementally measured behavioral variables. At least, we did not include animals that did not display the anticipated social behaviours (as described in the materials and methods) in the in situ transcriptomic profiling work.

Marwick does not agree with the theory of technological determinism, which says that technology alone creates societal development. With AI, social media, and automation, this is an important reminder today. People often say that technology will "change" society, but it always depends on the choices people make, how easy it is to get to, and the power structures that are in place. Like the printing press needed social movements to be important, current technology needs moral and political direction to make significant development.

This is a very smart point. Marwick explains how Silicon Valley combined the values of the counterculture (freedom, creativity, and collaboration) with business. That similar idea still motivates tech businesses today. For example, Meta, Tesla, and OpenAI all say that their missions are to "change the world." The Californian Ideology makes commercial success a moral virtue, which makes it hard to tell the difference between activism and profit. It reminds us that new ideas don't always mean fairness or progress.

This comment shows how people were hopeful at first that social media and user-generated content would give regular people more influence. Time's "Person of the Year" for 2006 was a symbol of digital democracy since anybody could publish, connect, and be seen. But when you look back, the promise of empowerment hasn't always worked out. People can speak out on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok, but algorithms that favor business and influence over real equality control them. What started as a revolution of "you" often transformed into a way to make money by using your data and attention.

Here, Edward appears to appropriate the Welsh myth of arthur. He is cautious to 'wrap them in costly silk', showing respect to the legendary King and his queen. This places Arthur in England. Here it feels like Edward is burying an ancestor of his own, and not the legendary hero. Likely familiar with Geoffrey of Montgomery's 1136 'Historia', it feels like Edward is linking his lineage with that of Arthur, placing himself as the rightful king. Furthermore, the fact that Arthur is dead, his 'bones' found and reburied puts an end to the hope in his 'return', possibly even alluding to the Normans as this hero!

This suggests possibly that the bones were originally 'found' in order to make the place one for pilgrimage. Pilgrimages forged a backbone of Medieval Christianity, with individuals, families or even the majority of a village venturing to a significant historical or religious site, to honour the saint or figure associated with the site. Site's were often connected to certain things. Such sites had 'relics' of the dead figure, in this case Arthur, the site earning money from souveneirs, offerings, indulgences e.t.c.

eLife Assessment

This study provides novel and convincing evidence that both dopamine D1 and D2 expressing neurons in the nucleus accumbens shell are crucial for the expression of cue-guided action selection, a core component of decision-making. The research is systematic and rigorous in using optogenetic inhibition of either D1- or D2-expressing medium spiny neurons in the NAc shell to reveal attenuation of sensory-specific Pavlovian-Instrumental transfer, while largely sparing value-based decision on an instrumental task. The important findings in this report build on prior research and resolve some conflicts in the literature regarding decision-making.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In the current article, Octavia Soegyono and colleagues study "The influence of nucleus accumbens shell D1 and D2 neurons on outcome-specific Pavlovian instrumental transfer", building on extensive findings from the same lab. While there is a consensus about the specific involvement of the Shell part of the Nucleus Accumbens (NAc) in specific stimulus-based actions in choice settings (and not in General Pavlovian instrumental transfer - gPIT, as opposed to the Core part of the NAc), mechanisms at the cellular and circuitry levels remain to be explored. In the present work, using sophisticated methods (rat Cre-transgenic lines from both sexes, optogenetics and the well-established behavioral paradigm outcome-specific PIT - sPIT), Octavia Soegyono and colleagues decipher the differential contribution of dopamine receptors D1 and D2 expressing-spiny projection neurons (SPNs).

After validating the viral strategy and the specificity of the targeting (immunochemistry and electrophysiology), the authors demonstrate that while both NAc Shell D1- and D2-SPNs participate in mediating sPIT, NAc Shell D1-SPNs projections to the Ventral Pallidum (VP, previously demonstrated as crucial for sPIT), but not D2-SPNs, mediates sPIT. They also show that these effects were specific to stimulus-based actions, as value-based choices were left intact in all manipulations.

This is a well-designed study and the results are well supported by the experimental evidence. The paper is extremely pleasant to read and add to the current literature.

Comments on revisions:

We thank the authors for their detailed responses and for addressing our comments and concerns.

To further improve consistency and transparency, we kindly request that the authors provide, for Supplemental Figures S1-S4, panels E (raw data for lever presses during the PIT test), the individual data points together with the corresponding statistical analyses in the figure legends.

In addition, regarding Supplemental Figure S3, panel E, we note the absence of a PIT effect in the eYFP group under the ON condition, which appears to differ from the net response reported in the main Figure 5, panel B. Could the authors clarify this apparent discrepancy?

We also note a discrepancy between the authors' statement in their response ("40 rats excluded based on post-mortem analyses") and the number of excluded animals reported in the Materials and Methods section, which adds up to 47. We kindly ask the authors to clarify this point for consistency.

Finally, as a minor point, we suggest indicating the total number of animals used in the study in the Materials and Methods section.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Soegyono et a. describes a series of experiments designed to probe the involvement of dopamine D1 and D2 neurons within the nucleus accumbens shell in outcome-specific Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (osPIT), a well-controlled assay of cue-guided action selection based on congruent outcome associations. They used an optogenetic approach to phasically silence NAc shell D1 (D1-Cre mice) or D2 (A2a-Cre mice) neurons during a subset of osPIT trials. Both manipulations disrupted cue-guided action selection but had no effects on negative control measures/tasks (concomitant approach behavior, separate valued guided choice task), nor were any osPIT impairments found in reporter only control groups. Separate experiments revealed that selective inhibition of NAc shell D1 but not D2 inputs to ventral pallidum were required for osPIT expression, thereby advancing understanding of the basal ganglia circuitry underpinning this important aspect of decision making.

Strengths:

The combinatorial viral and optogenetic approaches used here were convincingly validated through anatomical tract-tracing and ex vivo electrophysiology. The behavioral assays are sophisticated and well-controlled to parse cue and value guided action selection. The inclusion of reporter only control groups is rigorous and rules out nonspecific effects of the light manipulation. The findings are novel and address a critical question in the literature. Prior work using less decisive methods had implicated NAc shell D1 neurons in osPIT but suggested that D2 neurons may not be involved. The optogenetic manipulations used in the current study provides a more direct test of their involvement and convincingly demonstrate that both populations play an important role. Prior work had also implicated NAc shell connections to ventral pallidum in osPIT, but the current study reveals the selective involvement of D1 but not D2 neurons in this circuit. The authors do a good job of discussing their findings, including their nuanced interpretation that NAc shell D2 neurons may contribute to osPIT through their local regulation of NAc shell microcircuitry.

Weaknesses:

The current study exclusively used an optogenetic approach to probe the function of D1 and D2 NAc shell neurons. Providing a complementary assessment with chemogenetics or other appropriate methods would strengthen conclusions, particularly the novel demonstration for D2 NAc shell involvement. Likewise, the null result of optically inhibiting D2 inputs to ventral pallidum leaves open the possibility that a more complete or sustained disruption of this pathway may have impaired osPIT.

Conclusions:

The research described here was successful in providing critical new insights into the contributions of NAc D1 and D2 neurons in cue-guided action selection. The authors' data interpretation and conclusions are well reasoned and appropriate. They also provide a thoughtful discussion of study limitations and implications for future research. This research is therefore likely to have a significant impact on the field.

Comments on revisions:

I have reviewed the rebuttal and revised manuscript and have no remaining concerns.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In the current article, Octavia Soegyono and colleagues study "The influence of nucleus accumbens shell D1 and D2 neurons on outcome-specific Pavlovian instrumental transfer", building on extensive findings from the same lab. While there is a consensus about the specific involvement of the Shell part of the Nucleus Accumbens (NAc) in specific stimulus-based actions in choice settings (and not in General Pavlovian instrumental transfer - gPIT, as opposed to the Core part of the NAc), mechanisms at the cellular and circuitry levels remain to be explored. In the present work, using sophisticated methods (rat Cre-transgenic lines from both sexes, optogenetics, and the well-established behavioral paradigm outcome-specific PIT-sPIT), Octavia Soegyono and colleagues decipher the diNerential contribution of dopamine receptors D1 and D2 expressing spiny projection neurons (SPNs). 

After validating the viral strategy and the specificity of the targeting (immunochemistry and electrophysiology), the authors demonstrate that while both NAc Shell D1- and D2SPNs participate in mediating sPIT, NAc Shell D1-SPNs projections to the Ventral Pallidum (VP, previously demonstrated as crucial for sPIT), but not D2-SPNs, mediates sPIT. They also show that these eNects were specific to stimulus-based actions, as valuebased choices were left intact in all manipulations. 

This is a well-designed study, and the results are well supported by the experimental evidence. The paper is extremely pleasant to read and adds to the current literature.

We thank the Reviewer for their positive assessment. 

Reviewer 2 (Public Review):

Summary: 

This manuscript by Soegyono et al. describes a series of experiments designed to probe the involvement of dopamine D1 and D2 neurons within the nucleus accumbens shell in outcome-specific Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (osPIT), a well-controlled assay of cueguided action selection based on congruent outcome associations. They used an optogenetic approach to phasically silence NAc shell D1 (D1-Cre mice) or D2 (A2a-Cre mice) neurons during a subset of osPIT trials. Both manipulations disrupted cue-guided action selection but had no eNects on negative control measures/tasks (concomitant approach behavior, separate valued guided choice task), nor were any osPIT impairments found in reporter-only control groups. Separate experiments revealed that selective inhibition of NAc shell D1 but not D2 inputs to ventral pallidum was required for osPIT expression, thereby advancing understanding of the basal ganglia circuitry underpinning this important aspect of decision making.

Strengths: 

The combinatorial viral and optogenetic approaches used here were convincingly validated through anatomical tract-tracing and ex vivo electrophysiology. The behavioral assays are sophisticated and well-controlled to parse cue and value-guided action selection. The inclusion of reporter-only control groups is rigorous and rules out nonspecific eNects of the light manipulation. The findings are novel and address a critical question in the literature. Prior work using less decisive methods had implicated NAc shell D1 neurons in osPIT but suggested that D2 neurons may not be involved. The optogenetic manipulations used in the current study provide a more direct test of their involvement and convincingly demonstrate that both populations play an important role. Prior work had also implicated NAc shell connections to ventral pallidum in osPIT, but the current study reveals the selective involvement of D1 but not D2 neurons in this circuit. The authors do a good job of discussing their findings, including their nuanced interpretation that NAc shell D2 neurons may contribute to osPIT through their local regulation of NAc shell microcircuitry. 

We thank the Reviewer for their positive assessment. 

Weaknesses: 

The current study exclusively used an optogenetic approach to probe the function of D1 and D2 NAc shell neurons. Providing a complementary assessment with chemogenetics or other appropriate methods would strengthen conclusions, particularly the novel demonstration of D2 NAc shell involvement. Likewise, the null result of optically inhibiting D2 inputs to the ventral pallidum leaves open the possibility that a more complete or sustained disruption of this pathway may have impaired osPIT.

We acknowledge the reviewer's valuable suggestion that demonstrating NAc-S D1- and D2-SPNs engagement in outcome-specific PIT through another technique would strengthen our optogenetic findings. Several approaches could provide this validation. Chemogenetic manipulation, as the reviewer suggested, represents one compelling option. Alternatively, immunohistochemical assessment of phosphorylated histone H3 at serine 10 (P-H3) oMers another promising avenue, given its established utility in reporting striatal SPNs plasticity in the dorsal striatum (Matamales et al., 2020). We hope to complete such an assessment in future work since it would address the limitations of previous work that relied solely on ERK1/2 phosphorylation measures in NAc-S SPNs (Laurent et al., 2014). The manuscript was modified to report these future avenues of research (page 12). 

Regarding the null result from optical silencing of D2 terminals in the ventral pallidum, we agree with the reviewer's assessment. While we acknowledge this limitation in the current manuscript (page 13), we aim to address this gap in future studies to provide a more complete mechanistic understanding of the circuit.

Reviewer 3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors present data demonstrating that optogenetic inhibition of either D1- or D2MSNs in the NAc Shell attenuates expression of sensory-specific PIT while largely sparing value-based decision on an instrumental task. They also provide evidence that SS-PIT depends on D1-MSN projections from the NAc-Shell to the VP, whereas projections from D2-MSNs to the VP do not contribute to SS-PIT.

Strengths:

This is clearly written. The evidence largely supports the authors' interpretations, and these eNects are somewhat novel, so they help advance our understanding of PIT and NAc-Shell function.

We thank the Reviewer for their positive assessment. 

Weaknesses:

I think the interpretation of some of the eNects (specifically the claim that D1-MSNs do not contribute to value-based decision making) is not fully supported by the data presented.

We appreciate the reviewer's comment regarding the marginal attenuation of valuebased choice observed following NAc-S D1-SPN silencing. While this manipulation did produce a slight reduction in choice performance, the behavior remained largely intact. We are hesitant to interpret this marginal eMect as evidence for a direct role of NAc-S D1SPNs in value-based decision-making, particularly given the substantial literature demonstrating that NAc-S manipulations typically preserve such choice behavior (Corbit et al., 2001; Corbit & Balleine, 2011; Laurent et al., 2012). Furthermore, previous work has shown that NAc-S D1 receptor blockade impairs outcome-specific PIT while leaving value-based choice unaMected (Laurent et al., 2014). We favor an alternative explanation for our observed marginal reduction. As documented in Supplemental Figure 1, viral transduction extended slightly into the nucleus accumbens core (NAc-C), a region established as critical for value-based decision-making (Corbit et al., 2001; Corbit & Balleine, 2011; Laurent et al., 2012; Parkes et al., 2015). The marginal impairment may therefore reflect inadvertent silencing of a small number of  NAc-C D1-SPNs rather than a functional contribution from NAc-S D1-SPNs. Future studies specifically targeting larger NAc-C D1-SPN populations would help clarify this possibility and provide definitive resolution of this question.

Reviewer 1 (Recommendations for the Author):

My main concerns and comments are listed below.

(1) Could the authors provide the "raw" data of the PIT tests, such as PreSame vs Same vs PreDiNerent vs DiNerent? Could the authors clarify how the Net responding was calculated? Was it Same minus PreSame & DiNerent minus PreDiNerent, or was the average of PreSame and PreDiNerent used in this calculation?

The raw data for PIT testing across all experiments are now included in the Supplemental Figures (Supplemental Figures S1E, S2E, S3E, and S4E). Baseline responding was quantified as the average number of lever presses per minute for both actions during the two-minute period (i.e., average of PreSame and PreDiMerent) preceding each stimulus presentation. This methodology has been clarified in the revised manuscript (page 7).

(2) While both sexes are utilized in the current study, no statistical analysis is provided. Can the authors please comment on this point and provide these analyses (for both training and tests)?

As noted in the original manuscript, the final sample sizes for female and male rats were insuMicient to provide adequate statistical power for sex-based analyses (page 15). To address this limitation, we have now cited a previous study from our laboratory (Burton et al., 2014) that conducted such analyses with suMicient power in identical behavioural tasks. That study identified only marginal sex diMerences in performance, with female rats exhibiting slightly higher magazine entry rates during Pavlovian conditioning. Importantly, no diMerences were observed in outcome-specific PIT or value-based choice performance between sexes.

(3) Regarding Figure 1 - Anterograde tracing in D1-Cre and A2a-Cre rats (from line 976), I have one major and one minor question:

(3.1) I do not understand the rationale of showing anterograde tracing from the Dorsal Striatum (DS) as this region is not studied in the current work. Moreover, sagittal micrographs of D1-Cre and A2a-Cre would be relevant here. Could the authors please provide these micrographs and explain the rationale for doing tracing in DS?

We included dorsal striatum (DS) tracing data as a reference because the projection patterns of D1 and D2 SPNs in this region are well-established and extensively characterized, in contrast to the more limited literature on these cell types in the NAc-S. Regarding the comment about sagittal micrographs, we are uncertain of the specific concern as these images are presented in Figure 1B.

