Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This work presents a novel approach for predicting fracture risk from high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT): by training a deep learning model to predict five-year fracture risk where the sole input is the full 3D HR-pQCT image. Prior studies have developed models, of varying complexity, to predict fracture risk from HR-pQCT. However, this study is novel in that neither the typical manual efforts required for HR-pQCT image analysis nor additional biomarker collection are required, simplifying potential clinical implementation. The authors show that their model predicts fracture within five years with greater sensitivity than FRAX (with an assumed diagnostic threshold of FRAX > 20% or T-score < -2.5 SD), albeit with reduced specificity. The authors further investigate how their model output, the structural fragility score derived by artificial intelligence (SFS-AI), is correlated with two microarchitectural parameters that can be measured with HR-pQCT, demonstrating that their model captures many relevant characteristics of a patient's bone quality that cannot be captured by the standard clinical tools used to diagnose osteoporosis, and thus to identify patients at elevated risk of fracture.

Strengths

The authors use a very large dataset and a combination of state-of-the-art methods for training and validating their fracture prediction model: k-fold cross-validation is used for training and a held-out external test dataset is used to evaluate ensembled model predictions compared to the current clinical standard for fracture screening. The results with the test dataset show that the model can identify women at risk of fracture in the next five years with greater sensitivity than both FRAX with BMD and BMD alone.

Because the model takes only a full 3D HR-pQCT image as input, the feasibility of clinical implementation is maximized. Standard morphological analysis with HR-pQCT is semi-automated and the labour required for the manual portions of analysis poses a significant barrier to clinical implementation. There is mounting evidence for the clinical utility of HR-pQCT (see Gazzotti et al. Br. J. Radiol. 2023) and fully automated models such as the one presented in this work will be critical for making clinical applications of HR-pQCT feasible.

The authors quantify the contributions to the variance of the model output and examine activation maps overlaid on the HR-pQCT images. These sub-analyses indicate that the model is identifying relevant characteristics of hierarchical bone structure for fracture prediction that are not available from aBMD measurements from DXA and thus are not accounted for in the current standard clinical diagnostic tool.

Weaknesses

The authors make the claim that SFS-AI outperforms FRAX with BMD and BMD in terms of sensitivity and specificity of predicting fragility fractures within 5 years. This claim is supported by looking at the ROCs in figure 1, but the specific comparison made in the discussion is not completely fair as currently presented in the article. The thresholds of FRAX > 20% and T-score < -2.5SD were selected by the authors for binary comparison. FRAX and BMD achieve specificities of ~95% at these thresholds, while SFS-AI achieves a specificity of only 77% at the selected threshold, SFS-AI > 0.5. Conversely, SFS-AI achieves a sensitivity of 50% to 60% while FRAX and BMD achieve very poor sensitivities, between 4% and 16%. The authors have not justified their choice of binarization thresholds for FRAX or BMD by citing literature or clinical guidelines, nor have they motivated their choice of any of the thresholds with a discussion of how clinical considerations could influence the sensitivity-specificity trade-off. It is difficult to directly compare the prognosticative performance of SFS-AI to that of FRAX or BMD when the thresholds for FRAX and BMD are at such different locations on the respective ROCs when compared to where the threshold for SFS-AI places it on the ROC. The authors have also not compared their estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of FRAX and BMD to literature to provide important context for the comparison to SFS-AI. An additional unacknowledged limitation is that the FRAX tool is designed to predict 10-year fracture risk, while the outcome used to train the SFS-AI model and to compare to FRAX was 5-year fracture risk.

Direct comparison may be impossible due to differences in study design or reported performance metrics, but the authors have not at all discussed the quantitative performance of prior models for fracture prediction or discrimination that use HR-pQCT (see Lu et al. Bone 2023 or Whittier et al. JBMR 2023) to contextualize the performance of their novel model. While the model presented in this article has the advantage that it does not require the typical expertise and manual effort needed for HR-pQCT image analysis, it is still important to acknowledge the potential trade-off of ease of implementation vs performance. Models that incorporate additional clinical data or that use standard HR-pQCT analysis outputs rather than raw images may perform well enough to justify the increase in the difficulty of clinical implementation or to motivate further work on fully automating microarchitectural analysis with HR-pQCT images.

Finally, the article does not indicate that either the code used for model training or the trained model itself will be made publicly available. This limits the ability of future researchers to replicate and build on the results presented in the article.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Royer et al. present a fully automated variant of the Barnes maze to reduce experimenter interference and ensure consistency across trials and subjects. They train mice in this maze over several days and analyze the progression of mouse search strategies during the course of the training. By fitting models involving stochastic processes, they demonstrate that a model combined of the random, spatial, and serial processes can best account for the observed changes in mice's search patterns. Their findings suggest that across training days the spatial strategy (using local landmarks) was progressively employed, mostly at the expense of the random strategy, while the serial strategy (consecutive nearby vestibule check) is reinforced from the early stages of training. Finally, they discuss potential mechanistic underpinnings within brain systems that could explain such behavioral adaptation and flexibility.

Strength:<br /> The development of an automated Barnes maze allows for more naturalistic and uninterrupted behavior, facilitating the study of spatial learning and memory, as well as the analysis of the brain's neural networks during behavior when combined with neurophysiological techniques. The system's design has been thoughtfully considered, encompassing numerous intricate details. These details include the incorporation of flexible options for selecting start, goal, and proximal landmark positions, the inclusion of a rotating platform to prevent the accumulation of olfactory cues, and careful attention given to atomization, taking into account specific considerations such as the rotation of the maze without causing wire shortage or breakage. When combined with neurophysiological manipulations or recordings, the system provides a powerful tool for studying spatial navigation system.<br /> The behavioral experiment protocols, along with the analysis of animal behavior, are conducted with care, and the development of behavioral modeling to capture the animal's search strategy is thoughtfully executed. It is intriguing to observe how the integration of these innovative stochastic models can elucidate the evolution of mice's search strategy within a variant of the Barnes maze.

Weakness:<br /> 1. The development of the well-thought-out automated Barnes maze may attract the interest of researchers exploring spatial learning and memory. However, this aspect of the paper lacks significance due to insufficient coverage of the materials and methods required for readers to replicate the behavioral methodology for their own research inquiries.<br /> Moreover, as discussed by the authors, the methodology favors specialists who utilize wired recordings or manipulations (e.g. optogenetics) in awake, behaving rodents. However, it remains unclear how the current maze design, which involves trapping mice in start and goal positions and incorporating angled vestibules resulting in the addition of numerous corners, can be effectively adapted for animals with wired implants.

2. Novelty: In its current format, the main axis of the paper falls on the analysis of animal behavior and the development of behavioral modeling. In this respect, while it is interesting to see how thoughtfully designed models can explain the evolution of mice search strategy in a maze, the conclusions offer limited novel findings that align with the existing body of research and prior predictions.

3. Scalability and accessibility: While the approach may be intriguing to experts who have an interest in or are familiar with the Barnes maze, its presentation seems to primarily target this specific audience. Therefore, there is a lack of clarity and discussion regarding the scalability of behavioral modeling to experiments involving other search strategies (such as sequence or episodic learning), other animal models, or the potential for translational applications. The scalability of the method would greatly benefit a broader scientific community. In line with this view, the paper's conclusions heavily rely on the development of new models using custom-made codes. Therefore, it would be advantageous to make these codes readily available, and if possible, provide access to the processed data as well. This could enhance comprehension and enable a larger audience to benefit from the methodology.

4. Cross-validation of models: The authors have not implemented any measures to mitigate the risk of overfitting in their modeling. It would have been beneficial to include at least some form of cross-validation with stochastic models to address this concern. Additionally, the paper lacks the presence of analytics or measures that assess and compare the performance of the models.

5. Quantification of inter-animal variations in strategy development: It is important to investigate, and address the argument concerning the possibility that not all animals recruit and develop the three processes (random, spatial, and serial) in a similar manner over days of training. It would be valuable to quantify the transition in strategy across days for each individual mouse and analyze how the population average, reflecting data from individual mice, corresponds to these findings. Currently, there is a lack of such quantification and analysis in the paper.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors identified the mefenamic (Mef) binding site and DIDS binding site on the KCNQ1 KCNE1 complex. The authors also identified the mechanism of interactions using electrophysiological recording, calculating V1/2 of different mutants, and looking at the instantaneous and tail currents. The contribution of each residue within the binding pocket was analysed using GBSA and PBSA and traditional molecular dynamics simulation.

The manuscript has been substantially revised from the previous version with a greater depth of computational analysis.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Tejeda-Munoz examines signaling by Wnt and macropinocytosis in Xenopus embryos and colon cancer cells. A major problem with the study is the extensive use of pleiotropic inhibitors as "specific" inhibitors of macropinocytosis in embryos. It is true that BafA and EIPA block macropinocytosis, but they do many other things as well. A major target of EIPA is the NheI Na+/proton transporter, which also regulates invasive structures (podosomes, invadopodia) which could have major roles in development. Similarly, Baf1 will disrupt lysosomes and the endocytic system, which secondary effects on mTOR signaling and growth factor receptor trafficking. The authors cannot assume that processes inhibited by these drugs demonstrate a role of macropinocytosis. While correlations in tumor samples between increased expression of PAK1 and V0a3 and decreased expression of GSK3 are consistent with a link between macropinocytosis and Wnt-driven malignancy, the cell and embryo-based experiments do not convincingly make this connection. Finally, the data on FAK and TES are not well integrated with the rest of the manuscript.

1. The data in Fig. 1A do not convincingly demonstrate macropinocytosis - it is impossible to tell what is being labeled by the dextran.

2. The data in Fig. 2 do not make sense. LiCL2 bypasses the WNT activation pathway by inhibiting GSK3. If subsequent treatment with BafA blocks the effects of GSK3 inhibition, then BafrA is doing something unrelated to Wnt activation, whose target is the inhibition/sequestration of GSK3. While BafA might block GSK3 sequestration by inhibiting MVB function, it should have no effect on the inhibition of GSK3 by LiCl2.

3. The effect of EHT on MP in SW480 cells is not clearly related to what is happening in the embryos. The nearly total loss of staining for Rac and -catenin after overnight EIPA does not implicate MP in protein stability - critical controls for cell viability and overall protein turnover are absent. Inhibition of WNT signaling might be expected to enhance -catenin turnover, but the effect on Rac1 is surprising. A more quantitative analysis by western blotting is required.

4. The data on FAK inhibition and TES trafficking are poorly integrated with the rest of the paper.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The work addresses challenges in linking anatomical information to transcriptomic data in single-cell sequencing. It proposes a method called Targeted Genetically-Encoded Multiplexing (TaG-EM), which uses genetic barcoding in Drosophila to label specific cell populations in vivo. By inserting a DNA barcode near the polyadenylation site in a UAS-GFP construct, cells of interest can be identified during single-cell sequencing. TaG-EM enables various applications, including cell type identification, multiplet droplet detection, and barcoding experimental parameters. The study demonstrates that TaG-EM barcodes can be decoded using next-generation sequencing for large-scale behavioral measurements. Overall, the results are solid in supporting the claims and will be useful for a broader fly community. I have only a few comments below:

Specific comments:

1. The authors mentioned that the results of structure pool tests in Fig. 2 showed a high level of quantitative accuracy in detecting the TaG-EM barcode abundance. Although the data were generally consistent with the input values in most cases, there were some obvious exceptions such as barcode 1 (under-represented) and barcodes 15, 20 (over-represented). It would be great if the authors could comment on these and provide a guideline for choosing the appropriate barcode lines when implementing this TaG-EM method.

2. In Supplemental Figure 6, the authors showed GFP antibody staining data with 20 different TaG-EM barcode lines. The variability in GFP antibody staining results among these different TaG-EM barcode lines concerns the use of these TaG-EM barcode lines for sequencing followed by FACS sorting of native GFP. I expected the native GFP expression would be weaker and much more variable than the GFP antibody staining results shown in Supplemental Figure 6. If this is the case, variation of tissue-specific expression of TaG-EM barcode lines will likely be a confounding factor.

3. As the authors mentioned in the manuscript, multiple barcodes for one experimental condition would be a better experimental design. Could the authors suggest a recommended number of barcodes for each experiential condition? 3? 4? Or more? Also, it would be great if the authors could provide a short discussion on the cost of such TaG-EM method. For example, for the phototaxis assay, if it is much more expensive to perform TaG-EM as compared to manually scoring the preference index by videotaping, what would be the practical considerations or benefits of doing TaG-EM over manual scoring?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The study attempts to develop a Drosophila model for the human disease of LND. The issue here, and the main weakness of this study, is that Drosophila does not express the enzyme, HGPRT, which when mutated causes LND. The authors, instead, mutate the functionally-related Drosophila Aprt enzyme. However, it is unknown whether Aprt is also a structural homologue. Because of this, it will likely not be possible to identify pharmacological compounds that rescue HGPRT activity via a direct interaction (unless modelling predicts high conservation of substrate binding pocket between the two enzymes, etc). An additional weakness is that the study does not identify a molecule that may act as a lead compound for further development for treating LND. Rather, the various rescues reported are selective for only a subset of the disease-associated phenotypes. Thus, whilst informative, this first section of the study does not meet the study ambitions.

The second approach adopted is to express a 'humanised mutated' form of HGPRT in Drosophila, which holds more promise for the development of a pharmacological screen. In particular, the locomotor defect is recapitulated but the seizure-like activity, whilst reported as being recapitulated, is debatable. A recovery time of 2.3 seconds is very much less than timings for typical seizure mutants. Nevertheless, the SING behaviour could be sufficient to screen against. However, this is not explored.

In summary, this is a largely descriptive study reporting the behavioural effects of an Aprt loss-of-function mutation. RNAi KD and rescue expression studies suggest that a mix of neuronal (particularly dopaminergic and possibly adenosinergic signalling pathways) and glia are involved in the behavioural phenotypes affecting locomotion, sleep and seizure. There is insufficient evidence to have confidence that the Arpt fly model will prove valuable for understanding / treating LND.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors thoroughly evaluate the performance and scalability of existing cell-type deconvolution methods. The paper builds on the existing knowledge by considering the suitability of deconvolution algorithms in the context of more challenging analyses where rare cell types are present or when dealing with unmatched references or noise introduced by a highly abundant cell type within the data. The paper also presents a new simulation framework for spatial transcriptomics data to support their benchmarking effort.

● Major strengths and weaknesses of the methods and results.

While most of the benchmarking studies rely on publicly available spatial transcriptomics datasets, one of the major strengths of the paper is the additional evidence support from their silver standard datasets. Leveraging computational processes synthspot, the authors generated abundant synthetic spatial transcriptomics data with replicates. In addition, the data generation process also accounts for 9 different biological patterns to stay close to real data quality. The authors also communicated with the original authors of each benchmarked method to ensure correct implementation and optimal performance. Figure 2 provides a clear and concise summary of the benchmark results, which will be of great assistance to users who are contemplating conducting deconvolution analysis.

The simulation setup has a significant weakness in the selection of reference single-cell RNAseq datasets used for generating synthetic spots. It is unclear why a mix of mouse and human scRNA-seq datasets were chosen, as this does not reflect a realistic biological scenario. This could call into question the findings of the "detecting rare cell types remains challenging even for top-performing methods" section of the paper, as the true "rare cell types" would not be as distinct as human skin cells in a mouse brain setting as simulated here. Furthermore, it is unclear why the authors developed Synthspot when other similar frameworks, such as SRTsim, exist. Have the authors explored other simulation frameworks? Finally, we would have appreciated the inclusion of tissue samples with more complex structures, such as those from tumors, where there may be more intricate mixing between cell types and spot types.

The authors have effectively accomplished their objectives in benchmarking deconvolution methods by thoughtfully designing the experiments and selecting appropriate evaluation metrics. This paper will be highly beneficial for the community.

This paper can provide guidance for selecting the most proper deconvolution methods under user-decided scenarios of the interests. Synthspot, allows for generating more realistic artificial tissue data with specific spatial patterns and is integrated as part of an easy-to-use and adaptable Nextflow pipeline. It might be worthwhile to clearly differentiate this work from previous work either in the benchmarking area or SRT data simulation area.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Polygenic scores (PGS), constructed based on genetic effect sizes estimated in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and used to predict phenotypes in humans have attracted considerable recent interest in human and evolutionary genetics, and in the social sciences. Recent work, however, has shown that PGSs have limited portability across ancestry groups, and that even within an ancestry group, their predictive accuracy varies markedly depending on characteristics such as the socio-economic status, age, and sex of the individuals in the samples used to construct them and to which they are applied. This study takes further steps in investigating and addressing the later problem, focusing on body mass index, a phenotype of substantial biomedical interest. Specifically, it quantifies the effects of a large number of co-variates and of interactions between these covariates and the PGS on prediction accuracy; it also examines the utility of including such covariates and interaction in the construction of predictors using both standard methods and artificial neural networks. This study would be of interest to investigators that develop and apply PGSs.

I should add that I have not worked on PGSs and am not a statistician, and apologize in advance if this has led to some misunderstandings.

Strengths:

- The paper presents a much more comprehensive assessment of the effects of covariates than previous studies. It finds many covariates to have a substantial effect, which further highlights the importance of this problem to the development and application of PGSs for BMI and more generally.<br /> - The findings re the relationships between the effects of covariates and interactions between covariates and PGSs are, to the best of my knowledge, novel and interesting.<br /> - The development of predictors that account for multiple covariates and their interaction with the PGS are, to the best of my knowledge, novel and may prove useful in future efforts to produce reliable PGSs.<br /> - The improvement offered by the predictors that account for PGS and covariates using neural networks highlights the importance of non-linear interactions that are not addressed by standard methods, which is both interesting and likely to be of future utility.

Weaknesses:

- The paper would benefit substantially from extensive editing. It also uses terminology that is specific to recent literature on PGSs, thus limiting accessibility to a broader readership.<br /> - The potential meaning of most of the results is not explored. Some examples are provided below:<br /> • the paper emphasizes that 18/62 covariates examined show significant effects, but this result clearly depends on the covariates included. It would be helpful to provide more detail on how these covariates were chosen. Moreover, many of these covariates are likely to be correlated, making this result more difficult to interpret. Could these questions at least be partially addressed using the predictors constructed using all covariates and their interactions jointly (i.e., with LASSO)? In that regard, it would be helpful to know how many of the covariates and interactions were used in this predictor (I apologize if I missed that).<br /> • While the relationship between covariate effects and covariate-PGS interaction effects is intriguing, it is difficult to interpret without articulating what one would expect, i.e., what would be an appropriate null.<br /> • The finding that using artificial neural networks substantially improves prediction over more standard methods is especially intriguing, and highlights the potential importance of non-linear relationships between PGSs and covariates. These relationships remain hidden in a black box, however. Even fairly straightforward analyses, based on using different combinations of the PGS and/or covariates may shed some light on these relationships. For example, analyzing which covariates have a substantial effect on the prediction or varying one covariate at a time for different values of the PGS, etc.<br /> - The relationship to previous work should be discussed in greater detail.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Braithwaite et al. present data from a comprehensive large-scale study of 18-month-old's visual attention. The authors leverage a battery of well-known visual attention tasks to replicate canonical effects found in the literature and assess the latent structure of these tasks. They find that, while controlling for eye tracking precision and accuracy, two factors best fit the data - attention to social and non-social stimuli.

Strengths:<br /> The current study represents what amounts to years of hard work collecting data from a population that is challenging to work with - young children. The authors have diligently attended to data cleaning and sample size throughout the manuscript. Not only do they provide a large-scale replication of several well-known tasks, but they use advanced statistical modeling to discover the structure of visual attention in these 18-month-olds. Overall, this is a valuable contribution to the literature and provides a useful framework for studying visual attention development.

Weaknesses:<br /> While the study is clearly a valuable addition to the extant literature, I have several concerns that might be addressed to improve the manuscript. These primarily center around clarity and conciseness. First, the introduction seems to lack clarity at times. For example, the first paragraph seems to introduce several ideas (e.g., brain and cognitive development, direct and indirect measures of cognition, eyetracking, etc) that make it hard to understand where the paper is going. The authors might consider homing in on 2 main points to motivate eye tracking as a tool. Second, there are many different eye tracking measures may make it difficult for the reader to track which measures were used for each task and which were relevant for the larger model. This may be remedied by adding a section to the methods that briefly describes how each measure was calculated and perhaps a table that lists each task, the measure, and how it was calculated. Third, the results are exciting but hard to visualize in the supplementary figures. I commend them on using raincloud plots to visualize the individual data, but I would strongly encourage the authors to rethink how they display the data. For example, I find the supplementary images hard to see and as a result the effects reported are hard to discern in the image. Fourth, I believe the current data warrant a deeper discussion of what these findings mean. For example, given the developmental nature of the current study, it would be valuable for the authors to discuss how the structure visual attention might change or stay the same across development. For example, do the authors believe the current two factor model would replicate in older children, or would exogenous and endogenous attention emerge as separable components? How do these predictions relate to the extensive research in the adult literature?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The manuscript "Mechanical activation of TWIK-related potassium channel by nanoscopic movement and second messenger signaling" presents a new mechanism for the activation of TREK-1 channel. The mechanism suggests that TREK1 is activated by phosphatidic acids that are produced via a mechanosensitive motion of PLD2 to PIP2-enriched domains. Overall, I found the topic interesting, but several typos and unclarities reduced the readability of the manuscript. Additionally, I have several major concerns on the interpretation of the results. Therefore, the proposed mechanism is not fully supported by the presented data. Lastly, the mechanism is based on several previous studies from the Hansen lab, however, the novelty of the current manuscript is not clearly stated. For example, in the 2nd result section, the authors stated, "fluid shear causes PLD2 to move from cholesterol dependent GM1 clusters to PIP2 clusters and this activated the enzyme". However, this is also presented as a new finding in section 3 "Mechanism of PLD2 activation by shear."