If the reviewer is requesting sagittal micrographs for NAc-S anterograde tracing, we did not employ this approach because: (1) the NAc-S and ventral pallidum are anatomically adjacent regions and (2) the medial-lateral coordinates of the ventral pallidum and lateral hypothalamus do not align optimally with those of the NAc-S, limiting the utility of sagittal analysis for these projections.

(3.2) There is no description about how the quantifications were done: manually? Automatically? What script or plugin was used? If automated, what were the thresholding conditions? How many brain sections along the anteroposterior axis? What was the density of these subpopulations? Can the authors include a methodological section to address this point?

We apologize for the omission of quantification methods used to assess viral transduction specificity. This methodological description has now been added to the revised manuscript (page 22). Briefly, we employed a manual procedure in two sections per rat, and cell counts were completed in a defined region of interest located around the viral infusion site.

(4) Lex A & Hauber (2008) Dopamine D1 and D2 receptors in the nucleus accumbens core and shell mediate Pavlovian-instrumental transfer. Learning & memory 15:483- 491, should be cited and discussed. It also seems that the contribution of the main dopaminergic source of the brain, the ventral tegmental area, is not cited, while it has been investigated in PIT in at least 3 studies regarding sPIT only, notably the VP-VTA pathway (Leung & Balleine 2015, accurately cited already).

We did not include the Lex & Hauber (2008) study because its experimental design (single lever and single outcome) prevents diMerentiation between the eMects of Pavlovian stimuli on action performance (general PIT) versus action selection (outcome-specific PIT, as examined in the present study). Drawing connections between their findings and our results would require speculative interpretations regarding whether their observed eMects reflect general or outcome-specific PIT mechanisms, which could distract from the core findings reported in the article.

Several studies examining the role of the VTA in outcome-specific PIT were referenced in the manuscript's introduction. Following the reviewer's recommendation, these references have also been incorporated into the discussion section (page 13). 

(5) While not directly the focus of this study, it would be interesting to highlight the accumbens dissociation between General vs Specific PIT, and how the dopaminergic system (diNerentially?) influences both forms of PIT.

We agree with the reviewer that the double dissociation between nucleus accumbens core/shell function and general/specific PIT is an interesting topic. However, the present manuscript does not examine this dissociation, the nucleus accumbens core, or general PIT. Similarly, our study does not directly investigate the dopaminergic system per se. We believe that discussing these topics would distract from our core findings and substantially increase manuscript length without contributing novel data directly relevant to these areas. 

(6) While authors indicate that conditioned response to auditory stimuli (magazine visits) are persevered in all groups, suggesting intact sensitivity to the general motivational properties of reward-predictive stimuli (lines 344, 360), authors can't conclude about the specificity of this behavior i.e. does the subject use a mental representation of O1 when experiencing S1, leading to a magazine visits to retrieve O1 (and same for S2-O2), or not? Two food ports would be needed to address this question; also, authors should comment on the fact that competition between instrumental & pavlovian responses does not explain the deficits observed.

We agree with the Reviewer that magazine entry data cannot be used to draw conclusions about specificity, and we do not make such claims in our manuscript. We are therefore unclear about the specific concern being raised. Following the Reviewer’s recommendation, we have commented on the fact that response competition could not explain the results obtained (page 11, see also supplemental discussion). 

The minor comments are listed below.

(7) A high number of rats were excluded (> 32 total), and the number of rats excluded for NAc-S D1-SPNs-VP is not indicated.

We apologize for omitting the number of rats excluded from the experiment examining NAc-S D1-SPN projections to the ventral pallidum. This information has been added to the revised manuscript (page 22).

(7.1) Can authors please comment on the elevated number of exclusions?

A total of 133 rats were used across the reported experiments, with 40 rats excluded based on post-mortem analyses. This represents an attrition rate of approximately 30%, which we consider reasonable given that most animals received two separate viral infusions and two separate fiber-optic cannula implantations, and that the inclusion of both female and male rats contributed to some variability in coordinates and so targeting. 

(7.2) Can authors please present the performance of these animals during the tasks (OFF conditions, and for control ones, both ON & OFF conditions)?

Rats were excluded after assessing the spread of viral infusions, placement of fibre-optic cannulas and potential damage due to the surgical procedures (page 21). The requested data are presented below and plotted in the same manner as in Figures 3-6. The pattern of performance in excluded animals was highly variable. 

Author response image 1.

(8) For tracing, only males were used, and for electrophysiology, only females were used.

(8.1) Can authors please comment on not using both sexes in these experiments? 

We agree that equal allocation of female and male rats in the experiments presented in Figures 1-2 would have been preferable. Animal availability was the sole factor determining these allocations. Importantly, both female and male D1-Cre and A2A-Cre rats were used for the NAc-S tracing studies, and no sex diMerences were observed in the projection patterns. The article describing the two transgenic lines of rats did not report any sex diMerence (Pettibone et al., 2019). 

(8.2) Is there evidence in the literature that the electrophysiological properties of female versus male SPNs could diNer?

The literature indicates that there is no sex diMerence in the electrophysiological properties of NAc-S SPNs (Cao et al., 2018; Willett et al., 2016).  

(8.3) It seems like there is a discrepancy between the number of animals used as presented in the Figure 2 legend versus what is described in the main text. In the Figure legend, I understand that 5 animals were used for D1-Cre/DIO-eNpHR3.0 validation, and 7 animals for A2a-Cre/DIO-eNpHR3.0; however, the main text indicates the use of a total of 8 animals instead of the 12 presented in the Figure legend. Can authors please address this mismatch or clarify?

The number of rats reported in the main text and Figure 2 legend was correct. However, recordings sometimes involved multiple cells from the same animal, and this aspect of the data was incorrectly reported and generated confusion. We have clarified the numbers in both the main text and Figure 2 legend to distinguish between animal counts and cell counts. 

(9) Overall, in the study, have the authors checked for outliers?

Performance across all training and testing stages was inspected to identify potential behavioral outliers in each experiment. Abnormal performance during a single session within a multi-session stage was not considered suMicient grounds for outlier designation. Based on these criteria, no subjects remaining after post-mortem analyses exhibited performance patterns warranting exclusion through statistical outlier analysis. However, we have conducted the specific analyses requested by the Reviewer, as described below. 

(9.1) In Figure 3, it seems that one female in the eYFP group, in the OFF situation, for the diNerent condition, has a higher level of responding than the others. Can authors please confirm or refute this visual observation with the appropriate statistical analysis?

Statistical analysis (z-score) confirmed the reviewer's observation regarding responding of the diMerent action in the OFF condition for this subject (|z| = 2.58). Similar extreme responding was observed in the ON condition (|z| = 2.03). Analyzing responding on the diMerent action in isolation is not informative in the context of outcome-specific PIT. Additional analyses revealed |z| < 2 when examining the magnitude of choice discrimination in outcome-specific PIT (i.e., net same versus net diMerent responding) in both ON and OFF conditions. Furthermore, this subject showed |z| < 2 across all other experimental stages. Based on these analyses, we conclude that the subject should be kept in all analyses. 

(9.2) In Figure 5, it seems that one male, in the ON situation, in the diNerent condition, has a quite higher level of responding - is this subject an outlier? If so, how does it aNect the statistical analysis after being removed? And who is this subject in the OFF condition?

The reviewer has identified two diMerent male rats infused with the eNpHR3.0 virus and has asked closer examination of their performance.

The first rat showed outlier-level responding on the diMerent action in the ON condition (|z| = 2.89) but normal responding for all other measures across LED conditions (|z| < 2). Additional analyses revealed |z| = 2.55 when examining choice discrimination magnitude in outcome-specific PIT during the ON condition but not during the OFF condition (|z| = 0.62). This subject exhibited |z| < 2 across all other experimental stages.

The second rat showed outlier-level responding on the same action in the OFF condition (|z| = 2.02) but normal responding for all other measures across LED conditions (|z| < 2). Additional analyses revealed |z| = 2.12 when examining choice discrimination magnitude in outcome-specific PIT during the OFF condition but not during the ON condition (|z| = 0.67). This subject also exhibited |z| < 2 across all other experimental stages.

We excluded these two subjects and conducted the same analyses as described in the original manuscript. Baseline responding did not diMer between groups (p = 0.14), allowing to look at the net eMect of the stimuli. Overall lever presses were greater in the eYFP rats (Group: F(1,16) = 6.08, p < 0.05; η² = 0.28) and were reduced by LED activation (LED: F(1,16) = 9.52, p < 0.01; η² = 0.44) and this reduction depended on the group considered (Group x LED: F(1,16) = 12.125, p < 0.001; η² = 0.43). Lever press rates were higher on the action earning the same outcome as the stimuli compared to the action earning the diMerent outcome (Lever: F(1,16)= 49.32; η² = 0.76; p < 0.001), regardless of group (Group x Lever: p = 0.14). There was a Lever by LED light condition interaction (Lever x LED: F(1,16)= 5.25; η² = 0.24; p < 0.05) but no an interaction between group, LED light condition, and Lever during the presentation of the predictive stimuli (p = 0.10). Given the significant Group x LED and Lever x LED interactions, additional analyses were conducted to determine the source of these interactions. In eYFP rats, LED activation had no eMect (LED: p = 0.70) and lever presses were greater on the same action (Lever: (F(1,9) = 23.94, p < 0.001; η² = 0.79) regardless of LED condition (LED x Lever: p = 0.72). By contrast, in eNpHR3.0 rats, lever presses were reduced by LED activation (LED: F(1,9) = 23.97, p < 0.001; η² = 0.73), were greater on the same action (Lever: F(1,9) = 16.920, p < 0.001; η² = 0.65) and the two factors interacted (LED x Lever: F(1,9) = 9.12, p < 0.01; η² = 0.50). These rats demonstrated outcome-specific PIT in the OFF condition (F(1,9) = 27.26, p < 0.001; η² = 0.75) but not in the ON condition (p = 0.08).

Overall, excluding these two rats altered the statistical analyses, but both the original and revised analyses yielded the same outcome: silencing the NAc-S D1-SPN to VP pathway disrupted PIT. More importantly, we do not believe there are suMicient grounds to exclude the two rats identified by the reviewer. These animals did not display outlier-level responding across training stages or during the choice test. Their potential classification as outliers would be based on responding during only one LED condition and not the other, with notably opposite patterns between the two rats despite belonging to the same experimental group. 

(10) I think it would be appreciable if in the cartoons from Figure 5.A and 6.A, the SPNs neurons were color-coded as in the results (test plots) and the supplementary figures (histological color-coding), such as D1- in blue & D2-SPNs in red.

Our current color-coding system uses blue for D1-SPNs transduced with eNpHR3.0 and red for D2-SPNs transduced with eNpHR3.0. The D1-SPNs and D2-SPNs shown in Figures 5A and 6A represent cells transduced with either eYFP (control) or eNpHR3.0 virus and therefore cannot be assigned the blue or red color, which is reserved for eNpHR3.0transduced cells specifically. The micrographs in the Supplemental Figures maintain consistency with the color-coding established in the main figures.

(11) As there are (relatively small) variations in the control performance in term of Net responding (from ~3 to ~7 responses per min), I wonder what would be the result of pooling eYFP groups from the two first experiments (Figures 3 & 4) and from the two last ones (Figures 5 & 6) - would the same statically results stand or vary (as eYFP vs D1-Cre vs A2a-Cre rats)? In particular for Figures 3 & 4, with and without the potential outlier, if it's indeed an outlier.

We considered the Reviewer’s recommendation but do not believe the requested analysis is appropriate. The Reviewer is requesting the pooling of data from subjects of distinct transgenic strains (D1-Cre and A2A-Cre rats) that underwent surgical and behavioral procedures at diMerent time points, sometimes months apart. Each experiment was designed with necessary controls to enable adequate statistical analyses for testing our specific hypotheses. 

(12) Presence of cameras in operant cages is mentioned in methods, but no data is presented regarding recordings, though authors mention that they allow for real-time observations of behavior. I suggest removing "to record" or adding a statement about the fact that no videos were recorded or used in the present study.

We have removed “to record” from the manuscript (page 18). 

(13) In all supplementary Figures, "F" is wrongly indicated as "E".

We thank the Reviewer for reporting these errors, which have been corrected. 

(14) While the authors acknowledge that the eNicacy of optogenetic inhibition of terminals is questionable, I think that more details are required to address this point in the discussion (existing literature?). Maybe, the combination of an anterograde tracer from SPNs to VP, to label VP neurons (to facilitate patching these neurons), and the Credependent inhibitory opsin in the NAc Shell, with optogenetic illumination at the level of the VP, along with electrophysiological recordings of VP neurons, could help address this question but may, reasonably, seem challenging technically.

Our manuscript does not state that optogenetic inhibition of terminals is questionable. It acknowledges that we do not provide any evidence about the eMicacy of the approach. Regardless, we have provided additional details and suggestions to address this lack of evidence (page 13). 

(15) A nice addition could be an illustration of the proposed model (from line 374), but it may be unnecessary.

We have carefully considered the reviewer's recommendation. The proposed model is detailed in three published articles, including one that is freely accessible, which we have cited when presenting the model in our manuscript (page 14). This reference should provide interested readers with easy access to a comprehensive illustration of the model.

Reviewer 2 (Recommendations for the Author):

As noted in my public comments, this is a truly excellent and compelling study. I have only a few minor comments.

(1) I could not find the coordinates/parameters for the dorsal striatal AAV injections for that component of the tract tracing experiment.

We apologize for this omission, which has now been corrected (page 16). 

(2) Please add the final group sizes to the figure captions.

We followed the Reviewer’s recommendation and added group sizes in the main figure captions. 

(3) The discussion of group exclusions (p 21 line 637) seems to accidentally omit (n = X) the number of NAc-S D1-SPNs-VP mice excluded.

We apologize for this omission, which has now been corrected (page 22). 

(4) There were some labeling issues in the supplementary figures (perhaps elsewhere, too). Specifically, panel E was listed twice (once for F) in captions.

We apologize for this error, which has now been corrected.  

(5) Inspection of the magazine entry data from PIT tests suggests that the optogenetic manipulations may have had some eNects on this behavior and would encourage the authors to probe further. There was a significant group diNerence for D1-SPN inhibition and a marginal group eNect for D2-SPNs. The fact that these eNects were in opposite directions is intriguing, although not easily interpreted based on the canonical D1/D2 model. Of course, the eNects are not specific to the light-on trials, but this could be due to carryover into light-oN trials. An analysis of trial-order eNects seems crucial for interpreting these eNects. One might also consider normalizing for pre-test baseline performance. Response rates during Pavlovian conditioning seem to suggest that D2eNpHR mice showed slightly higher conditioned responding during training, which contrasts with their low entry rates at test. I don't see any of this as problematic -- but more should be done to interpret these findings.

We thank the reviewer for raising this interesting point regarding magazine entry rates. Since these data are presented in the Supplemental Figures, we have added a section in the Supplemental Material file that elaborates on these findings. This section does not address trial order eMects, as trial order was fully counterbalanced in our experiments and the relevant statistical analyses would lack adequate power. Baseline normalization was not conducted because the reviewer's suggestion was based on their assumption that eNpHR3.0 rats in the D2-SPNs experiment showed slightly higher magazine entries during Pavlovian training. However, this was not the case. In fact, like the eNpHR3.0 rats in the D1-SPNs experiment, they tended to display lower magazine entries during training. The added section therefore focuses on the potential role of response competition during outcome-specific PIT tests. Although we concluded that response competition cannot explain our findings, we believe it may complicate interpretation of magazine entry behavior. Thus, we recommend that future studies examine the role of NAc-S SPNs using purely Pavlovian tasks. It is worth nothing that we have recently completed experiments (unpublished) examining NAc-S D1- and D2-SPN silencing during stimulus presentation in a Pavlovian task identical to the one used here. Silencing of either SPN population had no eMect on magazine entry behavior.

Reviewer 3 (Recommendations for the Author):

Broad comments:

Throughout the manuscript, the authors draw parallels between the eNect established via pharmacological manipulations and those shown here with optogenetic manipulation. I understand using the pharmacological data to launch this investigation, but these two procedures address very diNerent physiological questions. In the case of a pharmacological manipulation, the targets are receptors, wherever they are expressed, and in the case of D2 receptors, this means altering function in both pre-synaptically expressed autoreceptors and post-synaptically expressed D2 MSN receptors. In the case of an optogenetic approach, the target is a specific cell population with a high degree of temporal control. So I would just caution against comparing results from these types of studies too closely.