For PLD2 dependent TREK-1 activation. Overall, I found the results compelling. However, two key results are missing.<br /> 1. Does HEK cells have endogenous PLD2? If so, it's hard to claim that the authors can measure PLD2-independent TREK1 activation.<br /> 2. Does the plasma membrane trafficking of TREK1 remain the same under different conditions (PLD2 overexpression, truncation)? From Figure S2, the truncated TREK1 seem to have very poor trafficking. The change of trafficking could significantly contribute to the interpretation of the data in Figure 1.

For shear-induced movement of TREK1 between nanodomains. The section is convincing, however I'm not an expert on super-resolution imaging. Also, it would be helpful to clarify whether the shear stress was maintained during fixation. If not, what is the time gap between reduced shear and the fixed state. lastly, it's unclear why shear flow changes the level of TREK1 and PIP2.

For the mechanism of PLD2 activation by shear. I found this section not convincing. Therefore, the question of how does PLD2 sense mechanical force on the membrane is not fully addressed. Particularly, it's hard to imagine an acute 25% decrease cholesterol level by shear - where did the cholesterol go? Details on the measurements of free cholesterol level is unclear and additional/alternative experiments are needed to prove the reduction in cholesterol by shear.<br /> Importantly, there is no direct evidence for "shear thinning" of the membrane and the authors should avoid claiming shear thinning in the abstract and summary of the manuscript.

The authors should also be aware that hypotonic shock is a very dirty assay for stretching the cell membrane. Often, there is only a transient increase in membrane tension, accompanied by many biochemical changes in the cells (including acidification, changes of concentration etc). Therefore, I would not consider this as definitive proof that PLD2 can be activated by stretching membrane.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

A landmark work (Chouhan et al., 2022) from the Sehgal group previously investigated the relationship between sleep and long-term memory formation by dissecting the role of mushroom body intrinsic neurons, extrinsic neurons, and output neurons during sleep-dependent and sleep-independent memory consolidation. In this manuscript, Li et al., profiled transcriptome in the anterior-posterior (ap) α'/β' neurons and identified genes that are differentially expressed after training in fed condition, which supports sleep-dependent memory formation. By knocking down candidate genes systematically, the authors identified Polr1F and Regnase-1 as two important hits that play potential roles in sleep and memory formation. What is the function of sleep and how to create a memory are two long-standing questions in science. The present study used a creative approach to identify novel components that may link sleep and memory consolidation in a specific type of neuron. Importantly, these components implicated that RNA processing may play a role in these processes.

While I am enthusiastic about the innovative approach employed to identify RNA processing genes involved in sleep regulation and memory consolidation, I feel that the data presented in the manuscript is insufficient to support the claim that these two genes establish a definitive link between sleep and memory consolidation. First, the developmental role of Regnase-1 in reducing sleep remains unclear because knocking down Regnase-1 using the GeneSwitch system produced neither acute nor chronic sleep loss phenotype. To address potential confounding issues caused by the GeneSwtich system, I would suggest considering alternative methods, such as Gal80ts, to restrict the RNAi knockdown to adulthood. In addition, QPCR or other expression-measuring methods should be used to validate the specificity and efficiency of the knockdown. Further testing of additional RNAi fly lines and conducting overexpression experiments would also lend credibility to the phenotypes. Second, while constitutive Regnase-1 knockdown produced robust phenotypes for both sleep-dependent and sleep-independent memory, it also led to a severe short-term memory phenotype. This raises the possibility that flies with constitutive Regnase-1 knockdown are poor learners, thereby having little memory to consolidate. The defect in learning could be simply caused by chronic sleep loss before training. Thus, this set of results does not substantiate a strong link between sleep and long-term memory consolidation. Lastly, the discussion on the sequential function of training, sleep, and RNA processing on memory consolidation appears to be speculative based on the present data. While the novel approach did provide novel candidate genes with functions in sleep, memory, and potentially their link, the manuscript would greatly benefit from carefully adjusting the conclusions and incorporating rigorous validations for the RNAi knockdown experiments.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors investigated the effects of deletion of the ER-plasma membrane/Golgi tethering proteins tricalbins (Tcb1-3) on vacuolar morphology to demonstrate the role of membrane contact sites (MCSs) in regulating vacuolar morphology in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Their data show that tricalbin deletion causes vacuolar fragmentation possibly in parallel with TORC1 pathway. In addition, their data reveal that levels of various lipids including ceramides, long-chain base (LCB)-1P and phytosphingosine (PHS) are increased in tricalbin-deleted cells. The authors find that exogenously added PHS can induce vacuole fragmentation and by performing analyses of genes involved in sphingolipid metabolism, they conclude that vacuolar fragmentation in tricalbin-deleted cells is due to the accumulated PHS in these cells. Importantly, exogenous PHS- or tricalbin deletion-induced vacuole fragmentation was suppressed by loss of the nucleus vacuole junction (NVJ), suggesting the possibility that PHS transported from the ER to vacuoles via the NVJ triggers vacuole fission.

This work provides valuable insights into the relationship between MCS-mediated sphingolipid metabolism and vacuole morphology. The conclusions of this paper are mostly supported by their results, but there is concern about physiological roles of tricalbins and PHS in regulating vacuole morphology under known vacuole fission-inducing conditions. That is, in this paper it is not addressed whether the functions of tricalbins and PHS levels are controlled in response to osmotic shock, nutrient status, or ER stress.

There is another weakness in their claim that the transmembrane domain of Tcb3 contributes to the formation of the tricalbin complex which is sufficient for tethering ER to the plasma membrane and the Golgi complex. Their claim is based only on the structural simulation, but not on biochemical experiments such as co-immunoprecipitation and pull-down.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This manuscript deals with the sex-related gene, DMRT1, showing that it has a testis-promoting function in the rabbit. In loss-of-function studies in the mouse and human, DMRT1 has a role in testis maintenance after birth, although forced expression in the mouse can induce testis formation.

The authors used CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing to generate DMRT1-/- rabbit embryos. The gonads of these embryos developed as ovaries. Interestingly, in addition Y-linked SRY, DMRT1 is required for timely up-regulation of SOX9 during Sertoli cell differentiation in the male gonad. This is quite different to the situation in mice, where Dmrt1 is not required in the testis until after birth (and Sry induced up-regulation of Sox9 hence does not require Dmrt1).

The work adds to the field of sex determination by further broadening our understanding of the DMRT1 gene and the evolution of gonadal sex determination.

In the Discussion section, it is suggested that DMRT1 could act as a pioneering factor to allow SRY action upon Sox9 in the rabbit model. The data show that DMRT1 may be more central to testis formation in mammals than previously considered. The work supports the notion that our understanding that the genetics of gonadal development (and indeed development more generally) should not rest solely on findings in the mouse.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study on drug repurposing presents the identification of potent activators of the Hippo pathway. The authors successfully screen a drug library and identify two CLK kinase inhibitors as YAP activators, with SM04690 targeting specifically CLK2. They further investigate the molecular basis of SM04690-induced YAP activity and identify splicing events in AMOTL2 as strongly affected by CLK2 inhibition. Exon skipping within AMOTL2 decreases the interactions with membrane bound proteins and is sufficient to induce YAP target gene expression. Overall the study is well designed, the conclusions are supported by sufficient data and represent an exciting connection between alternative splicing and the HIPPO pathway. The specificity of the inhibitor towards CLK2 and the mode of action via AMOTL2 could be supported by further data:

1. The inconsistent inhibitor concentrations and varying results reported in the paper can be distracting. For instance, the response of endogenous targets to 100 nM concentration is described as a >5-fold increase in Figure 2B, whereas it is reported as a 1-1.5-fold response to 1000 nM in Figure 2D. This inconsistency should be addressed and clarified to provide a more accurate and reliable representation of the findings.<br /> 2. In the absence of a strong inhibitor induced YAP target gene expression (Figure 2D), it is difficult to conclude the dependency on YAP expression, as investigated by siRNA mediated knockdown. In a similar experiment, the dependency of the inhibitor on CLK2 expression could be confirmed<br /> 3. To further support the conclusion that CLK2 is the direct target of SM04690, it would be informative to investigate the effects of CLK1/4 inhibition on AMOTL2 exons (for example within RNA-seq data). If CLK1/4 inhibitors do not induce changes in AMOTL2 exons, it would strengthen the evidence for CLK2's role as the direct target. Including the results in the discussion would enhance the comprehensiveness of the study.<br /> 4. It would be important to determine the specific dose of SM04690 required to induce changes in AMOTL2 splicing. The authors observe that AMOTL2 protein levels appear unaffected at doses below 50 nM in Figure 3D, while YAP target genes are already affected at 20 nM in Figure 3G. Although Western blotting may not be the most sensitive method to detect minor changes in splicing, performing PCR experiments at lower doses could provide more insight into the splicing changes. Therefore, it is suggested that the authors include PCR experiments at lower doses to determine if changes in splicing are visible and to better establish the relationship between splicing and gene expression changes.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Sun et al. reveals several crystal structures that help underpin the offensive-defensive relationship between the sea slug Aplysia kurodai and algae. These centre on TNA (a algal glycosyl hydrolase inhibitor), EHEP (a slug protein that protects against TNA and like compounds) and BGL (a glycosyl hydrolase that helps digest algae). The hypotheses generated from the crystal structures herein are supported by biochemical assays.