Related to this point is the consideration of the physiological relevance of the manipulation. Under normal conditions, dopamine acts at D1-like receptors to increase the probability of cell firing via Ga signaling. In contrast, dopamine binding of D2-like receptors decreases the cell's firing probability (signaling via Gi/o). Thus, shunting D1MSN activation provides a clear impression of the role of these cells and, putatively, the role of dopamine acting on these cells. However, inhibiting D2-MSNs more closely mimics these cells' response to dopamine (though optogenetic manipulations are likely far more impactful than Gi signaling). All this is to say that when we consider the results presented here in Experiment 2, it might suggest that during PIT testing, normal performance may require a halting of DA release onto D2-MSNs. This is highly speculative, of course, just a thought worth considering.

We agree with the comments made by the Reviewer, and the original manuscript included statements acknowledging that pharmacological approaches are limited in the capacity to inform about the function of NAc-S SPNs (pages 4 and 9). As noted by the Reviewer, these limitations are especially salient when considering NAc-S D2-SPNs. Based on the Reviewer’s comment, we have modified our discussion to further underscore these limitations (page 12). Finally, we agree with the suggestion that PIT may require a halting of DA release onto D2-SPNs. This is consistent with the model presented, whereby D2-SPNs function is required to trigger enkephalin release (page 13).     

Section-Specific Comments and Questions:

Results:

Anterograde tracing and ex vivo cell recordings in D1 Cre and A2a Cre rats: Why are there no statistics reported for the e-phys data in this section? Was this merely a qualitative demonstration? I realize that the A2a-Cre condition only shows 3 recordings, so I appreciate the limitations in analyzing the data presented.

The reviewer is correct that we initially intended to provide a qualitative demonstration. However, we have now included statistical analyses for the ex vivo recordings. It is important to note that there were at least 5 recordings per condition, though overlapping data points may give the impression of fewer recordings in certain conditions. We have provided the exact number of recordings in both the main text (page 5) and figure legend. 

What does trial by trial analysis look like, because in addition to the eNects of extinction, do you know if the responsiveness of the opsin to light stimulation is altered after repeated exposures, or whether the cells themselves become compromised in any way with repeated light-inhibition, particularly given the relatively long 2m duration of the trial.

The Reviewer raises an interesting point, and we provide complete trial-by-trial data for each experiment below. As identified by the Reviewer, there is some evidence for extinction, although it remained modest. Importantly, the data suggest that light stimulation did not aMect the physiology of the targeted cells. In eNpHR3.0 rats, performance across OFF trials remained stable (both for Same and DiMerent) even though they were preceded by ON trials, indicating no carryover eMects from optical stimulation.

Author response image 2.

The statistics for the choice test are not reported for eNpHR-D1-Cre rats, but do show a weakening of the instrumental devaluation eNect "Group x Lever x LED: F1,18 = 10.04, p < 0.01, = 0.36". The post hoc comparisons showed that all groups showed devaluation, but it is evident that there is a weakening of this eNect when the LED was on (η² = 0.41) vs oN (η² = 0.78), so I think the authors should soften the claim that NAcS-D1s are not involved in value-based decision-making. (Also, there is a typo in the legend in Figure S1, where the caption for panel "F" is listed as "E".) I also think that this could be potentially interesting in light of the fact that with circuit manipulation, this same weakening of the instrumental devaluation eNect was not observed. To me, this suggests that D1-NAcS that project to a diNerent region (not VP) contribute to value-based decision making.

This comment overlaps with one made in the Public Review, for which we have already provided a response. Given its importance, we have added a section addressing this point in the supplemental discussion of the Supplementary Material file, which aligns with the location of the relevant data. The caption labelling error has been corrected.

Materials and Methods:

Subjects:

Were these heterozygous or homozygous rats? If hetero, what rats were used for crossbreeding (sex, strain, and vendor)? Was genotyping done by the lab or outsourced to commercial services? If genotyping was done within the lab, please provide a brief description of the protocol used. How was food restriction established and maintained (i.e., how many days to bring weights down, and was maintenance achieved by rationing or by limiting ad lib access to food for some period in the day)?

The information requested by the Reviewer have been added to the subjects section (pages 15-16).  

Were rats pair/group housed after implantation of optic fibers?

We have clarified that rats were group houses throughout (see subjects section; pages 15-16). 

Behavioral Procedures:

How long did each 0.2ml sucrose infusion take? For pellets, for each US delivery, was it a single pellet or two in quick succession?

We have modified the method section to indicate that the sucrose was delivered across 2 seconds and that a single pellet was provided (page 17). 

The CS to ITI duration ratio is quite low. Is there a reason such a short ratio was used in training?

These parameters are those used in all our previous experiments on outcome-specific PIT. There is no specific reason for using such a ratio, except that it shortens the length of the training session. 

Relative to the end of training, when were the optical implantation surgeries conducted, and how much recovery time was given before initiating reminder training and testing?

Fibre-optic implantation was conducted 3-4 days after training and another 3-4 days were given for recovery. This has been clarified in the Materials and methods section (pages 15-16).

I think a diagram or schematic showing the timeline for surgeries, training, and testing would be helpful to the audience.

We opted for a text-based experimental timeline rather than a diagram due to slight temporal variations across experiments (page 15).

On trials, when the LED was on, was light delivered continuously or pulsed? Do these opto-receptors 'bleach' within such a long window?

We apologize for the lack of clarity; the light was delivered continuously. We have modified the manuscript (pages 6 and 19) and figure legend accordingly. The postmortem analysis did not provide evidence for photobleaching (Supplemental Figures) and as noted above, the behavioural results do not indicate any negative physiological impact on cell function.  

Immunofluorescence: The blocking solution used during IHC is described as "NHS"; is this normal horse serum?

The Reviewer is correct; NHS stands for normal horse serum. This has been added (page 21). 

Microscopy and imaging:

For the description of rats excluded due to placement or viral spread problems, an n=X is listed for the NAc S D1 SPNs --> VP silencing group. Is this a typo, or was that meant to read as n=0? Also, was there a major sex diNerence in the attrition rate? If so, I think reporting the sex of the lost subjects might be beneficial to the scientific community, as it might reflect a need for better guidance on sex-specific coordinates for targeting small nuclei.

We apologize for the error regarding the number of excluded animals. This error has been corrected (page 23). There were no major sex diMerences in the attrition rate. The manuscript has been updated to provide information about the sex of excluded animals (page 23). 

References

Cao, J., Willett, J. A., Dorris, D. M., & Meitzen, J. (2018). Sex DiMerences in Medium Spiny Neuron Excitability and Glutamatergic Synaptic Input: Heterogeneity Across Striatal Regions and Evidence for Estradiol-Dependent Sexual DiMerentiation. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 9, 173. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2018.00173

Corbit, L. H., Muir, J. L., Balleine, B. W., & Balleine, B. W. (2001). The role of the nucleus accumbens in instrumental conditioning: Evidence of a functional dissociation between accumbens core and shell. J Neurosci, 21(9), 3251-3260. http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=11312 310&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks

Corbit, L. H., & Balleine, B. W. (2011). The general and outcome-specific forms of Pavlovian-instrumental transfer are diMerentially mediated by the nucleus accumbens core and shell. J Neurosci, 31(33), 11786-11794. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2711-11.2011

Laurent, V., Bertran-Gonzalez, J., Chieng, B. C., & Balleine, B. W. (2014). δ-Opioid and Dopaminergic Processes in Accumbens Shell Modulate the Cholinergic Control of Predictive Learning and Choice. J Neurosci, 34(4), 1358-1369. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4592-13.2014

Laurent, V., Leung, B., Maidment, N., & Balleine, B. W. (2012). μ- and δ-opioid-related processes in the accumbens core and shell diMerentially mediate the influence of reward-guided and stimulus-guided decisions on choice. J Neurosci, 32(5), 1875-1883. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4688-11.2012

Matamales, M., McGovern, A. E., Mi, J. D., Mazzone, S. B., Balleine, B. W., & BertranGonzalez, J. (2020). Local D2- to D1-neuron transmodulation updates goal-directed learning in the striatum. Science, 367(6477), 549-555. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz5751

Parkes, S. L., Bradfield, L. A., & Balleine, B. W. (2015). Interaction of insular cortex and ventral striatum mediates the eMect of incentive memory on choice between goaldirected actions. J Neurosci, 35(16), 6464-6471. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4153-14.2015

Pettibone, J. R., Yu, J. Y., Derman, R. C., Faust, T. W., Hughes, E. D., Filipiak, W. E., Saunders, T. L., Ferrario, C. R., & Berke, J. D. (2019). Knock-In Rat Lines with Cre Recombinase at the Dopamine D1 and Adenosine 2a Receptor Loci. eNeuro, 6(5). https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0163-19.2019

Willett, J. A., Will, T., Hauser, C. A., Dorris, D. M., Cao, J., & Meitzen, J. (2016). No Evidence for Sex DiMerences in the Electrophysiological Properties and Excitatory Synaptic Input onto Nucleus Accumbens Shell Medium Spiny Neurons. eNeuro, 3(1), ENEURO.0147-15.2016. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0147-15.2016

eLife Assessment

This study provides novel and convincing evidence that both dopamine D1 and D2 expressing neurons in the nucleus accumbens shell are crucial for the expression of cue-guided action selection, a core component of decision-making. The research is systematic and rigorous in using optogenetic inhibition of either D1- or D2-expressing medium spiny neurons in the NAc shell to reveal attenuation of sensory-specific Pavlovian-Instrumental transfer, while largely sparing value-based decision on an instrumental task. The important findings in this report build on prior research and resolve some conflicts in the literature regarding decision making.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In the current article, Octavia Soegyono and colleagues study "The influence of nucleus accumbens shell D1 and D2 neurons on outcome-specific Pavlovian instrumental transfer", building on extensive findings from the same lab. While there is a consensus about the specific involvement of the Shell part of the Nucleus Accumbens (NAc) in specific stimulus-based actions in choice settings (and not in General Pavlovian instrumental transfer - gPIT, as opposed to the Core part of the NAc), mechanisms at the cellular and circuitry levels remain to be explored. In the present work, using sophisticated methods (rat Cre-transgenic lines from both sexes, optogenetics, and the well-established behavioral paradigm outcome-specific PIT-sPIT), Octavia Soegyono and colleagues decipher the differential contribution of dopamine receptors D1 and D2 expressing spiny projection neurons (SPNs).

After validating the viral strategy and the specificity of the targeting (immunochemistry and electrophysiology), the authors demonstrate that while both NAc Shell D1- and D2-SPNs participate in mediating sPIT, NAc Shell D1-SPNs projections to the Ventral Pallidum (VP, previously demonstrated as crucial for sPIT), but not D2-SPNs, mediates sPIT. They also show that these effects were specific to stimulus-based actions, as value-based choices were left intact in all manipulations.

This is a well-designed study, and the results are well supported by the experimental evidence. The paper is extremely pleasant to read and adds to the current literature.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Soegyono et al. describes a series of experiments designed to probe the involvement of dopamine D1 and D2 neurons within the nucleus accumbens shell in outcome-specific Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (osPIT), a well-controlled assay of cue-guided action selection based on congruent outcome associations. They used an optogenetic approach to phasically silence NAc shell D1 (D1-Cre mice) or D2 (A2a-Cre mice) neurons during a subset of osPIT trials. Both manipulations disrupted cue-guided action selection but had no effects on negative control measures/tasks (concomitant approach behavior, separate valued guided choice task), nor were any osPIT impairments found in reporter-only control groups. Separate experiments revealed that selective inhibition of NAc shell D1 but not D2 inputs to ventral pallidum was required for osPIT expression, thereby advancing understanding of the basal ganglia circuitry underpinning this important aspect of decision making.

Strengths:

The combinatorial viral and optogenetic approaches used here were convincingly validated through anatomical tract-tracing and ex vivo electrophysiology. The behavioral assays are sophisticated and well-controlled to parse cue and value-guided action selection. The inclusion of reporter-only control groups is rigorous and rules out nonspecific effects of the light manipulation. The findings are novel and address a critical question in the literature. Prior work using less decisive methods had implicated NAc shell D1 neurons in osPIT but suggested that D2 neurons may not be involved. The optogenetic manipulations used in the current study provide a more direct test of their involvement and convincingly demonstrate that both populations play an important role. Prior work had also implicated NAc shell connections to ventral pallidum in osPIT, but the current study reveals the selective involvement of D1 but not D2 neurons in this circuit. The authors do a good job of discussing their findings, including their nuanced interpretation that NAc shell D2 neurons may contribute to osPIT through their local regulation of NAc shell microcircuitry.

Weaknesses:

The current study exclusively used an optogenetic approach to probe the function of D1 and D2 NAc shell neurons. Providing a complementary assessment with chemogenetics or other appropriate methods would strengthen conclusions, particularly the novel demonstration of D2 NAc shell involvement. Likewise, the null result of optically inhibiting D2 inputs to the ventral pallidum leaves open the possibility that a more complete or sustained disruption of this pathway may have impaired osPIT.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present data demonstrating that optogenetic inhibition of either D1- or D2-MSNs in the NAc Shell attenuates expression of sensory-specific PIT while largely sparing value-based decision on an instrumental task. They also provide evidence that SS-PIT depends on D1-MSN projections from the NAc-Shell to the VP, whereas projections from D2-MSNs to the VP do not contribute to SS-PIT.

Strengths:

This is clearly written. The evidence largely supports the authors' interpretations, and these effects are somewhat novel, so they help advance our understanding of PIT and NAc-Shell function.

Weaknesses:

I think the interpretation of some of the effects (specifically the claim that D1-MSNs do not contribute to value-based decision making) is not fully supported by the data presented.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In the current article, Octavia Soegyono and colleagues study "The influence of nucleus accumbens shell D1 and D2 neurons on outcome-specific Pavlovian instrumental transfer", building on extensive findings from the same lab. While there is a consensus about the specific involvement of the Shell part of the Nucleus Accumbens (NAc) in specific stimulus-based actions in choice settings (and not in General Pavlovian instrumental transfer - gPIT, as opposed to the Core part of the NAc), mechanisms at the cellular and circuitry levels remain to be explored. In the present work, using sophisticated methods (rat Cre-transgenic lines from both sexes, optogenetics, and the well-established behavioral paradigm outcome-specific PIT-sPIT), Octavia Soegyono and colleagues decipher the differential contribution of dopamine receptors D1 and D2 expressing spiny projection neurons (SPNs).

After validating the viral strategy and the specificity of the targeting (immunochemistry and electrophysiology), the authors demonstrate that while both NAc Shell D1- and D2-SPNs participate in mediating sPIT, NAc Shell D1-SPNs projections to the Ventral Pallidum (VP, previously demonstrated as crucial for sPIT), but not D2-SPNs, mediates sPIT. They also show that these effects were specific to stimulus-based actions, as value-based choices were left intact in all manipulations.

This is a well-designed study, and the results are well supported by the experimental evidence. The paper is extremely pleasant to read and adds to the current literature.

We thank the Reviewer for their positive assessment.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Soegyono et al. describes a series of experiments designed to probe the involvement of dopamine D1 and D2 neurons within the nucleus accumbens shell in outcome-specific Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (osPIT), a well-controlled assay of cue-guided action selection based on congruent outcome associations. They used an optogenetic approach to phasically silence NAc shell D1 (D1-Cre mice) or D2 (A2a-Cre mice) neurons during a subset of osPIT trials. Both manipulations disrupted cue-guided action selection but had no effects on negative control measures/tasks (concomitant approach behavior, separate valued guided choice task), nor were any osPIT impairments found in reporter-only control groups. Separate experiments revealed that selective inhibition of NAc shell D1 but not D2 inputs to ventral pallidum was required for osPIT expression, thereby advancing understanding of the basal ganglia circuitry underpinning this important aspect of decision making.

Strengths:

The combinatorial viral and optogenetic approaches used here were convincingly validated through anatomical tract-tracing and ex vivo electrophysiology. The behavioral assays are sophisticated and well-controlled to parse cue and value-guided action selection. The inclusion of reporter-only control groups is rigorous and rules out nonspecific effects of the light manipulation. The findings are novel and address a critical question in the literature. Prior work using less decisive methods had implicated NAc shell D1 neurons in osPIT but suggested that D2 neurons may not be involved. The optogenetic manipulations used in the current study provide a more direct test of their involvement and convincingly demonstrate that both populations play an important role. Prior work had also implicated NAc shell connections to ventral pallidum in osPIT, but the current study reveals the selective involvement of D1 but not D2 neurons in this circuit. The authors do a good job of discussing their findings, including their nuanced interpretation that NAc shell D2 neurons may contribute to osPIT through their local regulation of NAc shell microcircuitry.

We thank the Reviewer for their positive assessment.

Weaknesses:

The current study exclusively used an optogenetic approach to probe the function of D1 and D2 NAc shell neurons. Providing a complementary assessment with chemogenetics or other appropriate methods would strengthen conclusions, particularly the novel demonstration of D2 NAc shell involvement. Likewise, the null result of optically inhibiting D2 inputs to the ventral pallidum leaves open the possibility that a more complete or sustained disruption of this pathway may have impaired osPIT.

We acknowledge the reviewer's valuable suggestion that demonstrating NAc-S D1- and D2-SPN engagement in outcome-specific PIT through another technique would strengthen our optogenetic findings. Several approaches could provide this validation. Chemogenetic manipulation, as the reviewer suggested, represents one compelling option. Alternatively, immunohistochemical assessment of phosphorylated histone H3 at serine 10 (P-H3) offers another promising avenue, given its established utility in reporting striatal SPN plasticity in the dorsal striatum (Matamales et al., 2020). We hope to complete such an assessment in future work since it would address the limitations of previous work that relied solely on ERK1/2 phosphorylation measures in NAc-S SPNs (Laurent et al., 2014).

Regarding the null result from optical silencing of D2 terminals in the ventral pallidum, we agree with the reviewer's assessment. While we acknowledge this limitation in the current manuscript (see discussion), we aim to address this gap in future studies to provide a more complete mechanistic understanding of the circuit.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present data demonstrating that optogenetic inhibition of either D1- or D2-MSNs in the NAc Shell attenuates expression of sensory-specific PIT while largely sparing value-based decision on an instrumental task. They also provide evidence that SS-PIT depends on D1-MSN projections from the NAc-Shell to the VP, whereas projections from D2-MSNs to the VP do not contribute to SS-PIT.

Strengths:

This is clearly written. The evidence largely supports the authors' interpretations, and these effects are somewhat novel, so they help advance our understanding of PIT and NAc-Shell function.

We thank the Reviewer for their positive assessment.

Weaknesses:

I think the interpretation of some of the effects (specifically the claim that D1-MSNs do not contribute to value-based decision making) is not fully supported by the data presented.

We appreciate the reviewer's comment regarding the marginal attenuation of value-based choice observed following NAc-S D1-SPN silencing. While this manipulation did produce a slight reduction in choice performance, the behavior remained largely intact. We are hesitant to interpret this marginal effect as evidence for a direct role of NAc-S D1-SPNs in value-based decision-making, particularly given the substantial literature demonstrating that NAc-S manipulations typically preserve such choice behavior (Corbit & Balleine, 2011; Corbit et al., 2001; Laurent et al., 2012). Notably, previous work has shown that NAc-S D1 receptor blockade impairs outcome-specific PIT while leaving value-based choice unaffected (Laurent et al., 2014). We favor an alternative explanation for our observed marginal reduction. As documented in Supplemental Figure 1, viral transduction extended slightly into the nucleus accumbens core (NAc-C), a region established as critical for value-based decision-making (Corbit & Balleine, 2011; Corbit et al., 2001; Laurent et al., 2012). The marginal impairment may therefore reflect inadvertent silencing of a small NAc-C D1-SPN population rather than a functional contribution from NAc-S D1-SPNs. Future studies specifically targeting larger NAc-C D1-SPN populations would help clarify this possibility and provide definitive resolution of this question.

Amen! I love the full-circle conclusion -- simple, but says so much.

Yes! We have to be prepared for questions and conversations to arise with families, and we have to continue to advocate for the best interests of students.

This is truly anti-bias education at its core -- making all aspects of learning accessible to all children.

Equally as important as representation in the classroom literature!

I used to have a running book list of trans/nonbinary inclusive children's books -- this research project would be a great opportunity/reminder for me to update it

In an ideal world/classroom, gender barriers don't even exist in the first place.

In my experience, this is often a generational gap, too. It's relatively recent that we can talk openly about this topic, and older teachers may have simply grown up in a different world. That's why an understanding of the basics of gender (as I mentioned above) is also necessary for teachers to even begin understanding how to reflect on their biases.

And it's not always so serious -- children need to be allowed to explore and play with gender freely without adults immediately jumping in with their own assumptions

I want to find more information on the social construction of gender. It happens from the moment a child is born. Also, gender and sex are not the same. Teachers have to know these basics if they want to be able to truly support gender-diverse students and make their classrooms inclusive.

Reflection in community with other teachers could also be super helpful. For example, you could ask other teachers to look at your classroom with fresh eyes to offer input/critique on the subject.

This work has to be intentional -- schools and teachers must put in the time and effort to catch up if they are not knowledgable about this topic, because it's relevant now and always (not just when you have a gender-diverse student)

Is this just because teachers do not know how to respond? Or are they not educated enough on the topic and not prepared to be advocates?

Yes! Inclusion benefits ALL children.

Part of creating this space involves teachers reflecting on own bias — such as in the example at beginning of article

eLife Assessment

This useful study reports analyses of Neuropixel recordings in the medial prefrontal cortex and hippocampus of rats in a spatial navigation trial, focusing on classifying prefrontal neurons based on SWR modulation and anatomical location. Reviewers were unconvinced by the presented evidence for the claim that distinct populations of mPFC neurons participate in non-local ensemble representations during SWR and non-SWR periods, and were unconvinced by the presented evidence for a previously unrecognized anatomical distinction between these populations. Further analyses might strengthen the incomplete evidence for some conclusions, and some of the strong claims of the paper should likely be moderated.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors used high-density probe recordings in the medial prefrontal cortex (PFC) and hippocampus during a rodent spatial memory task to examine functional sub-populations of PFC neurons that are modulated vs. unmodulated by hippocampal sharp-wave ripples (SWRs), an important physiological biomarker that is thought to have role in mediating information transfer across hippocampal-cortical networks for memory processes. SWRs are associated with reactivation of representations of previous experiences, and associated reactivation in hippocampal and cortical regions have been proposed to have a role in memory formation, retrieval, planning, and memory-guided behavior. This study focuses of awake SWRs that are prevalent during immobility periods during pauses in behavior. Previous studies have reported strong modulation of a subset of prefrontal neurons during hippocampal SWRs, with some studies reporting prefrontal reactivation during SWRs that have a role in spatial memory processes. The study seeks to extend these findings by examining activity of SWR-modulated vs. unmodulated neurons across PFC sub-regions, and whether there is a functional distinction between these two kinds of neuronal populations with respect to representing spatial information and supporting memory-guided decision making.

Strengths:

The major strength of the study is the use of Neuropixels 1.0 probes to monitor activity throughput the dorsal-ventral extent of the rodent medial prefrontal cortex, permitting an investigation of functional distinction in neuronal populations across PFC sub-regions. They are able to show that SWR-unmodulated neurons, in addition to having stronger spatial tuning than SWR-modulated neurons as previously reported, also show stronger directional selectivity, and theta-cycle skipping properties.

Weaknesses:

(1) The title and abstract have been updated to reflect the updated interpretation that prefrontal neurons are involved in spatial tuning and signaling upcoming choice independently from hippocampal SWRs, implying the negative that these functions do not happen during SWRs. The evidence presented, however, is lacking and the analyses has key limitations that preclude such a conclusion. First, the fact that prefrontal neurons decode past and future choices independently of the hippocampus, not just hippocampal SWRs, is well-established (for e.g., Baeg et al., 2003, 10.1016/s0896-6273(03)00597-x). Second, the statement that prefrontal neurons are involved in spatial tuning independently from SWRs is inconsistent, since spatial tuning is assessed during exploratory behaviors that are not associated with SWRs. Apart from showing that non-local decoding occurs in prefrontal cortex outside SWR time periods, which is already established, the conclusion needs evidence this does not occur during SWR time periods, which is not presented.

(2) The results show that SWR-modulated prefrontal neurons are more linked to hippocampal non-local representations, whereas SWR-unmodulated neurons encode upcoming choice independently of SWRs. This is logical, and implies that SWR-modulated prefrontal neurons are involved in non-local decoding during hippocampal non-local representations. This hints at potentially multiple mechanisms, one involving independent prefrontal non-local decoding, and another involving prefrontal and hippocampal non-local decoding.

(3) The analyses have key limitations. The Methods section notes that decoding was performed in 50ms bins, periods with running speed less than 15cm/s were excluded, then decoded probabilities summed for each maze segment, followed by grouping probabilities together for local and non-local decoding. This implies that decoding segments can span entire maze segments or long time periods - this needs to be clarified and quantified. When examining time-locking of decoding segments to hippocampal SWRs, only non-local segments that occurred within 2 secs of SWRs were used. This raises several concerns. First, prefrontal modulation by hippocampal SWRs lasts primarily <500ms, so a 2sec temporal proximity will lead to non-SWR modulation periods being included in the analyses. In addition, even for decoding segments that may be in close temporal proximity, these can be very long, based on the analyses description. This can lead to spurious results. Second, if only running speeds >15cm/s were included, immobility periods are necessarily being excluded, which is when SWRs occur. So, this analysis cannot be used to investigate decoding during SWRs; rather, a direct approach of extracting prefrontal activity during SWRs and then decoding this activity is required.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This work by den Bakker and Kloosterman contributes to the vast body of research exploring the dynamics governing the communication between the hippocampus (HPC) and the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) during spatial learning and navigation. Previous research showed that population activity of mPFC neurons is replayed during HPC sharp-wave ripple events (SWRs), which may therefore correspond to privileged windows for the transfer of learned navigation information from the HPC, where initial learning occurs, to the mPFC, which is thought to store this information long term. Indeed, it was also previously shown that the activity of mPFC neurons contains task-related information that can inform about the location of an animal in a maze, which can predict the animals' navigational choices. Here, the authors aim to show that the mPFC neurons that are modulated by HPC activity (SWRs and theta rhythms) are distinct from those "encoding" spatial information. This result could suggest that the integration of spatial information originating from the HPC within the mPFC may require the cooperation of separate sets of neurons.

This observation may be useful to further extend our understanding of the dynamics regulating the exchange of information between the HPC and mPFC during learning. However, my understanding is that this finding is mainly based upon a negative result, which cannot be statistically proven by the failure to reject the null hypothesis. Moreover, in my reading, the rest of the paper mainly replicates phenomena that have already been described, with the original reports not correctly cited. My opinion is that the novel elements should be precisely identified and discussed, while the current phrasing in the manuscript, in most cases, leads readers to think that these results are new. Detailed comments are provided below.

Major concerns:

ORIGINAL COMMENT: (1) The main claim of the manuscript is that the neurons involved in predicting upcoming choices are not the neurons modulated by the HPC. This is based upon the evidence provided in Figure 5, which is a negative result that the authors employ to claim that predictive non-local representations in the mPFC are not linked to hippocampal SWRs and theta phase. However, it is important to remember that in a statistical test, the failure to reject the null hypothesis does not prove that the null hypothesis is true. Since this claim is so central in this work, the authors should use appropriate statistics to demonstrate that the null hypothesis is true. This can be accomplished by showing that there is no effect above some size that is so small that it would make the effect meaningless (see https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370304801108).

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We would like to highlight a few important points here. (1) We indeed do not intend to claim that the SWR-modulated neurons are not at all involved in predicting upcoming choice, just that the SWR-unmodulated neurons may play a larger role. We have rephrased the title and abstract to make this clearer.

REVIEWER COMMENT: The title has been rephrased but still conveys the same substantive claim. The abstract sentence also does not clearly state what was found. Using "independently" in the new title continues to imply that SWR modulation and prediction of upcoming choices are separate phenomena. By contrast, in your response here in the rebuttall you state only that "SWR-unmodulated neurons may play a larger role," which is a much more tempered claim than what the manuscript currently argues. Why is this clarification not adopted in the article? Moreover, the main text continues to use the same arguments as before; beyond the cosmetic changes of title and abstract, the claim itself has not materially changed.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: (2) The hypothesis that we put forward is based not only on a negative effect, but on the findings that: the SWR-unmodulated neurons show higher spatial tuning (Fig 3b), more directional selectivity (Fig 3d), more frequent encoding of the upcoming choice at the choice point (new analysis, added in Fig 4d), and higher spike rates during the representations of the upcoming choice (Fig 5b). This is further highlighted by the fact that the representations of upcoming choice in the PFC are not time locked to SWRs (whereas the hippocampal representations of upcoming choice are; see Fig 5a and Fig 6a), and not time-locked to hippocampal theta phase (whereas the hippocampal representations are; see Fig 5c and Fig 6c). Finally, the representations of upcoming and alternative choices in the PFC do not show a large overlap in time with the representations in the hippocampus (see updated Fig 4e were we added a statistical test to show the likelihood of the overlap of decoded timepoints). All these results together lead us to hypothesize that SWR-modulation is not the driving factor behind non-local decoding in the PFC.

REVIEWER COMMENT: I do not see how these precisions address my remark. The main claim in the title used to be "Neurons in the medial prefrontal cortex that are not modulated by hippocampal sharp-wave ripples are involved in spatial tuning and signaling upcoming choice." It is now "Neurons in the medial prefrontal cortex are involved in spatial tuning and signaling upcoming choice independently from hippocampal sharp-wave ripples." The substance has not changed. This specific claim is supported solely by Figure 5.

The other analyses cited describe functional characteristics of SWR-unmodulated neurons but, unless linked by explicit new analyses, do not substantiate independence/orthogonality between SWR modulation and non-local decoding in PFC. If there is an analysis that makes this link explicit, it should be clearly presented; as it stands, I cannot find an explanation in the manuscript for why "all these results together" justify the conclusion that "All these results together lead us to hypothesize that SWR-modulation is not the driving factor behind non-local decoding in the PFC". Also: is the main result of this work a "hypothesis"? If so, this should be clearly differentiated from a conclusion supported by results and analyses.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: (3) Based on the reviewers suggestion, we have added a statistical test to compare the phase-locking based of the non-local decoding to hippocampal SWRs and theta phase to shuffled posterior probabilities. Instead of looking at all SWRs in a -2 to 2 second window, we have now only selected the closest SWR in time within that window, and did the statistical comparison in the bin of 0-20 ms from SWR onset. With this new analysis we are looking more directly at the time-locking of the decoded segments to SWR onset (see updated Fig 5a and 6a).

REVIEWER COMMENT: I appreciate the added analysis focusing on the closest SWR and a 0-20 ms bin. My understanding is that you consider the revised analyses in Figures 5a and 6a sufficient to show that predictive non-local representations in mPFC are not linked to hippocampal SWRs and theta phase.

First, the manuscript should explicitly explain the rationale for this analysis and why it is sufficient to support the claim. From the main text it is not possible to understand what was done; the Methods are hard to follow, and the figure legends are not clearly described (e.g. the shuffle is not even defined there).

Specific points I could not reconcile:

i) The gray histograms in the revised Figures 5a and 6a now show a peak at zero lag, whereas in the previous version they were flat, although they are said to plot the same data. What changed?

ii) Why choose a 20 ms bin? A single narrow bin invites false negatives. Please justify this choice.

iii) Comparing to a shuffle is a useful control, but when the p-value is non-significant we only learn that no difference was detected under that shuffle-not that there is no difference or that the processes are independent.