The crystal structures of apo and TNA-bound EHEP reveals the binding (and thus protection) mechanism. The authors then demonstrate that the precipitated EHEP-TNA complex can be resolubilised at an alkaline pH, potentially highlighting a mechanism for EHEP recycling in the A. kurodai midgut. The authors also present the crystal structures of akuBGL, a beta-glucosidase utilised by Aplysia kurodai to digest laminarin in algae into glucose. The structure revealed that akuBGL is composed of two GH1 domains, with only one GH1 domain having the necessary residue arrangement for catalytic activity, which was confirmed via hydrolytic activity assays. Docking was used to assess binding of the substrate laminaritetraose and the inhibitors TNA, eckol and phloroglucinol to akuBGL. The docking studies revealed that the inhibitors bound akuBGL at the glycone-binding suggesting a competitive inhibition mechanism. Overall, most of the claims made in this work are supported by the data presented.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Light energy drives photosynthesis. However, excessive light can damage (i.e., photo-damage) and thus inactivate the photosynthetic process. A major target site of photo-damage is photosystem II (PSII). In particular, one component of PSII, the reaction center protein, D1, is very suspectable to photo-damage, however, this protein is maintained efficiently by an elaborate multi-step PSII-D1 turnover/repair cycle. Two proteases, FtsH and Deg, are known to contribute to this process, respectively, by efficient degradation of photo-damaged D1 protein processively and endoproteolytically. In this manuscript, Kato et al., propose an additional step (an early step) in the D1 degradation/repair pathway. They propose that "Tryptophan oxidation" at the N-terminus of D1 may be one of the key oxidations in the PSII repair, leading to processive degradation of D1 by FtsH. Both, their data and arguments are very compelling.

The D1 protein repair/degradation pathway in its simplest form can be defined essentially by five steps: (1) migration of damaged PSII core complex to the stroma thylakoid, (2) partial PSII disassembly of the PSII core monomer, (3) access of protease degrading damaged D1, (4) concomitant D1 synthesis, and (5) reassembly of PSII into grana thylakoid. An enormous amount of work has already been done to define and characterize these various steps. Kato et al., in this manuscript, are proposing a very early yet novel critical step in D1 protein turnover in which Tryptophan(Trp) oxidation in PSII core proteins influences D1 degradation mediated by FtsH.

Using a variety of approaches, such as mass-spectrometry (Table 1), site-directed mutagenesis (Figures 2-4), D1 degradation assays (Figures 3, and 4), and simulation modeling (Figure 5), Kato et al., provide both strong evidence and reasonable arguments that an N-terminal Trp oxidation may be likely to be a 'key' oxidative post-translational modification (OPTM) that is involved in triggering D1 degradation and thus activating the PSII repair pathway. Consequently, from their accumulated data, the authors propose a scenario in which the unraveling of the N-terminal of the D1 protein facilitated by Trp oxidation plays a critical 'recognition' role in alerting the plant that the D1 protein is photo-damaged and thus to kick start the processive degradation pathway initiated possibly by FtsH. Coincidently, Forsman and Eaton-Rye (Biochemistry 2021, 60, 1, 53-63), while working with the thermophilic cyanobacterium, Thermosynechococcus vulcanus, showed that when the N-terminal DE-loop of the D1 protein is photo-damaged a disruption of the interaction between the PsbT subunit and D1 occurs which may serve as a signal for PSII to undergo repair following photodamage. While the activation of the processive degradation pathways in Chlamydomonas versus Thermosynechococcus vulcanus have significant mechanistic differences, it's interesting to note and speculate that the stability of the N-terminal of their respective D1 proteins seems to play a critical role in 'signaling' the PSII repair system to be activated and initiate repair. But it's complicated. For instance, significant Trp oxidation also occurs on the lumen side of other PSII subunits which may also play a significant role in activating the repair processes as well. Indeed, Kato et al.,( Photosynthesis Research volume 126, pages 409-416 (2015)) proposed a two-step model whereby the primary event is disruption of a Mn-cluster in PSII on the lumen side. A secondary event is damage to D1 caused by energy that is absorbed by chlorophyll. But models adapt, change, and get updated. And the data provided by Kato et al., in this manuscript, gives us a unique glimpse/snapshot into the importance of the stability of the N-terminal during photo-damage and its role in D1-turnover. For instance, the author's use site-directed mutagenesis of Trp residues undergoing OPTM in the D1 protein coupled with their D1 degradation assays (Figure 3 and 4), provides evidence that Trp oxidation (in particular the oxidation of Trp14) in coordination with FtsH results in the degradation of D1 protein. Indeed, their D1 degradation assays coupled with the use of a ftsh mutant provide further significant support that Trp14 oxidation and FtsH activity are strongly linked. But for FstH to degrade D1 protein it needs to gain access to photo-damaged D1. FtsH access to D1 is achieved by having CP43 partially dissociate from the PSII complex. Hence, the authors also addressed the possibility that Trp oxidation may also play a role in CP43 disassembly from the PSII complex thereby giving FtsH access to D1. Using a site-directed mutagenesis approach, they showed that Trp oxidation in CP43 appeared to have little impact on the PSII repair (Supplemental Figure S6). This result shows that D1-Trp14 oxidation appears to be playing a role in D1 turnover that occurs after CP43 disassembly from the PSII complex. Alternatively, the authors cannot exclude the possibility that D1-Trp14 oxidation in some way facilitates CP43 dissociation. Further investigation is needed on this point. However, D1-Trp14 oxidation is causing an internal disruption of the D1 protein possibly at the N-terminus of the protein. Consequently, the role of Trp14 oxidation in disrupting the stability of the N-terminal domain of the D1 protein was analyzed computationally. Using a molecular dynamics approach (Figure 5), the authors attempted to create a mechanistic model to explain why when D1 protein Trp14 undergoes oxidation the N-terminal domain of D1protein becomes unraveled. Specifically, the authors propose that the interaction between D1 protein Trp14 with PsbI Ser25 becomes disrupted upon oxidation of Trp14. Consequently, the authors concluded from their molecular dynamics simulation analysis that " the increased fluctuation of the first α-helix of D1 would give a chance to recognize the photo-damaged D1 by FtsH protease". Hence, the author's experimental and computational approaches employed here develop a compelling early-stage repair model that integrates 1) Trp14 oxidation, 2) FtsH activation and 3) D1- turnover being initiated at its N-terminal domain. However, a word of caution should be emphasized here. This model is just a snapshot of the very early stages of the D1 protein turnover process. The data presented here gives us just a small glimpse into the unique relationship between Trp oxidation of the D1 protein which may trigger significant N-terminal structural changes of the D1 protein that both signals and provides an opportunity for FstH to begin protease digestion of the D1 protein. However, the authors go to great lengths in their discussion section to not overstate solely the role of Trp14 oxidation in the complicated process of D1 turnover. The authors certainly recognize that there are a lot of moving parts involved in D1 turnover. And while Trp14 oxidation is the major focus of this paper, the authors show in Supplemental Fig S4 the structural positions of various additional oxidized Trp residues in the Thermosynecoccocus vulcans PSII core proteins. Indeed, this figure shows that the majority of oxidized Trps are located on the luminal side of PSII complex clustered around the oxygen-evolving complex. So, while oxidized Trp14 may be involved in the early stages of D1 turnover certainly oxidized Trps on the lumen side are also more than likely playing a role in D1 turnover as well. To untangle this complex process will require additional research.

Nevertheless, identifying and characterizing the role of oxidative modification of tryptophan (Trp) residues, in particular, Trp14, in the PSII core provides another critical step in an already intricate multi-step process of D1 protein turnover during photo-damage.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The data presented suggest that their algorithm can replace a human operator, which is a strong enough reason to publish and disseminate the technology. At the same time, aspects of the methods and results could benefit from a clearer explication. For example, the reported R^2 values for their model's performance are less than 0.5, (0.191, 0.2, 0.345, 0.467). I take this to mean the model's predictions are better than the mean value but that it will probably not generalize well for data it hasn't seen yet. Please comment.

Did the authors partition their data into a training set, a validation set, and a test set? From the manuscript, it wasn't obvious to me they withheld a test set (a set of data never seen by the model, which they used to evaluate the performance of the model selected based on the validation set). From Extended Data Figures 1 and 2, I inferred that the number of samples in the confusion matrix matches the validation size (n=2341). So, are they reporting validation results and not test results? Please explain.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Zhou et al. demonstrate that the pseudokinase ULK4 has an important role in Hedgehog signaling by scaffolding the active kinase Stk36 and the transcription factor Gli2, enabling Gli2 to be phosphorylated and activated.<br /> Through nice biochemistry experiments, they show convincingly that the N-terminal pseudokinase domain of ULK4 binds Stk36 and the C-terminal Heat repeats bind Gli2.

Lastly, they show that upon Sonic Hedgehog signaling, ULK4 localizes to the cilia and is needed to localize Stk36 and Gli2 for proper activation.

This manuscript is very solid and methodically shows the role of ULK4 and STK36 throughout the whole paper, with well controlled experiments. The phosphomimetic and incapable mutations are very convincing as well.<br /> I think this manuscript is strong and stands as is, and there is no need for additional experiments.

Overall, the strengths are the rigor of the methods, and the convincing case they bring for the formation of the ULK4-Gli2-Stk36 complex. There are no weaknesses noted. I think a little additional context for what is being observed in the immunofluorescence might benefit readers who are not familiar with these cell types and structures.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The study by Thommen et al. sought to identify the native role of the Plasmodium falciparum FKBP35 protein, which has been identified as a potential drug target due to the antiplasmodial activity of the immunosuppressant FK506. This compound has multiple binding proteins in many organisms; however, only one FKBP exists in P. falciparum (FKBP35). Using genetically-modified parasites and mass spectrometry-based cellular thermal shift assays (CETSA), the authors suggest that this protein is in involved in ribosome homeostasis and that the antiplasmodial activity of FK506 is separate from its activity on the FKBP35 protein. The authors first created a conditional knockdown using the destruction domain/shield system, which demonstrated no change in asexual blood stage parasites. A conditional knockout was then generated using the DiCre system. FKBP35KO parasites survived the first generation but died in the second generation. The authors called this "a delayed death phenotype", although it was not secondary to drug treatment, so this may be a misnomer. This slow death was unrelated to apicoplast dysfunction, as demonstrated by lack of alterations in sensitivity to apicoplast inhibitors. Quantitative proteomics on the FKBP35KO vs FKBP35WT parasites demonstrated enrichment of proteins involved in pre-ribosome development and the nucleolus. Interestingly, the KO parasites were not more susceptible to cycloheximide, a translation inhibitor, in the first generation (G1), suggesting that mature ribosomes still exist at this point. The SunSET technique, which incorporates puromycin into nascent peptide chains, also showed that in G1 the FKBP35KO parasites were still able to synthesize proteins. But in the second generation (G2), there was a significant decrease in protein synthesis. Transcriptomics were also performed at multiple time points. The effects of knockout of FKBP35 were transcriptionally silent in G1, and the parasites then slowed their cell cycles as compared to the FKBP35WT parasites.