ORIGINAL COMMENT: (2) The main claim of the work is also based on Figure 3, where the authors show that SWRs-unmodulated mPFC neurons have higher spatial tuning, and higher directional selectivity scores, and a higher percentage of these neurons show theta skipping. This is used to support the claim that SWRs-unmodulated cells encode spatial information. However, it must be noted that in this kind of task, it is not possible to disentangle space and specific task variables involving separate cognitive processes from processing spatial information such as decision-making, attention, motor control, etc., which always happen at specific locations of the maze. Therefore, the results shown in Figure 3 may relate to other specific processes rather than encoding of space and it cannot be unequivocally claimed that mPFC neurons "encode spatial information". This limitation is presented by Mashoori et al (2018), an article that appears to be a major inspiration for this work. Can the authors provide a control analysis/experiment that supports their claim? Otherwise, this claim should be tempered. Also, the authors say that Jadhav et al. (2016) showed that mPFC neurons unmodulated by SWRs are less tuned to space. How do they reconcile it with their results?

AUTHOR RESPONSE: The reviewer is right to assert caution when talking about claims such as spatial tuning where other factors may also be involved. Although we agree that there may be some other factors influencing what we are seeing as spatial tuning, it is very important to note that the behavioral task is executed on a symmetrical 4-armed maze, where two of the arms are always used for the start of the trajectory, and the other two arms (North and South) function as the goal (reward) arms. Therefore, if the PFC is encoding cognitive processes such as task phases related to decision-making and reward, we would not be able to differentiate between the two start arms and the two goal arms, as these represent the same task phases. Note also that the North and South arm are illuminated in a pseudo-random order between trials and during cue-based rule learning this is a direct indication of where the reward will be found. Even in this phase of the task, the PFC encodes where the animal will turn on a trial-to-trial basis (meaning the North and South arm are still differentiated correctly on each trial even though the illumination and associated reward are changing).

REVIEWER COMMENT: I appreciate that the departure location was pseudorandomized. However, this control does not rule out that PFC activity reflects motor preparation (left vs right turns) and associated perceptual decision-making/attentional processes that are inherently tied to a specific action. As such, it cannot by itself support the claim that PFC neurons "encode spatial information." Moreover, the authors acknowledge here that "other factors may also be involved," yet this caveat is not reflected in the manuscript. Why?

AUTHOR RESPONSE: Secondly, importantly, the reviewer mentions that we claimed that Jadhav et al. (2016) showed that mPFC neurons unmodulated by SWRs are less tuned to space, but this is incorrect. Jadhav et al. (2016) showed that SWR-unmodulated neurons had lower spatial coverage, meaning that they are more spatially selective (congruent with our results). We have rephrased this in the text to be clearer.

REVIEWER COMMENT: Thanks for clarifying this.

ORIGINAL COMMENT: (3) My reading is that the rest of the paper mainly consists of replications or incremental observations of already known phenomena with some not necessarily surprising new observations:<br /> a) Figure 2 shows that a subset of mPFC neurons is modulated by HPC SWRs and theta (already known), that vmPFC neurons are more strongly modulated by SWRs (not surprising given anatomy), and that theta phase preference is different between vmPFC and dmPFC (not surprising given the fact that theta is a travelling wave).

AUTHOR RESPONSE: The finding that vmPFC neurons are more strongly modulated by SWRs than dmPFC indeed matches what we know from anatomy, but that does not make it a trivial finding. A lot remains unknown about the mPFC subregions and their interactions with the hippocampus, and not every finding will be directly linked to the anatomy. Therefore, in our view this is a significant finding which has not been studied before due to the technical complexity of large-scale recordings along the dorsal-ventral axis of the mPFC.

REVIEWER COMMENT: This finding is indeed non-trivial; however, it seems completely irrelevant to the paper's main claim unless the Authors can argue otherwise.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: Similarly, theta being a traveling wave (which in itself is still under debate), does not mean we should assume that the dorsal and ventral mPFC should follow this signature and be modulated by different phases of the theta cycle. Again, in our view this is not at all trivial, but an important finding which brings us closer to understanding the intricate interactions between the hippocampus and PFC in spatial learning and decision-making.

REVIEWER COMMENT: Yes, but in what way does this support the manuscript's primary claim? This is unclear to me.

ORIGINAL COMMENT: b) Figure 4 shows that non-local representations in mPFC are predictive of the animal's choice. This is mostly an increment to the work of Mashoori et al (2018). My understanding is that in addition to what had already been shown by Mashoori et al here it is shown how the upcoming choice can be predicted. The author may want to emphasize this novel aspect.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: In our view our manuscript focuses on a completely different aspect of learning and memory than the paper the reviewer is referring to (Mashoori et al. 2018). Importantly, the Mashoori et al. paper looked at choice evaluation at reward sites and shows that disappointing reinforcements are associated with reactivations in the ACC of the unselected target. This points to the role of the ACC in error detection and evaluation. Although this is an interesting result, it is in essence unrelated to what we are focusing on here, which is decision making and prediction of upcoming choices. The fact that the turning direction of the animal can be predicted on a trial-to-trial basis, and even precedes the behavioral change over the course of learning, sheds light on the role of the PFC in these important predictive cognitive processes (as opposed to post-choice reflective processes).

REVIEWER COMMENT: Indeed, as I said, the new element here is that the upcoming choice can be predicted. This appears only incremental and could belong to another story; as the manuscript is currently written, it does not support the article's main claim. I would like to specify that, regarding this and the other points above, my inability to see how these minor results support the Authors' claim may reflect my misunderstanding; nevertheless, this suggests that the manuscript should be extensively rewritten and reorganized to make the Authors' meaning clear.

ORIGINAL COMMENT: c) Figure 6 shows that prospective activity in the HPC is linked to SWRs and theta oscillations. This has been described in various forms since at least the works of Johnson and Redish in 2007, Pastalkova et al 2008, and Dragoi and Tonegawa (2011 and 2013), as well as in earlier literature on splitter cells. These foundational papers on this topic are not even cited in the current manuscript.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We have added these citations to the introduction (line 37).

REVIEWER COMMENT: This is an example of how the Authors fail to acknowledge the underlying problem with how the manuscript is written; the issue has not been addressed except with a cosmetic change like the one described above. The Results section contains a series of findings that are well-known phenomena described previously (see below). Prior results should be acknowledged at the beginning of each relevant paragraph, followed by an explicit statement of what is new, so that readers can distinguish replication from novelty. Here, I pointed specifically to the results of Figure 6, and the Authors deemed it sufficient simply to add the citations I indicated to an existing sentence in the Introduction, while keeping the Results description unchanged. As written, this reads as if these phenomena are being described for the first time. This is incorrect. It is hard to avoid the impression that the Authors did not take this concern seriously; the same issue appears elsewhere in the manuscript, and I fail to see how the Authors "have improved clarity of the text throughout to highlight the novelty of our results better."

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors used high-density probe recordings in the medial prefrontal cortex (PFC) and hippocampus during a rodent spatial memory task to examine functional sub-populations of PFC neurons that are modulated vs. unmodulated by hippocampal sharp-wave ripples (SWRs), an important physiological biomarker that is thought to have a role in mediating information transfer across hippocampal-cortical networks for memory processes. SWRs are associated with the reactivation of representations of previous experiences, and associated reactivation in hippocampal and cortical regions has been proposed to have a role in memory formation, retrieval, planning, and memory-guided behavior. This study focuses on awake SWRs that are prevalent during immobility periods during pauses in behavior. Previous studies have reported strong modulation of a subset of prefrontal neurons during hippocampal SWRs, with some studies reporting prefrontal reactivation during SWRs that have a role in spatial memory processes. The study seeks to extend these findings by examining the activity of SWR-modulated vs. unmodulated neurons across PFC sub-regions, and whether there is a functional distinction between these two kinds of neuronal populations with respect to representing spatial information and supporting memory-guided decision-making.

Strengths:

The major strength of the study is the use of Neuropixels 1.0 probes to monitor activity throughout the dorsal-ventral extent of the rodent medial prefrontal cortex, permitting an investigation of functional distinction in neuronal populations across PFC sub-regions. They are able to show that SWR-unmodulated neurons, in addition to having stronger spatial tuning than SWR-modulated neurons as previously reported, also show stronger directional selectivity and theta-cycle skipping properties.

Weaknesses:

(1) While the study is able to extend previous findings that SWR-modulated PFC neurons have significantly lower spatial tuning that SWR-unmodulated neurons, the evidence presented does not support the main conclusion of the paper that only the unmodulated neurons are involved in spatial tuning and signaling upcoming choice, implying that SWR-modulated neurons are not involved in predicting upcoming choice, as stated in the abstract. This conclusion makes a categorical distinction between two neuronal populations, that SWR-modulated neurons are involved and SWR-unmodulated are not involved in predicting upcoming choice, which requires evidence that clearly shows this absolute distinction. However, in the analyses showing non-local population decoding in PFC for predicting upcoming choice, the results show that SWR-unmodulated neurons have higher firing rates than SWR-modulated neurons, which is not a categorical distinction. Higher firing rates do not imply that only SWR-unmodulated neurons are contributing to the non-local decoding. They may contribute more than SWR-modulated neurons, but there are no follow-up analyses to assess the contribution of the two sub-populations to non-local decoding.

We agree with the reviewer that this is indeed not a categorical distinction, and do not wish to claim that the SWR-modulated neurons have absolutely no role in non-local decoding and signaling upcoming choice. We have adjusted this in the title, abstract and text to clarify this for the reader. Furthermore, we have performed additional analyses to elucidate the role of SWR-modulated neurons in non-local decoding by creating separate decoding models for SWR-modulated and unmodulated PFC neurons respectively. These analyses show that the SWR-unmodulated neurons are indeed encoding representations of the upcoming choice more often than the alternative choice, whereas the SWR-modulated neurons do not reliably differentiate the upcoming and alternative choices in non-local decoding at the choice point (see new Fig 4d).

(2) Further, the results show that during non-local representations of the hippocampus of the upcoming options, SWR-excited PFC neurons were more active during hippocampal representations of the upcoming choice, and SWR-inhibited PFC neurons were less active during hippocampal representations of the alternative choice. This clearly suggests that SWR-modulated neurons are involved in signaling upcoming choice, at least during hippocampal non-local representations, which contradicts the main conclusion of the paper.

This does not contradict the main conclusion of the paper, but in fact strengthens the hypothesis we are putting forward: that the SWR-modulated neurons are more linked to the hippocampal non-local representations, whereas the SWR-unmodulated neurons seem to have their own encoding of upcoming choice which is not linked to the signatures in the hippocampus (almost no time overlap with hippocampal representations, no phase locking to hippocampal theta, no time locking to hippocampal SWRs, no increased firing during hippocampal representations of upcoming choice).

(3) Similarly, one of the analyses shows that PFC nonlocal representations show no preference for hippocampal SWRs or hippocampal theta phase. However, the examples shown for non-local representations clearly show that these decodes occur prior to the start of the trajectory, or during running on the central zone or start arm. The time period of immobility prior to the start arm running will have a higher prevalence of SWRs and that during running will have a higher prevalence of theta oscillations and theta sequences, so non-local decoded representations have to sub-divided according to these known local-field potential phenomena for this analysis, which is not followed.

These analyses are in fact separated based on proximity to SWRs (only segments that occurred within 2 seconds of SWR onset were included, see Methods) and theta periods respectively (selected based on a running speed of more than 5 cm/s and the absence of SWRs in the hippocampus, see Methods). We have clarified this in the main text.

(4) The primary phenomenon that the manuscript relies on is the modulation of PFC neurons by hippocampal SWRs, so it is necessary to perform the PFC population decoding analyses during SWRs (or examine non-local decoding that occurs specifically during SWRs), as reported in previous studies of PFC reactivation during SWRs, to see if there is any distinction between modulated and unmodulated neurons in this reactivation. Even in the case of independent PFC reactivation as reported by one study, this PFC reactivation was still reported to occur during hippocampal SWRs, therefore decoding during SWRs has to be examined. Similarly, the phenomenon of theta cycle skipping is related to theta sequence representations, so decoding during PFC and hippocampal theta sequences has to be examined before coming to any conclusions.

The histograms shown in Figure 5a (see updated Fig 5a where we look at the closest SWR in time and compare the occurrence with shuffled data) show that there is no increased prevalence of decoding upcoming and alternative choices in the PFC during hippocampal SWRs. The lack of overlap of non-local decoding between the hippocampus and PFC further shows that these non-local representations occur at different timepoints in the PFC and hippocampus (see updated Fig 4e where we added a statistical test to show the likeliness of the overlap between the decoded segments in the PFC and hippocampus). Based on the reviewer's suggestion, we have additionally decoded the information in the PFC during hippocampal SWRs exclusively, and found that the direction on the maze could not be predicted based on the decoding of SWR time points in the PFC. See figure below. Similarly, we can see from the histograms in Figure 5c that there is no phase locking to the hippocampal theta phase for non-local representations in the PFC, and in contrast there is phase locking of the hippocampal encoding of upcoming choice to the rising phase of the theta cycle (Fig 6c), further highlighting the separation between these two regions in the non-local decoding.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This work by den Bakker and Kloosterman contributes to the vast body of research exploring the dynamics governing the communication between the hippocampus (HPC) and the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) during spatial learning and navigation. Previous research showed that population activity of mPFC neurons is replayed during HPC sharp-wave ripple events (SWRs), which may therefore correspond to privileged windows for the transfer of learned navigation information from the HPC, where initial learning occurs, to the mPFC, which is thought to store this information long term. Indeed, it was also previously shown that the activity of mPFC neurons contains task-related information that can inform about the location of an animal in a maze, which can predict the animals' navigational choices. Here, the authors aim to show that the mPFC neurons that are modulated by HPC activity (SWRs and theta rhythms) are distinct from those "encoding" spatial information. This result could suggest that the integration of spatial information originating from the HPC within the mPFC may require the cooperation of separate sets of neurons.

This observation may be useful to further extend our understanding of the dynamics regulating the exchange of information between the HPC and mPFC during learning. However, my understanding is that this finding is mainly based upon a negative result, which cannot be statistically proven by the failure to reject the null hypothesis. Moreover, in my reading, the rest of the paper mainly replicates phenomena that have already been described, with the original reports not correctly cited. My opinion is that the novel elements should be precisely identified and discussed, while the current phrasing in the manuscript, in most cases, leads readers to think that these results are new. Detailed comments are provided below.

Major concerns:

(1) The main claim of the manuscript is that the neurons involved in predicting upcoming choices are not the neurons modulated by the HPC. This is based upon the evidence provided in Figure 5, which is a negative result that the authors employ to claim that predictive non-local representations in the mPFC are not linked to hippocampal SWRs and theta phase. However, it is important to remember that in a statistical test, the failure to reject the null hypothesis does not prove that the null hypothesis is true. Since this claim is so central in this work, the authors should use appropriate statistics to demonstrate that the null hypothesis is true. This can be accomplished by showing that there is no effect above some size that is so small that it would make the effect meaningless (see https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370304801108).

We would like to highlight a few important points here. (1) We indeed do not intend to claim that the SWR-modulated neurons are not at all involved in predicting upcoming choice, just that the SWR-unmodulated neurons may play a larger role. We have rephrased the title and abstract to make this clearer. (2) The hypothesis that we put forward is based not only on a negative effect, but on the findings that: the SWR-unmodulated neurons show higher spatial tuning (Fig 3b), more directional selectivity (Fig 3d), more frequent encoding of the upcoming choice at the choice point (new analysis, added in Fig 4d), and higher spike rates during the representations of the upcoming choice (Fig 5b). This is further highlighted by the fact that the representations of upcoming choice in the PFC are not time locked to SWRs (whereas the hippocampal representations of upcoming choice are;  see Fig 5a and Fig 6a), and not time-locked to hippocampal theta phase (whereas the hippocampal representations are; see Fig 5c and Fig 6c). Finally, the representations of upcoming and alternative choices in the PFC do not show a large overlap in time with the representations in the hippocampus (see updated Fig 4e were we added a statistical test to show the likelihood of the overlap of decoded timepoints). All these results together lead us to hypothesize that SWR-modulation is not the driving factor behind non-local decoding in the PFC. (3) Based on the reviewers suggestion, we have added a statistical test to compare the phase-locking based of the non-local decoding to hippocampal SWRs and theta phase to shuffled posterior probabilities. Instead of looking at all SWRs in a -2 to 2 second window, we have now only selected the closest SWR in time within that window, and did the statistical comparison in the bin of 0-20 ms from SWR onset. With this new analysis we are looking more directly at the time-locking of the decoded segments to SWR onset (see updated Fig 5a and 6a).

(2) The main claim of the work is also based on Figure 3, where the authors show that SWRs-unmodulated mPFC neurons have higher spatial tuning, and higher directional selectivity scores, and a higher percentage of these neurons show theta skipping. This is used to support the claim that SWRs-unmodulated cells encode spatial information. However, it must be noted that in this kind of task, it is not possible to disentangle space and specific task variables involving separate cognitive processes from processing spatial information such as decision-making, attention, motor control, etc., which always happen at specific locations of the maze. Therefore, the results shown in Figure 3 may relate to other specific processes rather than encoding of space and it cannot be unequivocally claimed that mPFC neurons "encode spatial information". This limitation is presented by Mashoori et al (2018), an article that appears to be a major inspiration for this work. Can the authors provide a control analysis/experiment that supports their claim? Otherwise, this claim should be tempered. Also, the authors say that Jadhav et al. (2016) showed that mPFC neurons unmodulated by SWRs are less tuned to space. How do they reconcile it with their results?

The reviewer is right to assert caution when talking about claims such as spatial tuning where other factors may also be involved. Although we agree that there may be some other factors influencing what we are seeing as spatial tuning, it is very important to note that the behavioral task is executed on a symmetrical 4-armed maze, where two of the arms are always used for the start of the trajectory, and the other two arms (North and South) function as the goal (reward) arms. Therefore, if the PFC is encoding cognitive processes such as task phases related to decision-making and reward, we would not be able to differentiate between the two start arms and the two goal arms, as these represent the same task phases. Note also that the North and South arm are illuminated in a pseudo-random order between trials and during cue-based rule learning this is a direct indication of where the reward will be found. Even in this phase of the task, the PFC encodes where the animal will turn on a trial-to-trial basis (meaning the North and South arm are still differentiated correctly on each trial even though the illumination and associated reward are changing).

Secondly, importantly, the reviewer mentions that we claimed that Jadhav et al. (2016) showed that mPFC neurons unmodulated by SWRs are less tuned to space, but this is incorrect. Jadhav et al. (2016) showed that SWR-unmodulated neurons had lower spatial coverage, meaning that they are more spatially selective (congruent with our results). We have rephrased this in the text to be clearer.

(3) My reading is that the rest of the paper mainly consists of replications or incremental observations of already known phenomena with some not necessarily surprising new observations:

(a) Figure 2 shows that a subset of mPFC neurons is modulated by HPC SWRs and theta (already known), that vmPFC neurons are more strongly modulated by SWRs (not surprising given anatomy), and that theta phase preference is different between vmPFC and dmPFC (not surprising given the fact that theta is a travelling wave).

The finding that vmPFC neurons are more strongly modulated by SWRs than dmPFC indeed matches what we know from anatomy, but that does not make it a trivial finding. A lot remains unknown about the mPFC subregions and their interactions with the hippocampus, and not every finding will be directly linked to the anatomy. Therefore, in our view this is a significant finding which has not been studied before due to the technical complexity of large-scale recordings along the dorsal-ventral axis of the mPFC.

Similarly, theta being a traveling wave (which in itself is still under debate), does not mean we should assume that the dorsal and ventral mPFC should follow this signature and be modulated by different phases of the theta cycle. Again, in our view this is not at all trivial, but an important finding which brings us closer to understanding the intricate interactions between the hippocampus and PFC in spatial learning and decision-making.

(b) Figure 4 shows that non-local representations in mPFC are predictive of the animal's choice. This is mostly an increment to the work of Mashoori et al (2018). My understanding is that in addition to what had already been shown by Mashoori et al here it is shown how the upcoming choice can be predicted. The author may want to emphasize this novel aspect.

In our view our manuscript focuses on a completely different aspect of learning and memory than the paper the reviewer is referring to (Mashoori et al. 2018). Importantly, the Mashoori et al. paper looked at choice evaluation at reward sites and shows that disappointing reinforcements are associated with reactivations in the ACC of the unselected target. This points to the role of the ACC in error detection and evaluation. Although this is an interesting result, it is in essence unrelated to what we are focusing on here, which is decision making and prediction of upcoming choices. The fact that the turning direction of the animal can be predicted on a trial-to-trial basis, and even precedes the behavioral change over the course of learning, sheds light on the role of the PFC in these important predictive cognitive processes (as opposed to post-choice reflective processes).

(c) Figure 6 shows that prospective activity in the HPC is linked to SWRs and theta oscillations. This has been described in various forms since at least the works of Johnson and Redish in 2007, Pastalkova et al 2008, and Dragoi and Tonegawa (2011 and 2013), as well as in earlier literature on splitter cells. These foundational papers on this topic are not even cited in the current manuscript.

We have added these citations to the introduction (line 37).

Although some previous work is cited, the current narrative of the results section may lead the reader to think that these results are new, which I think is unfair. Previous evidence of the same phenomena should be cited all along the results and what is new and/or different from previous results should be clearly stated and discussed. Pure replications of previous works may actually just be supplementary figures. It is not fair that the titles of paragraphs and main figures correspond to notions that are well established in the literature (e.g., Figure 2, 2nd paragraph of results, etc.).

We have changed the title of paragraph 2 and Figure 2 to highlight more clearly the novel result (the difference between the dorsal and ventral mPFC), and have improved clarity of the text throughout to highlight the novelty of our results better.

(d) My opinion is that, overall, the paper gives the impression of being somewhat rushed and lacking attention to detail. Many figure panels are difficult to understand due to incomplete legends and visualizations with tiny, indistinguishable details. Moreover, some previous works are not correctly cited. I tried to make a list of everything I spotted below.

We have addressed all the comments in the Recommendations for Authors.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Expanding on the points above, one of the strengths of the study is expanding the previous result that SWR-unmodulated neurons are more spatially selective (Jadhav et al., 2016), across prefrontal sub-regions, and showing that these neurons are more directionally selective and show more theta cycle skipping. Theta cycle skipping is related to theta sequence representations and previous studies have established PFC theta sequences in parallel to hippocampal theta sequences (Tang et al., 2021; Hasz and Redish, 2020; Wang et al., 2024), and the theta cycle skipping result suggests that SWR-unmodulated neurons should show stronger participation than SWR-modulated neurons in PFC theta sequences that decode to upcoming or alternative location, which can be tested in this high-density PFC physiology data. This is still unlikely to make a categorical distinction that only SWR-unmodulated neurons participate in theta sequence decoding, but will be useful to examine.

We thank the reviewer for their suggestion and have now included results based on separate decoding models that only use SWR-modulated or SWR-unmodulated mPFC neurons. From this analysis we see that indeed SWR-unmodulated neurons are not the only group contributing to theta sequence decoding, but they do distinguish more strongly between the upcoming and alternative arms at the choice point (see new Fig 4d).

(2) Non-local decoding in 50ms windows on a theta timescale is a valid analysis, but ignoring potential variability in the internal state during running vs. immobility, and as indicated by LFPs by the presence of SWRs or theta oscillations, is incorrect especially when conclusions are being made about decoding during SWRs and theta oscillation phase, and in light of previous evidence that these are distinct states during behavior. There are multiple papers on PFC theta sequences (Tang et al., 2021; Hasz and Redish, 2020; Wang et al., 2024), and on PFC reactivation during SWRs (Shin et al., 2019; Kaefer et al., 2020; Jarovi et al., 2023), and this dataset of high-density prefrontal recordings using Neuropixels 1.0 provides an opportunity to investigate these phenomena in detail. Here, it should be noted that although Kaefer et al. reported independent prefrontal reactivation from hippocampal reactivation, these PFC reactivation events still occurred during hippocampal SWRs in their data, and were linked to memory performance.

From our data we see that the time segments that represent upcoming or alternative choice in the prefrontal cortex are in fact not time-locked to hippocampal SWRs (updated Fig 5a where we look only at the closest SWR in time and compare this to shuffled data). In addition, these segments do not overlap much with the decoded segments in the hippocampus (see updated Fig 4e where we added a shuffling procedure to assess the likelihood of the overlap with hippocampal decoded segments). Importantly, we are not ignoring the variability during running and immobility, as theta segments were selected based on a running speed of more than 5 cm/s and the absence of SWRs in the hippocampus (see Methods), ensuring that the theta and SWR analyses were done on the two different behavioral states respectively. We have  clarified this in the main text.

(3) The majority of rodent studies make the distinction between ACC, PrL, and IL, although as the authors noted, there are arguments that rodent mPFC is a continuum (Howland et al., 2022), or even that rodent mPFC is a unitary cingulate cortical region (van Heukelum et al., 2020). The authors choose to present the results as dorsal (ACC + dorsal PrL) vs. ventral mPFC (ventral PrL + IL), however, in my opinion, it will be more useful to the field to see results separately for ACC, PrL, and IL, given the vast literature on connectivity and functional differences in these regions.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. Initially, we did perform all analyses separately for the ACC, PLC and ILC subregions. However, we observed that the differences between subregions (strength of SWR-modulation and the phase locking to theta) varied uniformly along the dorsal-ventral axis, i.e., the PLC showed a profile of SWR-modulation and theta phase locking that fell in between that of the ACC and the ILC. This is also highlighted in paragraph 3 of the introduction (lines 52-56). For that reason, and for the sake of reducing the number of variables, increasing statistical power, and improving readability, we focused on the dorsal-ventral distinction instead, as this is where the main differences were seen.

(4) I suggest that the authors refrain from making categorical distinctions as in their title and abstract, such as "neurons that are involved in predicting upcoming choice are not the neurons that are modulated by hippocampal sharp-wave ripples" when the evidence presented can only support gradation of participation of the two neuronal sub-populations, not an absolute distinction. The division of SWR-modulated and SWR-unmodulated neurons itself is determined by the statistic chosen to divide the neurons into one or two sub-classes and will vary with the statistical threshold employed. Further, previous studies have suggested that SWR-excited and SWR-inhibited neurons comprise distinct functional sub-populations based on their activity properties (Jadhav et al., 2016; Tang et al., 2017), but it is not clear to what degree is SWR-modulated neurons a distinct and singular functional sub-population. In the absence of connectivity information and cross-correlation measures within and across sub-populations, it is prudent to be conservative about this interpretation of SWR-unmodulated neurons.

We agree with the reviewer that the distinction is not categorical and have changed the wording in the title and abstract. We also do not intend to claim that the SWR-modulated neurons are a distinct and singular functional sub-population, and for that reason the firing rates from the SWR-excited and SWR-inhibited groups are reported separately throughout the paper.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Minor detailed remarks:

(1) The authors should provide a statistical test, perhaps against shuffled data, for Figures 5a,c and 6a,c.

We thank the reviewer for their suggestion and have added statistical tests in Figures 5a, 5c, 6a and 6c.

(2) The behavioral task is explained only in the legend of Figure 1c, and the explanation is quite vague. In this type of article format, readers need to have a clear understanding of the task without having to refer to the methods section. A clear understanding of the task is crucial for interpreting all subsequent analyses. In my opinion, the word 'trial' in the figure is misleading, as these are sessions composed of many trials.

We have added a more thorough description of the behavioral task, both in the main text and the Figure legend.

(3) Figure 1d, legend of markers missing.

We have added a legend for the markers.

(4) When there are multiple bars and a single p-value is presented, it is unclear which group comparisons the p-value pertains to. For instance, Figures 2c-f and 3b, d, f (right parts), and 5b...

For all p-values we have added lines to the figures that indicate the groups that were compared and have added descriptions of the statistical test to the figure legends to indicate what each p-value represents.

(5) In Figure 3c, the legend does not explain what the colored lines represent, and the lines themselves are very small and almost indistinguishable.

We have changed the colored lines to quadrants on the maze to clarify what each direction represents.

(6) Figure 4a is too small, and the elements are so tiny that it is impossible to distinguish them and their respective colors. The term 'segment' has not been unequivocally explained in the text. All the different elements of the panel should be explicitly explained in the legend to make it easily understandable. What do the pictograms of the maze on the left represent? What does the dashed vertical line indicate?

We have added the definition of a segment in the text (lines 283-286) and have improved the clarity and readability of Figure 4a.

(7) In Figure 5, what do the red dots on the right part relate to? The legend should explicitly explain what is shown in the left and right parts, respectively. What comparisons do the p-values relate to?

We have adjusted the legend to explain the left and right parts of the figure and we have added the statistical test that was used to get to the p-value (in addition to the text which already explained this).

(8) Panels b of Figures 5 and 6 should have the same y-axis scale for comparison. The position of the p-values should also be consistent. With the current arrangement in Figure 6, it is unclear what the p-values relate to.

We have adjusted the y-scale to be the same for Figures 5 and 6, and we have added a description of the statistical test to the legend.

(9) Multiple studies have previously shown that mPFC activity contains spatial information (e.g., refs 24-27). It is important that, throughout the paper, the authors frame their results in relation to previous findings, highlighting what is novel in this work.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have indicated more clearly which results replicate previous findings and highlighted novel results.

(10) Please note that Peyrache et al. (2009) do not show trajectory replay, nor do they decode location. I am not familiar with all the cited literature, but this makes me think that the authors may want to double-check their citations to ensure they assign the correct claims to each past work.

We have adjusted the reference to the work to exclude the word ‘trajectory’ and doublechecked our other citations.

(11) The authors perform theta-skipping analysis, first described by Kay et al., but do not cite the original paper until the discussion.

Thank you pointing out this oversight. We have now included this citation earlier in the paper (line 231).

(12) Additionally, some parts of the text are difficult to grasp, and there are English vocabulary and syntax errors. I am happy to provide comments on the next version of the text, but please include page and line numbers in the PDF. The authors may also consider using AI to correct English mistakes and improve the fluency and readability of their text.

We have carefully gone through the text to correct any errors.  We have now also included page and line numbers and we will be happy to address any specific issues the reviewer may spot in the revised manuscript.

The actual movement of our body

Most dangerous because if impaired can be fatal

Our diaphragm is what moves our lungs to fill wit air

Disruption in your nervous system causing the problem

The CNS tells our brain to step Atwater from danger to for example something hot

Transmitting signals to your brain not only physical

“O PEST F” is a a good way to remember the structure of the skull

The cranium protects your brain

layout guidelines

I'll say I've had both good and bad experiences with the recommendations pushed by social media sites. I love shopping online, so it sometimes recommends to me some nice clothing and jewelry brands, which is pretty delightful. But for the negative side, it sometimes shows me advertisements for egg donors, which may cause short-term harm and long-term risk, which I am completely not interested in.

I'd like to add my personal experience to this. I have the feeling that when I talk about something or even think about it remotely, my social media pages know that I talked about it and start feeding me posts that relate to the things I was talking about. This makes me feel like I am being listened to on my phone and that my social media knows everything about my life.

eLife Assessment

This study provides valuable insights into the mechanisms of remote memory impairment in an Alzheimer's disease mouse model. The evidence is compelling, with careful use of viral-TRAP labeling and patch-clamp electrophysiology to demonstrate altered inhibitory microcircuit function, though the mechanistic link to memory deficits remains correlative. Overall, the work advances understanding of early circuit-level changes in AD, while highlighting open questions regarding causality and broader network contributions.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study presents a thorough investigation of remote memory deficits in the APP/PS1 mouse model of Alzheimer's disease, highlighting the progressive emergence of these deficits alongside selective hyperexcitability of PV interneurons in the mPFC. By combining viral-TRAP labeling and patch-clamp electrophysiology, the authors demonstrate increased inhibitory input onto engram cells in APP/PS1 mice, despite preserved engram size and reactivation. The revised manuscript successfully addresses earlier concerns by clarifying the relationship between amyloid pathology and circuit dysfunction, acknowledging the correlative nature of the findings, and integrating possible contributions of excitatory remodeling and broader network changes, including oscillatory disruptions. Although the precise mechanistic link between PV hyperexcitability, increased inhibition, and impaired remote memory remains to be empirically established, the study convincingly argues for inhibitory microcircuit alterations as an early contributor to cognitive decline in AD.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews: 

Reviewer #1 (Public review): 

This study presents evidence that remote memory in the APP/PS1 mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is associated with PV interneuron hyperexcitability and increased inhibition of cortical engram cells. Its strength lies in the fact that it explores a neglected aspect of memory research - remote memory impairments related to AD (for which the primary research focus is usually on recent memory impairments) -which has received minimal attention to date. While the findings are intriguing, the weakness of the paper hovers around purely correlational types of evidence and superficial data analyses, which require substantial revisions as outlined below. 