The authors next sought to evaluate whether killing by FK506 was dependent upon the inhibition of PfKBP35. Interestingly, both FKBP35KO and FKBP35WT parasites were equally susceptible to FK506. This suggested that the antiplasmodial activity of FK506 was related to activity targeting essential functions in the parasite separate from binding to FKBP35. To identify these potential targets, the authors used MS-CETSA on lysates to test for thermal stabilization of proteins after exposure to drug, which suggests drug-protein interactions. As expected, FK506 bound FKBP35 at low nM concentrations. However, given that the parasite IC50 of this compound is in the uM range, the authors searched for proteins stabilized at these concentrations as putative secondary targets. Using live cell MS-CETSA, FK506 bound FKBP35 at low nM concentrations; however, in these experiments over 50 ribosomal proteins were stabilized by the drug at higher concentrations. Of note, there was also an increase in soluble ribosomal factors in the absence of denaturing conditions. The authors suggested that the drug itself led to these smaller factors disengaging from a larger ribosomal complex, leading to an increase in soluble factors. Ultimately, the authors conclude that the native function of FKBP35 is involved in ribosome homeostasis and that the antiplasmodial activity of FK506 is not related to the binding of FKBP35, but instead results from inhibition of essential functions of secondary targets.

Strengths<br /> This study has many strengths. It addresses an important gap in parasite biology and drug development, by addressing the native role of the potential antiplasmodial drug target FKBP35 and whether the compound FK506 works through inhibition of that putative target. The knockout data provide compelling evidence that the KBP35 protein is essential for asexual parasite growth after one growth cycle. Analysis of the FKBP35KO line also provides evidence that the effects of FK506 are likely not solely due to inhibition of that protein, but instead must have secondary targets whose function is essential. These data are important in the field of drug development as they may guide development away from structure-based FK506 analogs that bind more specifically to the FKBP35 protein.

Weaknesses:<br /> There are also a few notable weaknesses in the evidence that call into question the conclusion in the article title that FKBP35 is definitely involved in ribosomal homeostasis. While the proteomics supports alterations in ribosome biogenesis factors, it is unclear whether this is a direct role of the loss of the FKBP35 protein or is more related to non-specific downstream effects of knocking down the protein. The CETSA data clearly demonstrate that FK506 binds PfKB35 at low nM concentrations, which is different than the IC50 noted in the parasite; however, the evidence that the proteins stabilized by uM concentrations of drug are actual targets is not completely convincing. Especially, given the high uM amounts of drug required to stabilize these proteins. This section of the manuscript would benefit from validation of a least one or two of the putative candidates noted in the text. In the live cell CETSA, it is noted that >50 ribosomal components are stabilized in drug treated but not lysate controls. Similarly, the authors suggest that the -soluble fraction of ribosomal components increases in drug-exposed parasites even at 37{degree sign}C and suggests that this is likely from smaller ribosomal proteins disengaging from larger ribosomal complexes. While the evidence is convincing that this protein may play a role in ribosome homeostasis in some capacity, it is not sure that the title of the paper "FKBP secures ribosome homeostasis" holds true given the lack of mechanistic data. A minor weakness, but one that should nonetheless be addressed, is the use of the term "delayed death phenotype" with regards to the knockout parasite killing. This term is most frequently used in a very specific setting of apicoplast drugs that inhibit apicoplast ribosomes, so the term is misleading. It is also possible that the parasites are able to go through a normal cycle because of the kinetics of the knockout and that the time needed for protein clearance in the parasite to a level that is lethal.

Overall, the authors set out to identify the native role of FKB35 in the P. falciparum parasites and to identify whether this is, in fact, the target of FK506. The data clearly demonstrate that FKBP35 is essential for parasite growth and provide evidence that alterations in its levels have proteomic but not transcriptional changes. However, the conclusion that FKBP35 actually stabilizes ribosomal complexes remains intermediate. The data are also very compelling that FK506 has secondary targets in the parasite aside from FKBP35; however, the high uM concentrations of the drug needed to attain results and the lack of biological validation of the CETSA hits makes it difficult to know whether any of these are actually the target of the compound or instead are nonspecific downstream consequences of treatment.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

GluK1 forms glutamate-gated ion channels with an important function in synaptic transmission and neuron excitability. Particularly, a GluK1 splice-variant (Gluk1-1) with significant expression in different regions of the brain has not been characterized before. The paper of Dhingra et al. aims to evaluate the role of the Exon 9 splice insert in GluK1 on channel function. This study relies mainly on electrophysiological approaches to determine the effect of the splice insert on GluK1 gating properties, including desensitization, agonist efficacy, recovery, and rectification. Overall, this work provides two major milestones: 1) the first functional characterization of the Gluk1-1a variant and 2) the first structure of this channel. The functional data supporting the role of the insert on channel properties are solid, although the current data does not provide significant insights about the mechanisms behind this. Also, the little information associated with the resolved structure precludes providing further insights about the structural basis that account for the impact of the insert on channel function. Overall, I consider this an interesting paper that represents an important advance in the study of glutamate receptors.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Lee, Kyungtae and colleagues have discovered and mapped out alpha-arrestin interactomes in both human and Drosophila through the affinity purification/mass spectrometry and the SAINTexpress method. They found the high confident interactomes, consisting of 390 protein-protein interactions (PPIs) between six human alpha-arrestins and 307 preproteins, as well as 740 PPIs between twelve Drosophila alpha-arrestins and 467 prey proteins. To define and characterize these identified alpha-arrestin interactomes, the team employed a variety of widely recognized bioinformatics tools. These included protein domain enrichment analysis, PANTHER for protein class enrichment, DAVID for subcellular localization analysis, COMPLEAT for the identification of functional complexes, and DIOPT to identify evolutionary conserved interactomes. Through these analyses, they confirmed known alpha-arrestin interactors' role and associated functions such as ubiquitin ligase and protease. Furthermore, they found unexpected biological functions in the newly discovered interactomes, including RNA splicing and helicase, GTPase-activating proteins, ATP synthase. The authors carried out further study into the role of human TXNIP in transcription and epigenetic regulation, as well as the role of ARRDC5 in osteoclast differentiation. This study holds important value as the newly identified alpha-arrestin interactomes are likely aiding functional studies of this group of proteins. Despite the overall support from data for the paper's conclusions, certain elements related to data quantification, interpretation, and presentation demand more detailed explanation and clarification.

1) In Figure 1B, it is shown that human alpha-arrestins were N-GFP tagged (N-terminal) and Drosophila alpha-arrestins were C-GFP (C-terminal). However, the rationale of why the authors used different tags for human and fly proteins was not explained in the main text and methods.<br /> 2) In Figure 2A, there seems to be an error for labeling the GAL4p/GAL80p complex that includes NOTCH2, NOTCH1 and TSC2.<br /> 3) In Figure 5, given that knockdown of TXNIP did not affect the levels and nuclear localization of HDAC2, the authors suggest that TXNIP might modulate HDAC2 activity. However, the ChiP assay suggest a different model - TXNIP-HDAC2 interaction might inhibit the chromatin occupancy of HDAC2, reducing histone deacetylation and increasing global chromatin accessibly. The authors need to propose a model consistent with these sets of all data.<br /> 4) The authors showed that ectopic expression of ARRDC5 increased osteoclast differentiation and function. Does loss of ARDDC5 lead to defects in osteoclast function and fate determination?<br /> 5) From Figure 6D, the authors argued that ARRDC5 overexpression resulted in more V-ATPase signals: however, there is no quantification. Quantification of the confocal images will foster the conclusion. Also, western blots for V-ATPase proteins will provide an alternative way to determine the effects of ARRDC5.<br /> 6) The results from Figure 6D did not support the authors' argument that ARRDC5 might control the membrane localization of the V-ATPase, as bafilomycin is the V-ATPase inhibitor. ARRDC5 knockdown experiments will help to determine whether ARRDC5 can control the membrane localization of the V-ATPase in osteoclast.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors generated a novel sfGFP::Aβ C. elegans models of AD that expresses Abeta aggregates extracellularly; using this worm model, they identified that a disintegrin and metalloprotease ADM-2, an ortholog of human ADAM9, participated in removing these extracellular aggregates. This worm model may be very useful to the AD field after further characterization.

A novelty of this paper is the generation of a worm model of AD that produces extracellular Abeta aggregates, mimicking one of the two disease-defining pathological features of AD. The authors have also identified a protein which inhibits Abeta aggregation in the AD worm model; if these data are relevant to humans, they may reveal a new druggable target against AD.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The study, performed in the animal model C. elegans, aims at characterizing functional differences in the meiosis-specific kleisins, REC-8 and COH-3/4.<br /> The authors conclude that in worms the identity of the kleisin subunit of the cohesin complex determines whether cohesin promotes cohesion, or controls higher-order chromosome structure. COH-3/4 is highly abundant and dynamic and responds to SCC-2 and WAPL-1. In contrast, REC-8 complexes associate stably and in low abundance and are resistant to SCC-2 and WAPL-1 perturbations.

Main points:

This study is a continuation and partially a repeat of a study Castellano-Pozo & Martinez-Perez published in Nat. Comm. 2020, in which they depleted COH-3/4 and REC-8 by injecting TEV and cleaved artificially engineered TEV sites in these kleisins.The results were slightly different though, as the authors concluded: "Disassembly of axial elements requires simultaneous removal of REC-8 and COH-3/4."

The current study uses a degron instead of TEV and SIM to revisit the same result. This time, degradation of COH-3/4 alone, but not of Rec8 alone completely eliminates axial elements. It seems that, if the conclusion is now correct, the previous headline must be incorrect, showing that more care has to be taken in the conclusions.

One new experiment in this study is the degradation of scc-2::AID::GFP. The authors treat the germline with auxin for 14 hours. How long scc-2::AID actually needs for degradation and thus, how long cells actually remain without SCC-2, is unknown. What is definitely needed is a serious analysis of the speed of degradation of Scc2 in the various stages.

It is currently not possible to estimate, as the authors do, how long cells have been without SCC-2. This estimation assumes an immediate depletion of SCC-2.<br /> If this were indeed the case, then depletion intervals should be much shorter, because the important primary phenotypes occur immediately after depletion, not 14 hours later.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This paper was a significant and commendable effort, given all the challenges in TB genetics research. It was generally well written and analyses well done. Analytical methods were appropriate. The inclusion of polygenic heritability estimates is also nice to have within this large work. There is also a wealth of supplemental data provided, which will be useful to the field.