We thank the reviewer for their feedback, and we appreciate the recognition of the study’s novelty in addressing remote memory impairments in AD. We acknowledge the reviewer’s concerns and have implemented revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

Major concerns: 

(1) In light of previous work, including that by the authors themselves, the data in Figure 1 should be implemented by measurements of recent memory recall in order to assess whether remote memories are exclusively impaired or whether remote memory recall merely represents a continuation of recent memory impairments.

We agree with the reviewer that is an important point. In line with their suggestion in minor comment 1, we now omitted the statement on recent memory in the results (previously on lines 109-111 and 117). Nonetheless, previous independent experiments from our group have repeatedly shown recent memory deficits in APP/PS1 mice at 12 weeks of age, including a recent article published in 2023. We refer the reviewer to figure 2c in Végh et al. (2014) and figure 2i in Kater et al. (2023). We have added a reference of the latter paper to our discussion section (line 458-459). Therefore, we are confident that the recent memory deficit at 12 weeks of age is a stable phenotype in our APP/PS1 mice.

With these data in mind, we argue that the remote memory recall impairment is not a continuation of recent memory impairments. Recent memory deficits emerge already at 12 weeks of age, and when remote memory is assessed at 16 weeks (4 weeks after training at 12 weeks of age), APP/PS1 mice are still capable of forming and retrieving a remote memory. This suggests that remote memory retrieval can occur even when recent memory is compromised, arguing against the idea that the remote memory deficit observed at 20 weeks is a continuation of earlier recent memory impairments. We have clarified this point in the revised manuscript by adding the following sentence to the discussion section (line 462-465): 

‘This suggests that a remote memory can be formed even when recent memory expression is already compromised, indicating that the remote memory deficit in 20-week-old APP/PS1 mice is not a continuation of earlier recent memory impairments.’

(2) Figure 2 shows electrophysiological properties of PV cells in the mPFC that correlate with the behavior shown in Figure 1. However, the mice used in Figure 2 are different than the mice used in Figure 1. Thus, the data are correlative at best, and the authors need to confirm that behavioral impairments in the APP/PS1 mice crossed to PV-Cre (and SST-Cre mice) used in Figure 2 are similar to those of the APP/PS1 mice used in Figure 1. Without that, no conclusions between behavioral impairments and electrophysiological as well as engram reactivation properties can be made, and the central claims of the paper cannot be upheld. 

We thank the reviewer for raising this concern. Indeed, the remote memory impairment and PV hyperexcitability are correlative data, and therefore we do not make causal claims based on these data. However, please note that most of our key findings, including behavioural impairments, characterization of the engram ensemble and reactivation thereof, as well as inhibitory input measurements, were acquired using the same mouse line (APP/PS1), strengthening the coherence of our conclusions. Also, our electrophysiological findings in APP/PS1 (enhanced sIPSC frequency) and APP/PS1-PV-Cre-tdTomato (enhanced PV cell excitability) mice align well. Direct comparisons between the transgenic mouse lines APP/PS1 and APP/PS1 Parv-Cre were performed in our previous studies, confirming that these lines are similar in terms of behaviour and pathology. Specifically, we demonstrated that APP/PS1 mice display spatial memory impairments at 16 weeks of age, Fig 4a-d, consistent with the deficits observed in APP/PS1 Parv-Cre mice at 16 weeks of age, Fig 5a-c (Hijazi et al., 2020a). Additionally, Hijazi et al. (2020a) showed that soluble and insoluble Aβ levels do not differ between APP/PS1 Parv-Cre and APP/PS1 mice (sFig. 1), indicating comparable levels of pathology between these lines. While we do not have a similar characterization of the APP/PS1 SST-Cre line, we should mention that we also did not observe excitability differences in SST cells. We now acknowledge the limitation in the revised discussion section (line 480-487), and stress that our electrophysiology and behavioural findings are correlative in nature:

‘Although the excitability measurements were performed in APP/PS1-PV-Cre-tdTomato mice, and not in the APP/PS1 parental line, we previously found that these transgenic mouse lines exhibit comparable amyloid pathology (both soluble and insoluble amyloid beta levels) as well as similar spatial memory deficits (Hijazi et al., 2020a; Kater et al., 2023). Thus, our observations indicate that the APP/PS1 PV-Cre-tdTomato and APP/PS1 lines are similar in terms of pathology and behaviour. Nonetheless, further work is needed to identify a causal link between PV cell hyperexcitability and remote memory impairment.’ 

(3) The reactivation data starting in Figure 3 should be analysed in much more depth: 

a) The authors restrict their analysis to intra-animal comparisons, but additional ones should be performed, such as inter-animal (WT vs APP/PS1) as well as inter-age (12-16w vs 16-20w). In doing so, reactivation data should be normalized to chance levels per animal, to account for differences in labelling efficiency - this is standard in the field (see original Tonegawa papers and for a reference). This could highlight differences in total reactivation that are already apparent, such as for instance in WT vs APP/PS1 at 20w (Figure 3o) and highlight a decrease in reactivation in AD mice at this age, contrary to what is stated in lines 213-214. 

We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable input on the reactivation data in Figure 3. 

We agree with the reviewer and now depict the data as normalized to chance levels (Figure 3). The original figures are now supplemental (sFig. 5). The reactivation data normalized to chance are similar to the original results, i.e. no difference was observed in the reactivation of the mPFC engram ensemble between genotypes. The reviewer may have overlooked that we did perform inter-animal (WT vs. APP/PS1) comparisons, however these were not significantly different. We have made this clearer in the main text, lines 277, 288-289, 294-295 and 303-304. Moreover, the reviewer recommended including inter-age group comparisons, which have now been added to the supplemental figures (sFig. 6). No genotype-dependent differences were observed. While a main effect of age group did emerge, indicating that there is a potential increased overlap between Fos+ and mCherry+ in animals aged 16-20 weeks, we caution against overinterpreting this finding. These experimental groups were processed in separate cohorts, with viral injection and 4TM-induced tagging performed at different moments in time, which may have contributed to the observed differences in overlap. We have addressed this point in the revised discussion (line 612-617):

‘Furthermore, we also observed an increase in the amount overlap between Fos+ and mCherry+ engram cells when comparing the 12-16w and 16-20w age groups. This finding should be interpreted with caution, as the experimental groups were processed in separate cohorts, with viral injections and 4TM-induced tagging performed at different moments in time. This may have contributed to the observed differences between ages.’

b) Comparing the proportion of mcherry+ cells in PV- and PV+ is problematic, considering that the PV- population is not "pure" like the PV+, but rather likely to represent a mix of different pyramidal neurons (probably from several layers), other inhibitory neurons like SST and maybe even glial cells. Considering this, the statement on line 218 is misleading in saying that PVs are overrepresented. If anything, the same populations should be compared across ages or groups.  

We thank the reviewer for their insightful comment and agree that the PV- population of cells is likely more heterogenous than the PV+ population. However, we would like to clarify that all quantified cells were selected based on Nissl immunoreactivity, and to exclude non-neuronal cells, stringent thresholding was applied in the script that was used to identify Nissl+ cells. The threshold information has now been added to the methods section (line 758-760). Thus, although heterogenous, the analysed PV- population reflects a neuronal subset. In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have now included overlap measurements relative to chance levels (Figure 3). These analyses did not reveal differences with the original analyses, i.e., there are no genotype specific differences. We have also incorporated the suggested inter-age group comparisons (sFig. 6) and found no differences between age groups. In light of the raised concerns, we have removed the statement that PV cells were overrepresented in the engram ensemble.

c) A similar concern applies to the mcherry- population in Figure 4, which could represent different types of neurons that were never active, compared to the relatively homogeneous engram mcherry+ population. This could be elegantly fixed by restricting the comparison to mCherry+Fos+ vs mCherry+Fos- ensembles and could indicate engram reactivation-specific differences in perisomatic inhibition by PV cells. 

The comparison the reviewer suggests, comparing mCherry+Fos+ to mCherry+Fos- is indeed conceptually interesting and could provide more insight into engram reactivation and PV input. However, there are practical limitations to performing this analysis, as neurons in close proximity need to be compared in a pairwise manner to account for local variability in staining intensity. As shown in Figure 3c+k and Figure 4a+b, d+e, PV immunostaining intensity varies to a certain extend within a given image. While pairwise comparisons of neighbouring neurons were feasible when analysing mCherry+ and mCherry- cells, they are unfortunately not feasible for the mCherry+Fos+ vs. mCherry+Fos- comparison. The occurrence of spatially adjacent mCherry+Fos+ and mCherry+Fos- neurons is too sparse for a pairwise comparison. This analysis would therefore result in substantial under-sampling and limit the reliability of the analysis. Nonetheless, we agree with the reviewer that the mCherry- population may be more heterogenous than the mCherry+ population, despite the fact that PV+ neurons and that non-neuronal cells were excluded from both populations in the analyses. We therefore added a statement to the discussion to acknowledge this limitation (line 536-539): 

‘Although PV+ cells were not included in this analysis and we excluded non-neuronal cells based on the area of the Nissl stain, the mCherry- population was potentially more heterogenous than the mCherry+ population, which may have contributed to the differences we observed.’

(4) At several instances, there are some doubts about the statistical measures having been employed: 

a) In Figure 4f, it is unclear why a repeated measurement ANOVA was used as opposed to a regular ANOVA. 

b) In Supplementary Figure 2b, a Mann-Whitney test was used, supposedly because the data were not normally distributed. However, when looking at the individual data points, the data does seem to be normally distributed. Thus, the authors need to provide the test details as to how they measured the normalcy of distribution. 

a) Based on the pairwise comparison of neighbouring neurons within animals, the data in Figure 4f was analysed with a repeated measure ANOVA. 

b) We thank the author for their comment on Supplementary Figure 2b. The data is indeed normally distributed, and we have analysed it using a D’Agostino & Pearson test. We have corrected this in the supplemental figure. 

Minor concerns: 

(1) Line 117: The authors cite a recent memory impairment here, as shown by another paper. However, given the notorious difficulty in replicating behavioral findings, in particular in APP/PS1 mice (number of backcrossings, housing conditions, etc., might differ between laboratories), such a statement cannot be made. The authors should either show in their own hands that recent memory is indeed affected at 12 weeks of age, or they should omit this statement. 

We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful comment. As noted in our response to major concern (1), we have addressed this concern by providing additional information and clarification in the discussion (line 462-465) regarding the possibility that remote memory impairments are a continuation of recent memory impairments. As mentioned in our response, we have added a reference to a more recent study from our lab (Kater et al. (2023). These findings are consistent with the earlier report from our lab (Végh et al. (2014), underscoring the reproducibility of this phenotype across independent cohorts and time. Notably, the experiments in the 2023 and present study were performed using the same housing and experimental conditions. Nevertheless, in light of the reviewer’s suggestion, and to avoid overstatement or speculation, we have now omitted the sentence referring to recent memory impairments at 12 weeks of age from the results section.

(2) Pertaining to Figure 3, low-resolution images of the mPFC should be provided to assess the spread of injection and the overall degree of double-positive cells.  

We agree with the reviewer and have added images of the mPFC as a supplemental figure (sFig. 3) that show the spread of the injection. Unfortunately, it is not possible to visualize the overall degree of double-positive cells at a lower magnification (or low-resolution). Representative examples of colocalization are presented in Figure 3.

Reviewer #2 (Public review): 

This study presents a comprehensive investigation of remote memory deficits in the APP/PS1 mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. The authors convincingly show that these deficits emerge progressively and are paralleled by selective hyperexcitability of PV interneurons in the mPFC. Using viral-TRAP labeling and patch-clamp electrophysiology, they demonstrate that inhibitory input onto labeled engram cells is selectively increased in APP/PS1 mice, despite unaltered engram size or reactivation. These findings support the idea that alterations in inhibitory microcircuits may contribute to cognitive decline in AD. 

However, several aspects of the study merit further clarification. Most critically, the central paradox, i.e., increased inhibitory input without an apparent change in engram reactivation, remains unresolved. The authors propose possible mechanisms involving altered synchrony or impaired output of engram cells, but these hypotheses require further empirical support. Additionally, the study employs multiple crossed transgenic lines without reporting the progression of amyloid pathology in the mPFC, which is important for interpreting the relationship between circuit dysfunction and disease stage. Finally, the potential contribution of broader network dysfunction, such as spontaneous epileptiform activity reported in APP/PS1 mice, is also not addressed. 

We thank the reviewer for their evaluation and appreciate the positive assessment of our study’s contributing to understanding remote memory deficits and the dysfunction of inhibitory microcircuits in AD. We also acknowledge the relevant points raised and have revised the manuscript to clarify our interpretations. 

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors): 

(1) Line 68: What are "APP23xPS45" mice? This is most likely a typo.

This line is a previously reported double transgenic amyloid beta mouse model that was obtained by crossing APP23 (overexpressing human amyloid precursor protein with the Swedish double mutation at position 670/671) with PS45 (carrying a transgene for mutant Presenilin 1, G384A mutation) (Busche et al., 2008; Grienberger et al., 2012). 

(2) Line 148: The authors should also briefly describe in the main text that APP/PS1 x SST-Cre mice were generated and used here.  

We thank the reviewer for their comment and have added their suggestion to the main text (line 166-168):

‘To do this, APP/PS1 mice were crossed with SST-Cre mice to generate APP/PS1 SST-Cre mice. Following microinjection of AAV-hSyn::DIO-mCherry into the mPFC, recordings were obtained from SST neurons.’

(3) The discussion should be condensed because of redundancies on several occasions. For example, memory allocation is discussed starting on line 371, then again on line 392. This should be combined. Likewise, how the correlative nature of the findings about PV interneurons could be further functionally addressed is discussed on lines 413 and 454, and should be condensed into one paragraph. 

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and have revised the discussion to remove the redundancies as proposed.  

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors): 

To strengthen the manuscript, the following points should be addressed: 

(1) Quantify amyloid pathology: It is essential to assess amyloid-β levels (soluble and insoluble) in the mPFC of APP/PS1-PV-Cre-tdTomato mice at the studied ages. This would help determine whether the observed circuitlevel changes track with disease progression as seen in canonical APP/PS1 models. 

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion and agree that assessing Aβ levels in the mPFC is important to determine whether the observed circuit level alterations in APP/PS1 mice coincide with the progression of amyloid pathology. Therefore, we assessed the amyloid plaque load in the mPFC of APP/PS1 mice at 16 and 20 weeks of age (new supplemental figure sFig. 1) and observed no difference in plaque load between these two time points. This suggests that the increased excitability in the mPFC cannot be attributed to differences in plaque load (insoluble amyloid beta).

In line with this, we previously studied both soluble and insoluble Aβ levels in the CA1 and reported that there are no differences between 12 and 16 weeks of age (Kater et al., 2023), while PV cell hyperexcitability is present at 16 weeks of age (Hijazi et al., 2020a). From 24 weeks onwards, the level of amyloid beta increases. Similarly, Végh et al. (2014) showed using immunoblotting that monomeric and low molecular weight oligomeric forms of soluble Aβ are already present as early as 6 weeks of age and become more prominent at 24 weeks of age. Although the soluble Aβ measurements were performed in the hippocampus, we think these findings can be extrapolated to cortical regions, as the APP and PS1 mutations in APP/PS1 mice are driven by a prion promotor, which should induce consistent expression across brain regions. Data from other research groups support this hypothesis (Kim et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2011). Thus, large regional differences in soluble Aβ are not expected. The temporal progression suggests that increasing levels of soluble amyloid beta might contribute to the emergence of PV cell hyperexcitability. We have added this point to the manuscript (line 585-591):

‘Since amyloid beta plaque load in the mPFC remains comparable between 16- and 20-week-old APP/PS1 mice, the observed increased excitability is unlikely the result of changes in insoluble amyloid beta levels. Previous data from our lab show that soluble amyloid beta is already present as early as 6 weeks of age and becomes more prominent at 24 weeks of age (Kater et al., 2023; Végh et al., 2014). The progressive increase in soluble amyloid beta levels may contribute to the emergence of PV cell hyperexcitability.’