However, there are a number of important weaknesses that need to be addressed. These are listed here, and recommended revisions are addressed in the recommendations section:<br /> 1. As the authors point out, one of the challenges in this work is the varying phenotype definitions (diagnosis of TB cases, definition of controls) across all the included genetic studies. Table S1 is critical for this, however it is missing information, and some of the information is unclear. More importantly, the authors state multiple times that there is no evidence of heterogeneity due to these variable phenotype definitions, and that genetic ancestry contributes more to differences in effect sizes between GWAS than study design. However, these two things are confounded - different study designs / phenotype definitions were used in studies of different ancestry.<br /> 2. The polygenic heritability analysis table is not explained very well.<br /> 3. The supplemental data file is not very helpful without some sort of guide. It isn't clear whether the wealth of candidate genes that have been studied in TB were examined in these data. That would be a great benefit of this work.<br /> 4. There needs to be clarity on how unpublished works were sought. In non-genetic meta-analyses, there is usually some detail about a process of contacting authors, etc. There needs to be some assurance that every attempt was made to collect all the relevant data. It is also not clear why family-based analyses could not be included considering that summary statistics were the basis of analysis.<br /> 5. It is rather surprising that only one locus meets genome-wide significance. The authors do explain this well in terms of the ancestry-specific effects driving these results, but it is also surprising that no candidate genes (that had not been discovered in GWAS studies, but were rather studied separately) did not rise to some higher significance threshold.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Liu and colleagues examined learning and brain plasticity in neurotypical children and children with autism. The main findings include autistic children relying more on rule-based versus memory-based learning strategies, altered associations between learning gains and brain plasticity in children with autism, and insistence on sameness as a moderator between brain plasticity and learning in autism. Although the sample size is limited in this study, the findings provide a significant contribution to the field.

The major strengths of this paper include an extensive pre and post training protocol, a detailed methods section, rationale behind the study, investigation of a potential moderator of learning gains and neural plasticity, and investigation of "neural plasticity" in association to learning in autism.

Weaknesses of the study include a small sample size, and some missing information/analyses from the study.

The authors laid out four clear aims of the study. They investigated these aims and the analytic approaches were appropriate.

The paper included significant findings toward better understanding the mechanisms underlying differences in learning strategies and behavior in children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. This holds significant value in educational and classroom settings. Further, the investigation of a potential moderator of learning gains and neural plasticity provides a potential mechanism to improve the relationship. Overall, this is a significant contribution to the field.

The autism literature is limited in understanding differences in learning styles and the underlying neural mechanisms of these differences.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this paper, the authors report cervical cancer screening practice during the covid pandemic in the US from the perspective of health professionals (HPs). Two methods were used: survey and regression analysis, and qualitative interviews. Analyses indicated that older, non-White, internal medicine, and family medicine clinicians and those practicing in community health centers had higher odds of reporting reduced screening. Interviews highlighted disruptions of services and a lack of tracking systems.<br /> The strengths of the paper are mainly i) using three different sources of HPs' recruitment and ii) being able to recruit a large number of participants in both survey and interviews and iii) the demographic characteristics of the interviewees were similar to those of the participants of the survey.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Once inside a cellular vacuole, Salmonella senses the low pH and activates the transcriptional regulator SsrB to induce expression of the Salmonella pathogenicity island 2 genes that are essential for intracellular survival and replication inside the host. This study investigates the mechanisms by which SsrB senses the pH changes, and with a series of elegant experiments identify a conserved residue in the receiver domain, His12, as essential for pH sensing and Salmonella virulence.

Overall, this study identifies an important mechanism of pathogen virulence, which could be targeted to control intracellular replication of the pathogen. The experiments are well conducted, the manuscript is clearly written, and the data are convincing and well presented. The authors perform a logical and detailed analysis of several portions of SsrB to finally identify His12 as a key residue for pH sensing. This was not an easy task. Moreover, the fact that a single amino acid appears to be so important for SsrB pH sensing and SsrB phosphorylation is an important finding for potentially targeting SsrB and inhibiting Salmonella virulence.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The work proposes a model of neural information processing based on a 'synergistic global workspace,' which processes information in three principal steps: a gatekeeping step (information gathering), an information integration step, and finally, a broadcasting step. The authors determined the synergistic global workspace based on previous work and extended the role of its elements using 100 fMRI recordings of the resting state of healthy participants of the HCP. The authors then applied network analysis and two different measures of information integration to examine changes in reduced states of consciousness (such as anesthesia and after-coma disorders of consciousness). They provided an interpretation of the results in terms of the proposed model of brain information processing, which could be helpful to be implemented in other states of consciousness and related to perturbative approaches. Overall, I found the manuscript to be well-organized, and the results are interesting and could be informative for a broad range of literature, suggesting interesting new ideas for the field to explore. However, there are some points that the authors could clarify to strengthen the paper. Key points include:

1. The work strongly relies on the identification of the regions belonging to the synergistic global workspace, which was primarily proposed and computed in a previous paper by the authors. It would be great if this computation could be included in a more explicit way in this manuscript to make it self-contained. Maybe include some table or figure being explicit in the Gradient of redundancy-to-synergy relative importance results and procedure.

2. It would be beneficial if the authors could provide further explanation regarding the differences in the procedure for selecting the workspace and its role within the proposed architecture. For instance, why does one case uses the strength of the nodes while the other case uses the participation coefficient? It would be interesting to explore what would happen if the workspace was defined directly using the participation coefficient instead of the strength. Additionally, what impact would it have on the procedure if a different selection of modules was used? For example, instead of using the RSN, other criteria, such as modularity algorithms, PCA, Hidden Markov Models, Variational Autoencoders, etc., could be considered. The main point of my question is that, probably, the RSN are quite redundant networks and other methods, as PCA generates independent networks. It would be helpful if the authors could offer some comments on their intuition regarding these points without necessarily requiring additional computations.

3. The authors acknowledged the potential relevance of perturbative approaches in terms of PCI and quantification of consciousness. It would be valuable if the authors could also discuss perturbative approaches in relation to inducing transitions between brain states. In other words, since the authors investigate disorders of consciousness where interventions could provide insights into treatment, as suggested by computational and experimental works, it would be interesting to explore the relationship between the synergistic workspace and its modifications from this perspective as well.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The study by Ngodup and colleagues describes the contribution of sodium leak NALCN conductance on the effects of noradrenaline on cartwheel interneurons of the DCN. The manuscript is very well-written and the experiments are well-controlled. The scope of the study is of high biological relevance and recapitulates a primary finding of the Khaliq lab (Philippart et al., eLife, 2018) in ventral midbrain dopamine neurons, that Gi/o-coupled receptors inhibit NALCN current to reduce neuronal excitability. Together these studies provide unequivocable evidence for NALCN as a downstream target of these receptors. There are no major concerns. I have only minor suggestions:

Minor<br /> 1. As introduced in the introduction, NALCN is inhibited by extracellular calcium which has led to some discourse of the relevance of NALCN when recorded in 0.1 mM calcium. A strength of this study is the effect of NA on NALCN is recorded in physiological levels of calcium (1.2 mM). I suggest including the concentration of extracellular calcium in the aCSF in the Results section instead of relying on the reader to look to the Methods.

2. It would be interesting to include the basal membrane properties of the KO compared to wildtype, including membrane resistance and resting membrane potential. From the example recording in Figure 2, one might think that the KOs have lower membrane resistance, so it is interesting that the 2 mV hyperpolarization produced similar effects on rheobase. In addition, from the example in Figure 2G, it appears that NA has an effect on firing frequency with large current injection in the KO. Is this true in grouped data and if so, is there any speculation into how this occurs?

3. Please expand on the rationale for why GABAB and alpha2 must be physically close to NALCN. To my knowledge, the mechanism by which these receptors inhibit NALCN is not known. Must it be membrane-delimited?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Functional and anatomical studies of spinal circuitry in vertebrates have formed the basis of our understanding of neuronal control of movements. Larval zebrafish provide a simplified system for deciphering spinal circuitry. In this manuscript, the authors performed scRNAseq on spinal cord neurons in larval zebrafish, identifying major classes of neuronal and glial types. Through transcriptome analysis, they validated several key interneuron types previously implicated in zebrafish locomotion circuitry. The authors went beyond identifying transcriptional markers and explored synaptic molecules associated with the strength of motor output. They discovered molecular distinctions causally related to the unique physiology of primary motoneuron (PMn) function, which involves providing strong synaptic outputs for escapes and fast swimming. They defined functional 'cassettes' comprising specific combinations of voltage-dependent ion channel types and synaptic proteins, likely responsible for generating maximal motor outputs.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Syntactic parsing is a highly dynamic process: When an incoming word is inconsistent with the presumed syntactic structure, the brain has to reanalyze the sentence and construct an alternative syntactic structure. Since syntactic parsing is a hidden process, it is challenging to describe the syntactic structure a listener internally constructs at each time moment. Here, the authors overcome this problem by (1) asking listeners to complete a sentence at some break point to probe the syntactic structure mentally constructed at the break point, and (2) using a DNN model to extract the most likely structure a listener may extract at a time moment. After obtaining incremental syntactic features using the DNN model, the authors analyze how these syntactic features are represented in the brain using MEG.

Although the analyses are detailed, the current conclusion needs to be further specified. For example, in the abstract, it is concluded that "Our results reveal a detailed picture of the neurobiological processes involved in building structured interpretations through the integration across multifaceted constraints". The readers may remain puzzled after reading this conclusion.

Similarly, for the second part of the conclusion, i.e., "including an extensive set of bilateral brain regions beyond the classical fronto-temporal language system, which sheds light on the distributed nature of language processing in the brain."<br /> The more extensive cortical activation may be attributed to the spatial resolution of MEG, and it is quite well acknowledged that language processing is quite distributive in the brain.

The authors should also discuss:

(1) individual differences (whether the BERT representation is a good enough approximation of the mental representation of individual listeners).

(2) parallel parsing (I think the framework here should allow the brain to maintain parallel representations of different syntactic structures but the analysis does not consider parallel representations).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Vitamin A is critical for the development of the brain and for neuronal function and plasticity, however the mechanisms responsible for the uptake of retinol across the blood brain barrier (BBB) are currently not known. The authors investigate vitamin A uptake across the blood brain barrier using an in vitro model based on endothelial cells differentiated from human derived induced pluripotent stem cells. Using recombinant cargo proteins and radioactive tracers the authors then propose a mechanism and a kinetic model for the uptake of retinol across the BBB that requires serum retinol binding protein 4 (RBP4 or RBP) and its receptor stimulated by retinoic acid 6 (STRA6). The results support a concentration dependent mechanism of transport combining a rapid fluid-phase retinol and a slower directed RBP-complexed retinol across the BBB. The data also hint at the potential regulatory roles of TTR on this process independent of its interaction with RBP.

Strengths:<br /> The studies are rigorous and careful and the authors consider free retinol uptake from the fluid-phase in addition to evaluating RBP-TTR and RBP-STRA6 interactions.<br /> The antibody to STRA6 is validated.<br /> The experiments performed are clearly described.

Weaknesses:<br /> The results presented do not offer significant new information regarding the uptake of retinol by tissues beyond what is known and published using genetic, structural and biochemical approaches.<br /> The use of the iPSC-derived BBB model is potentially interesting but this could have been complemented by a thorough genetic dissection of the cellular factors required for the uptake, transcellular transport, and secretion of retinol by the brain endothelial cells.<br /> The conclusions derived are not well supported by the data presented.<br /> It is difficult to infer a mechanism or to derive a meaningful conclusion regarding the in vivo relevance of the results presented.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Here, the authors trained catElMo, a new context-aware embedding model for TCRβ CDR3 amino acid sequences for TCR-epitope specificity and clustering tasks. This method benchmarked existing work in protein and TCR language models and investigated the role that model architecture plays in the prediction performance. The major strength of this paper is comprehensively evaluating common model architectures used, which is useful for practitioners in the field. However, some key details were missing to assess whether the benchmarking study is a fair comparison between different architectures. Major comments are as follows:

- It is not clear why epitope sequences were also embedded using catELMo for the binding prediction task. Because catELMO is trained on TCRβ CDR3 sequences, it's not clear what benefit would come from this embedding. Were the other embedding models under comparison also applied to both the TCR and epitope sequences? It may be a fairer comparison if a single method is used to encode epitope sequence for all models under comparison, so that the performance reflects the quality of the TCR embedding only.<br /> - The tSNE visualization in Figure 3 is helpful. It makes sense that the last hidden layer features separate well by binding labels for the better performing models. However, it would be useful to know if positive and negative TCRs for each epitope group also separate well in the original TCR embedding space. In other words, how much separation between these groups is due to the neural network vs just the embedding?<br /> - To generate negative samples, the author randomly paired TCRs from healthy subjects to different epitopes. This could produce issues with false negatives if the epitopes used are common. Is there an estimate for how frequently there might be false negatives for those commonly occurring epitopes that most populations might also have been exposed to? Could there be a potential batch effect for the negative sampled TCR that confounds with the performance evaluation?<br /> - Most of the models being compared were trained on general proteins rather than TCR sequences. This makes their comparison to catELMO questionable since it's not clear if the improvement is due to the training data or architecture. The authors partially addressed this with BERT-based models in section 2.4. This concern would be more fully addressed if the authors also trained the Doc2vec model (Yang et al, Figure 2) on TCR sequences as baseline models instead of using the original models trained on general protein sequences. This would make clear the strength of context-aware embeddings if the performance is worse than catElmo and BERT.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The study aims at creating novel episodic memories during slow wave sleep, that can be transferred in the awake state. To do so, participants were simultaneously presented during sleep both foreign words and their arbitrary translations in their language (one word in each ear), or as a control condition only the foreign word alone, binaurally. Stimuli were presented either at the trough or the peak of the slow oscillation using a closed-loop stimulation algorithm. To test for the creation of a flexible association during sleep, participant were then presented at wake with the foreign words alone and had (1) to decide whether they had the feeling of having heard that word before, (2) to attribute this word to one out of three possible conceptual categories (to which translations word actually belong), and (3) to rate their confidence about their decision.

The paper is well written, the protocol ingenious and the methods are robust. However, the results do not really add conceptually to a prior publication of this group showing the possibility to associate in slow wave sleep pairs of words denoting large or small object and non words, and then asking during ensuing wakefulness participant to categorise these non words to a "large" or "small" category. In both cases, the main finding is that this type of association can be formed during slow wave sleep if presented at the trough (versus the peak) of the slow oscillation. Crucially, whether these associations truly represent episodic memory formation during sleep, as claimed by the authors, is highly disputable as there is no control condition allowing to exclude the alternative, simpler hypothesis that mere perceptual associations between two elements (foreign word and translation) have been created and stored during sleep (which is already in itself an interesting finding). In this latter case, it would be only during the awake state when the foreign word is presented that its presentation would implicitly recall the associated translation, which in turn would "ignite" the associative/semantic association process eventually leading to the observed categorisation bias (i.e., foreign words tending to be put in the same conceptual category than their associated translation). In the absence of a dis-confirmation of this alternative and more economical hypothesis, and if we follow Ocam's razor assumption, the claim that there is episodic memory formation during sleep is speculative and unsupported, which is a serious limitation irrespective of the merits of the study. The title and interpretations should be toned down in this respect

Other remarks:

Lines 43-45 : the assumption that the sleeping brain decides whether external events can be disregarded, requires awakening or should be stored for further consideration in the waking state is dubious, and the supporting references date from a time (the 60') during which hypnopedia was investigated in badly controlled sleep conditions (leaving open the doubt about the possibility that it occurred during micro awakenings)

1st paragraph, lines 48-53 , the authors should be more specific about what kind of new associations and at which level they can be stored during sleep according to recent reports, as a wide variety of associations (mostly elementary levels) are shown in the cited references. Limitations in information processing during sleep should also be acknowledged.

The authors ran their main behavioural analyses on delayed retrieval at 36h rather than 12h with the argument that retrieval performance was numerically larger at 36 than 12h but the difference was non-significant (line 181-183), and that effects were essentially similar. Looking at Figure 2, is the trough effect really significant at 12h ? In any case, the fact that it is (numerically) higher at 36 than 12h might suggest that the association created at the first 12h retrieval (considering the alternative hypothesis proposed above) has been reinforced by subsequent sleep.

In the discussion section lines 419-427, the argument is somehow circular in claiming episodic memory mechanisms based on functional neuroanatomical elements that are not tested here, and the supporting studies conducted during sleep were in a different setting (e.g. TMR)

Supplementary Material: in the EEG data the differentiation between correct and incorrect ulterior classifications when presented at the peak of the slow oscillation is only significant in association with 36h delayed retrieval but not at 12h, how do the authors explain this lack of effect at 12 hour?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

SOCE is a ubiquitous cell signalling pathway that sustains long-lasting Ca2+ elevations required for the proliferation of T cells and the differentiation and contractility of skeletal muscle. Patients with loss of function mutations in either STIM1 or ORAI1 suffer from severe combined immunodeficiency while patients with gain-of-function mutations suffer from muscle weakness. The report that an intracellular calcium channel acts as a tether at membrane contact sites to regulate the activity of STIM/ORAI channels is thus relevant for health and disease, given the essential role of the SOCE pathway for immune and muscle cell function.

The IP3R is the major Ca2+ release pathway that initiates the STIM/ORAI activation cascade and the group of Colin Taylor (coauthor of the present study) showed that a pool of immobile receptors licensed to respond to physiological stimuli localizes near STIM-ORAI interaction sites at ER-PM junctions DOI: 10.1016/j.ceb.2018.10.001. This group further showed that IP3Rs are tethered to PM-bound actin by the KRas-induced actin-interacting protein (KRAP) DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-24739-9 while the group of Indu Ambudkar showed that IP3R is juxtaposed to immobile STIM2 clusters within ER-PM junctions DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2114928118 The mechanism by which IP3R impinges on SOCE at ER-PM contact sites remains unclear, however.

The present study provides an important clue by showing that IP3Rs themselves can act as tethering proteins independently of their calcium release function. However, several important questions remain unanswered. Are the native and mutated receptors recruited differentially to ER-PM junctions? If so, what interacting partner(s) and mechanisms enable IP3-bound receptors to enhance the interactions between STIM1 and ORAI1? And why is this effect restricted to neuronal cells?

Previous studies indicate that IP3R can interact with actin via KRAP, with STIM proteins, with ORAI channels, and with phosphoinositides. The authors point to phosphoinositides as a potential target that could explain the need for IP3, but this possibility has not been experimentally addressed. They should establish whether phosphoinositides are involved in the recruitment of IP3R receptors and provide additional mechanistic insight by documenting whether IP3R depletion impacts the stability of contact sites or their ability to exchange lipids between membranes. Another unresolved question relates to the observation that the phenotype is restricted to neuronal cell types and absent in HEK-293 cells typically used for electrophysiological recordings of CRAC currents. The authors should attempt to clarify the molecular basis of this difference between cell types.

From a methodological standpoint, one limitation is that the functional assays used are quite indirect. One critical SOCE determinant is the filling state of intracellular calcium stores, which was estimated indirectly by measuring the amplitude of the Ca2+ elevation evoked by the addition of the SERCA inhibitor thapsigargin. Although this method is widely used it does not directly reflect the key parameter driving STIM1 activation which is the free calcium concentration within the ER lumen. Direct ER [Ca2+] recordings are required to clarify this critical point.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary of Author's Results/Intended Achievements<br /> The authors were trying to ascertain the underlying learning mechanisms and network structure that could explain their primary experimental finding: passive exposure to a stimulus (independent of when the exposure occurs) can lead to improvements in active (supervised) learning. They modeled their task with 5 progressively more complex shallow neural networks classifying vectors drawn from multi-variate Gaussian distributions.

Account of Major Strengths:<br /> Overall, the experimental findings were interesting, albeit not necessarily novel. The modelling was also appropriate, with a solid attempt at matching the experimental condition to simplified network models.

Account of Major Weaknesses:<br /> I would say there are two major weaknesses of this work. The first is that even Model 5 differs from their data. For example, the A+P (passive interleaved condition) learning curve in Figure 7 seems to be non-monotonic, and has some sort of complex eigenvalue in its decay to the steady state performance as trials increase. This wasn't present in their experimental data (Figure 2D), and implies a subtle but important difference. There also appear to be differences in how quickly the initial learning (during early trials) occurs for the A+P and A:P conditions. While both A+P and A:P conditions learn faster than A only in M5, A+P and A:P seem to learn in different ways, which isn't supported in their data. The second major weakness is that the authors also don't generate any predictions with M5. Can they test this model of learning somehow in follow-up behavioural experiments in mice?

Discussion of Likely Impact:<br /> Without follow-up experiments to test their mechanism of why passive exposure helps in a schedule-independent way, the impact of this paper will be limited.