Finally, we previously compared soluble and insoluble amyloid beta levels in APP/PS1 and APP/PS1 Parv Cre mice and show that these are similar (Hijazi et al., 2020a). While our current study shows the progression of amyloid beta accumulation in APP/PS1 mice, these mice also exhibit altered microcircuitry (enhanced sIPSC frequency on engram cells) at 20 weeks of age, the same age at which we observed PV cell hyperexcitability in APP/PS1 Parv Cre tdTomato mice. This further supports the generalizability of our findings across genotypes, between APP/PS1 and APP/PS1 Parv Cre tdTomato mice. 

(2) Examine later disease stages: Since the current effects are modest, assessing memory performance, PV cell excitability, and engram inhibition at more advanced stages could clarify whether these alterations become more pronounced with disease progression. 

We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion. Investigating advanced disease stages could indeed provide valuable insights into whether the observed alterations in memory performance, PV cell hyperexcitability and engram inhibition become more pronounced over time. Our previous work has shown that changes in pyramidal cell excitability emerge at a later stage than in PV cells, supporting the idea of progressive circuit dysfunction (Hijazi et al., 2020a). However, at these more advanced stages, additional pathological processes, such as an increased gliosis (Janota, Brites, Lemere, & Brito, 2015; Kater et al., 2023) and synaptic loss (Alonso-Nanclares, MerinoSerrais, Gonzalez, & DeFelipe, 2013; Bittner et al., 2012), will likely contribute to both electrophysiological and behavioural measurements. Furthermore, we would like to point out that the current changes observed in memory performance, PV hyperexcitability and increased inhibitory input on engram cells at 16-20 weeks of age are not modest, but already quite substantial. Our focus on these early time points in APP/PS1 mice were intentional, as it helps us understand the initial changes in Alzheimer’s disease at a circuit level and to identify therapeutic targets early intervention. What happens at later stages is certainly of interest, but beyond the scope of this study and should therefore be addressed in future studies. We have incorporated a discussion related to this point into the revised manuscript (line 602-606):

‘Moreover, it is relevant to investigate whether changes in PV and PYR cell excitability, as well as input onto engram cells in the mPFC, become more pronounced at later disease stages. Nonetheless, by focussing on early disease timepoints in the present study, we aimed to understand the initial circuit-level changes in AD and identify targets for early therapeutic intervention.’

(3) Address network hyperexcitability: Spontaneous epileptiform activity has been reported in APP/PS1 mice from 4 months of age (Reyes-Marin & Nuñez, 2017). Including EEG data or discussing this point in relation to your findings would help contextualize the observed inhibitory remodeling within broader network dysfunction. 

We thank the reviewer for this valuable input and for highlighting the study by Reyes-Marin and Nuñez (2017). In line with this, we recently reported longitudinal local field potential (LFP) recordings in freely behaving APP/PS1 Parv-Cre mice and wild type control animals between the ages of 3 to 12 months (van Heusden et al., 2023). Weekly recordings were performed in the home cage under awake mobile conditions. These data showed no indications of epileptiform activity during wakefulness, consistent with previous findings that epileptic discharges in APP/PS1 mice predominantly occur during sleep (Gureviciene et al., 2019). Recordings were obtained from the prefrontal cortex (PFC), parietal cortex and the hippocampus. In contrast, the study by Reyes-Marin and Nuñez (2017) recorded from the somatosensory cortex in anesthetized animals. Here, during spontaneous recordings, no differences were observed in delta, theta or alpha frequency bands between APP/PS1 and WT mice. Interestingly, we observed an early increase in absolute power, particularly in the hippocampus and parietal cortex from 12 to 24 weeks of age in APP/PS1 mice. In the PFC we found a shift in relative power from lower to higher frequencies and a reduction in theta power. Connectivity analyses revealed a progressive, age-dependent decline in theta/alpha coherence between the PFC and both the parietal cortex and hippocampus. Given the well-established role of PV interneurons network synchrony and coordinating theta and gamma oscillations critical for cognitive function (Sohal, Zhang, Yizhar, & Deisseroth, 2009; Xia et al., 2017), these findings support the idea of early circuit dysfunction in APP/PS1 mice. Our findings, i.e. hyperexcitability of PV cells, align with these LFP based networklevel observations. These data suggest an early shift in the E/I balance, contributing to altered oscillatory dynamics and impaired inter-regional connectivity, possibly leading to alterations in memory. However, whether the observed PV hyperexcitability in our study directly contributes to alterations in power and synchrony remains to be elucidated. Furthermore, it would be interesting to determine the individual contribution of PV cell hyperexcitability in the hippocampus versus the mPFC to network changes and concurrent memory deficits. We have added a statement on network hyperexcitability to the discussion (line 561-565). 

‘Interestingly, we recently found a progressive disruption of oscillatory network synchrony between the mPFC and hippocampus in APP/PS1 Parv-Cre mice (van Heusden et al., 2023). However, whether the observed PV cell hyperexcitability directly contributes to changes in inter-regional synchrony, and whether this leads to alterations at a network level, i.e. increased inhibitory input on engram cells, and consequently to memory deficits, remains to be elucidated in future studies.’ 

(4) Mechanisms responsible for PV hyperexcitability: Related to the previous point, a discussion of the possible underlying mechanisms, e.g., direct effects of amyloid-β, inflammatory processes, or compensatory mechanisms, would strengthen the discussion. 

We agree with the reviewer that this will strengthen the discussion. We have now added a comprehensive discussion in the revised manuscript to address potential mechanisms responsible for PV cell hyperexcitability (line 579-594).:

‘Prior studies have shown that neurons in the vicinity of amyloid beta plaques show increased excitability (Busche et al., 2008). We demonstrated that PV neurons in the CA1 are hyperexcitable and that treatment with a BACE1 inhibitors, i.e. reducing amyloid beta levels, rescues PV excitability (Hijazi et al., 2020a). In line with this, we also reported that addition of amyloid beta to hippocampal slices increases PV excitability, without altering pyramidal cell excitability (Hijazi et al., 2020a). Finally, applying amyloid beta to an induced mouse model of PV hyperexcitability further impairs PV function (Hijazi et al., 2020b). Since amyloid beta plaque load in the mPFC remains comparable between 16- and 20-week-old APP/PS1 mice, the observed increased excitability is unlikely the result of changes in insoluble amyloid beta levels. Previous data from our lab show that soluble amyloid beta is already present as early as 6 weeks of age and becomes more prominent at 24 weeks of age (Kater et al., 2023; Végh et al., 2014). The progressive increase in soluble amyloid beta levels may contribute to the emergence of PV cell hyperexcitability. We hypothesize that the hyperexcitability induced by amyloid beta may result from disrupted ion channel function, as PV neuron dysfunction can result from altered potassium (Olah et al., 2022) and sodium channel activity (Verret et al., 2012).’

(5) Excitatory-inhibitory balance: While the main focus is on increased inhibition onto engram cells, the reported increase in sEPSC frequency (Figure 5g) across genotypes suggests the presence of excitatory remodelling as well. A brief discussion of how this may interact with increased inhibition would be valuable.  

We thank the reviewer for this comment regarding the interaction between excitatory and inhibitory remodelling. We have now incorporated this discussion point into the revised manuscript (line 528-534):

‘Interestingly, both WT and APP/PS1 mice showed an increase in sEPSC frequency onto engram cells, suggesting that increased excitatory input is a consequence of memory retrieval and not affected by genotype. However, only in APP/PS1 mice, the augmented excitatory input coincided with an elevation of inhibitory input onto engram cells. The resulting imbalance between excitation and inhibition could therefore potentially disrupt the precise control of engram reactivation and contribute to the observed remote memory impairment.’

References

Alonso-Nanclares, L., Merino-Serrais, P., Gonzalez, S., & DeFelipe, J. (2013). Synaptic changes in the dentate gyrus of APP/PS1 transgenic mice revealed by electron microscopy. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol, 72(5), 386-395. doi:10.1097/NEN.0b013e31828d41ec

Bittner, T., Burgold, S., Dorostkar, M. M., Fuhrmann, M., Wegenast-Braun, B. M., Schmidt, B., . . . Herms, J. (2012). Amyloid plaque formation precedes dendritic spine loss. Acta Neuropathologica, 124(6), 797807. doi:10.1007/s00401-012-1047-8

Busche, M. A., Eichhoff, G., Adelsberger, H., Abramowski, D., Wiederhold, K. H., Haass, C., . . . Garaschuk, O. (2008). Clusters of hyperactive neurons near amyloid plaques in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Science, 321(5896), 1686-1689. doi:10.1126/science.1162844

Grienberger, C., Rochefort, N. L., Adelsberger, H., Henning, H. A., Hill, D. N., Reichwald, J., . . . Konnerth, A. (2012). Staged decline of neuronal function in vivo in an animal model of Alzheimer's disease. Nat Commun, 3, 774. doi:10.1038/ncomms1783

Gureviciene, I., Ishchenko, I., Ziyatdinova, S., Jin, N., Lipponen, A., Gurevicius, K., & Tanila, H. (2019). Characterization of Epileptic Spiking Associated With Brain Amyloidosis in APP/PS1 Mice. Front Neurol, 10, 1151. doi:10.3389/fneur.2019.01151

Hijazi, S., Heistek, T. S., Scheltens, P., Neumann, U., Shimshek, D. R., Mansvelder, H. D., . . . van Kesteren, R. E. (2020a). Early restoration of parvalbumin interneuron activity prevents memory loss and network hyperexcitability in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Mol Psychiatry, 25(12), 3380-3398. doi:10.1038/s41380-019-0483-4

Hijazi, S., Heistek, T. S., van der Loo, R., Mansvelder, H. D., Smit, A. B., & van Kesteren, R. E. (2020b). Hyperexcitable Parvalbumin Interneurons Render Hippocampal Circuitry Vulnerable to Amyloid Beta. iScience, 23(7), 101271. doi:10.1016/j.isci.2020.101271

Janota, C. S., Brites, D., Lemere, C. A., & Brito, M. A. (2015). Glio-vascular changes during ageing in wild-type and Alzheimer's disease-like APP/PS1 mice. Brain Res, 1620, 153-168. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2015.04.056

Kater, M. S. J., Huffels, C. F. M., Oshima, T., Renckens, N. S., Middeldorp, J., Boddeke, E., . . . Verheijen, M. H. G. (2023). Prevention of microgliosis halts early memory loss in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Brain Behav Immun, 107, 225-241. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2022.10.009

Kim, H. Y., Kim, H. V., Jo, S., Lee, C. J., Choi, S. Y., Kim, D. J., & Kim, Y. (2015). EPPS rescues hippocampus-dependent cognitive deficits in APP/PS1 mice by disaggregation of amyloid-β oligomers and plaques. ature Communications, 6(1), 8997. doi:10.1038/ncomms9997

Olah, V. J., Goettemoeller, A. M., Rayaprolu, S., Dammer, E. B., Seyfried, N. T., Rangaraju, S., . . . Rowan, M. J. M. (2022). Biophysical Kv3 channel alterations dampen excitability of cortical PV interneurons and contribute to network hyperexcitability in early Alzheimer’s. Elife, 11, e75316. doi:10.7554/eLife.75316

Reyes-Marin, K. E., & Nuñez, A. (2017). Seizure susceptibility in the APP/PS1 mouse model of Alzheimer's disease and relationship with amyloid β plaques. Brain Res, 1677, 93-100. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2017.09.026

Sohal, V. S., Zhang, F., Yizhar, O., & Deisseroth, K. (2009). Parvalbumin neurons and gamma rhythms enhance cortical circuit performance. Nature, 459(7247), 698-702. doi:10.1038/nature07991

van Heusden, F. C., van Nifterick, A. M., Souza, B. C., França, A. S. C., Nauta, I. M., Stam, C. J., . . . van Kesteren, R. E. (2023). Neurophysiological alterations in mice and humans carrying mutations in APP and PSEN1 genes. Alzheimers Res Ther, 15(1), 142. doi:10.1186/s13195-023-01287-6

Végh, M. J., Heldring, C. M., Kamphuis, W., Hijazi, S., Timmerman, A. J., Li, K. W., . . . van Kesteren, R. E. (2014). Reducing hippocampal extracellular matrix reverses early memory deficits in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Acta Neuropathol Commun, 2, 76. doi:10.1186/s40478-014-0076-z

Verret, L., Mann, E. O., Hang, G. B., Barth, A. M., Cobos, I., Ho, K., . . . Palop, J. J. (2012). Inhibitory interneuron deficit links altered network activity and cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer model. Cell, 149(3), 708-721. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2012.02.046

Xia, F., Richards, B. A., Tran, M. M., Josselyn, S. A., Takehara-Nishiuchi, K., & Frankland, P. W. (2017). Parvalbumin-positive interneurons mediate neocortical-hippocampal interactions that are necessary for memory consolidation. Elife, 6. doi:10.7554/eLife.27868

Zhang, W., Hao, J., Liu, R., Zhang, Z., Lei, G., Su, C., . . . Li, Z. (2011). Soluble Aβ levels correlate with cognitive deficits in the 12-month-old APPswe/PS1dE9 mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Behavioural Brain Research, 222(2), 342-350. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.072

DOI: 10.1016/j.crmeth.2025.101212

Resource: None

Curator: @areedewitt04

SciCrunch record: RRID:IMSR_JAX:007903

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.crmeth.2025.101212

Resource: None

Curator: @areedewitt04

SciCrunch record: RRID:IMSR_JAX:005657

What is this?

first hit in the weeks before or after birth may make someone more sensitive for a second hit later in life and onset of psychiatric symptoms

therefore they cancel out of the calculation

I wonder how the sunni world felt about this, it must of felt apocalyptic

was there an actual letter? or just a story that there was one?

I feel this is true because usually people do not understand what someone else is going through until they feel the same or something similar. So of course they cant understand how music or any other therapy could possibly help. But this is normal now. But Back then it meant that an entire culture of people would be judged criticized and more just because they could not understand them.

I find this very interesting that people used music as a form of spirituality. The ceremonies they had were very tied to their culture and this helped people , it gave them hope and guided them when they needed help or felt lost. If you think about it it sound like music back then was their form of counseling.

This is something we all know. To live a healthy life we need to take care of our bodies and our mind and heart. Music is one of those things that you don't have to work for, kind of like dreading a workout or remembering to not eat that donut. With music you just play and enjoy or sing along, either way it is a healthy habit to have.

This is so accurate because i feel this every day. I wake up and the first thing i do is change the music I play all night to something upbeat and fun and this is what gets me hyped up and ready for my day. Energy is very much tied to emotions.

This is an amazing story where it shows how powerful music really is.

This line touched me because for me its the same. When i listen to music it is amazing and it does help me heal in many ways, But if i sing, create, or connect with people because of the music. That right there is the magic. That is the medicine for me. I know many people who feel the same and its not even about being a godd musician or having skill. It really does somethin gfor the soul when we sing or create music, even if its a random hum or a silly sound.

i think of the times i listened to music and it helped me get away from an unhealthy mentality.

this is a probalistic measure that defines how often a waves crest is over a given elevation threshold on the ocean surface

why is this the case for a TLP

I think alogorithms recommendation creates filter bubbles and echo chambers: people see more of the same views, products, or communities, while different or challenging content gets hidden. They will then only see what they want to see. Over time, this can reduce diversity of information, reinforce stereotypes, and polarize groups—even if no one person wanted that outcome.

which one is the most commonly used in practice