Additional Context:<br /> I believe the authors need to place this work in the context of a large amount of existing literature on passive (unsupervised) and active (supervised) learning interactions. This field is broad both experimentally and computationally. For example, there is an entire sub-field of machine learning, called semi-supervised learning that is not mentioned at all in this work.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study investigates the hypothesis that humans (but not non-human primates) spontaneously learn reversible temporal associations (i.e., learning a B-A association after only being exposed to A-B sequences), which the authors consider to be a foundational property of symbolic cognition. To do so, they expose humans and macaques to 2-item sequences (in a visual-auditory experiment, pairs of images and spoken nonwords, and in a visual-visual experiment, pairs of images and abstract geometric shapes) in a fixed temporal order, then measure the brain response during a test phase to congruent vs. incongruent pairs (relative to the trained associations) in canonical vs. reversed order (relative to the presentation order used in training). The advantage of neuroimaging for this question is that it removes the need for a behavioral test, which non-human primates can fail for reasons unrelated to the cognitive construct being investigated. In humans, the researchers find statistically indistinguishable incongruity effects in both directions (supporting a spontaneous reversible association), whereas in monkeys they only find incongruity effects in the canonical direction (supporting an association but a lack of spontaneous reversal). Although the precise pattern of activation varies by experiment type (visual-auditory vs. visual-visual) in both species, the authors point out that some of the regions involved are also those that are most anatomically different between humans and other primates. The authors interpret their finding to support the hypothesis that reversible associations, and by extension symbolic cognition, is uniquely human.

This study is a valuable complement to prior behavioral work on this question. However, I have some concerns about methods and framing.

Methods - Design issues:

1. The authors originally planned to use the same training/testing protocol for both species but the monkeys did not learn anything, so they dramatically increased the amount of training and evaluation. By my calculation from the methods section, humans were trained on 96 trials and tested on 176, whereas the monkeys got an additional 3,840 training trials and 1,408 testing trials. The authors are explicit that they continued training the monkeys until they got a congruity effect. On the one hand, it is commendable that they are honest about this in their write-up, given that this detail could easily be framed as deliberate after the fact. On the other hand, it is still a form of p-hacking, given that it's critical for their result that the monkeys learn the canonical association (otherwise, the critical comparison to the non-canonical association is meaningless).

2. Between-species comparisons are challenging. In addition to having differences in their DNA, human participants have spent many years living in a very different culture than that of NHPs, including years of formal education. As a result, attributing the observed differences to biology is challenging. One approach that has been adopted in some past studies is to examine either young children or adults from cultures that don't have formal educational structures. This is not the approach the authors take. This major confound needs to minimally be explicitly acknowledged up front.

3. Humans have big advantages in processing and discriminating spoken stimuli and associating them with visual stimuli (after all, this is what words are in spoken human languages). Experiment 2 ameliorates these concerns to some degree, but still, it is difficult to attribute the failure of NHPs to show reversible associations in Experiment 1 to cognitive differences rather than the relative importance of sound string to meaning associations in the human vs. NHP experiences.

4. More minor: The localizer task (math sentences vs. other sentences) makes sense for math but seems to make less sense for language: why would a language region respond more to sentences that don't describe math vs. ones that do?

Methods - Analysis issues:

5. The analyses appear to "double dip" by using the same data to define the clusters and to statistically test the average cluster activation (Kriegeskorte et al., 2009). The resulting effect sizes are therefore likely inflated, and the p-values are anticonservative.

Framing:

6. The framing ("Brain mechanisms of reversible symbolic reference: A potential singularity of the human brain") is bigger than the finding (monkeys don't spontaneously reverse a temporal association but humans do). The title and discussion are full of buzzy terms ("brain mechanisms", "symbolic", and "singularity") that are only connected to the experiments by a debatable chain of assumptions.

First, this study shows relatively little about brain "mechanisms" of reversible symbolic associations, which implies insights into how these associations are learned, recognized, and represented. But we're only given standard fMRI analyses that are quite inconsistent across similar experimental paradigms, with purely suggestive connections between these spatial patterns and prior work on comparative brain anatomy.

Second, it's not clear what the relationship is between symbolic cognition and a propensity to spontaneously reverse a temporal association. Certainly, if there are inter-species differences in learning preferences this is important to know about, but why is this construed as a difference in the presence or absence of symbols? Because the associations aren't used in any downstream computation, there is not even any way for participants to know which is the sign and which is the signified: these are merely labels imposed by the researchers on a sequential task.

Third, the word "singularity" is both problematically ambiguous and not well supported by the results. "Singularity" is a highly loaded word that the authors are simply using to mean "that which is uniquely human". Rather than picking a term with diverse technical meanings across fields and then trying to restrict the definition, it would be better to use a different term. Furthermore, even under the stated definition, this study performed a single pairwise comparison between humans and one other species (macaques), so it is a stretch to then conclude (or insinuate) that the "singularity" has been found (see also pt. 2 above).

7. Related to pt. 6, there is circularity in the framing whereby the authors say they are setting out to find out what is uniquely human, hypothesizing that the uniquely human thing is symbols, and then selecting a defining trait of symbols (spontaneous reversible association) *because* it seems to be uniquely human (see e.g., "Several studies previously found behavioral evidence for a uniquely human ability to spontaneously reverse a learned association (Imai et al., 2021; Kojima, 1984; Lipkens et al., 1988; Medam et al., 2016; Sidman et al., 1982), and such reversibility was therefore proposed as a defining feature of symbol representation reference (Deacon, 1998; Kabdebon and Dehaene-Lambertz, 2019; Nieder, 2009).", line 335). They can't have it both ways. Either "symbol" is an independently motivated construct whose presence can be independently tested in humans and other species, or it is by fiat synonymous with the "singularity". This circularity can be broken by a more modest framing that focuses on the core research question (e.g., "What is uniquely human? One possibility is spontaneous reversal of temporal associations.") and then connects (speculatively) to the bigger conceptual landscape in the discussion ("Spontaneous reversal of temporal associations may be a core ability underlying the acquisition of mental symbols").

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Chang et al set out to find direct interactions with the Eph-B2 receptor, as our knowledge of its function/regulation is still incomplete. Using proteomic analysis of Hela cells expressing EPHB2, they identified MYCBP2 as a potential binder, which they then confirm using extensive biochemical analyses, an interaction that seems to be negatively affected by the binding of ephrin-B2 (but not B1). Furthermore, they find that FBXO45, a known MYCBP2 interaction, strongly facilitates its binding to EPHB2. Intriguingly, these interactions depend on the extracellular domains of EPHB2, something that is surprising given the fact that MYCBP2 is an intracellular protein. Finally, they find that, in contrast to what could be expected given the known function of MYCBP2 as a ubiquitin E3 ligase, it actually positively regulates EPHB2 protein stability, and function.

The strength of this manuscript is the extensive biochemical analysis of the EPHB2/MYCBP2/FBXO43 interactions. Most of the conclusions are warranted although I do not understand the physiological interpretation of how these proteins could interact in the extracellular space.

The attempt to extend the study to an in vivo animal using the worm is important. However, I find the results in the worm confusing and overly interpreted in their current form.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Dux (or DUX4 in human) is a master transcription factor regulating early embryonic gene activation and has garnered much attention also for its involvement in reprogramming pluripotent embryonic stem cells to totipotent "2C-like" cells. The presented work starts with the recognition that DUX contains five conserved c. 100-amino acid carboxy-terminal repeats (called C1-C5) in the murine protein but not in that of other mammals (e.g. human DUX4). Using state-of-the-art techniques and cell models (BioID, Cut&Tag; rescue experiments and functional reporter assays in ESCs), the authors dissect the activity of each repeat, concluding that repeats C3 and C5 possess the strongest transactivation potential in synergy with a short C-terminal 14 AA acidic motif. In agreement with these findings, the authors find that full-length and active (C3) repeat containing Dux leads to increased chromatin accessibility and active histone mark (H3K9Ac) signals at genomic Dux binding sites. A further significant conclusion of this mutational analysis is the proposal that the weakly activating repeats C2 and C4 may function as attenuators of C3+C5-driven activity.

By next pulling down and identifying proteins bound to Dux (or its repeat-deleted derivatives) using BioID-LC/MS/MS, the authors find a significant number of interactors, notably chromatin remodellers (SMARCC1), a histone chaperone (CHAF1A/p150) and transcription factors previously (ZSCAN4D) implicated in embryonic gene activation.

The experiments are of high quality, with appropriate controls, and thus provide a rich compendium of Dux interactors for future study. Indeed, a number of these (SMARCC1, SMCHD1, ZSCAN4) make biological sense, both for embryonic genome activation and for FSHD (SMCHD1).

The central question raised by this study, however, concerns the function of the Dux repeats, apparently unique to mice. While it is possible, as the authors propose, that the weak activating C1, C2 C4 repeats may exert an attenuating function ("sub-functionalization") on activation mediated by C3 and/or C5, it could similarly be argued that the different repeats are indeed expected to display different activation potentials, chromatin opening, cofactor recruitment, due to, simply, the differences in their sequences. The argument for an active attenuating function would have been strengthened, for example, by the finding of repressor recruitment by C1/C2/C4 (and not just less of everything). The possible biological relevance of these repeats thus remains to be established.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Peng et al. designed a computational framework for identifying pioneer factors using epigenomic data from five cell types. The identification of pioneer factors is important for our understanding of the epigenetic and transcriptional regulation of cells. A computational approach toward this goal can significantly reduce the burden of labor-intensive experimental validation. Nevertheless, there are several caveats in the current analysis which may require some modification of the computational methods and additional analysis to maximize the confidence of the pioneer factor prediction results.

A key consideration that arises during this review is that the current analysis anchors on H1 ESC and therefore may have biased the results toward the identification of pioneer factors that are relevant to the four other differentiated cell types. The low ranking of Yamanaka factors and known pioneer factors of NFYs and ESRRB may be due to the setup of the computational framework. Analysis should be repeated by using each of every cell type as an anchor for validating the reproducibility of the pioneer factors found so far and also to investigate whether TFs related to ESC identity (e.g. Yamanaka factors, NFYs and ESRRB) would show significant changes in their ranking. Given the potential cell type specificity of the pioneer factors, the extension to more cell types appears to be important for further demonstrating the utility of the computational framework.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This paper combines experiments and simple modeling to try to identify the relationship between external muscle torque vs. a stimulus burst duration on several leg muscles of a stick insect. The authors created a setup to input PWM and voltage values and measured the output torque through load cells. They found an appropriate model for estimating muscle torque through different PWM burst durations and voltage values by comparing WAIC values for each modeling equation. They found that the linear hierarchical model relating burst duration and joint torque and a nonlinear hierarchical model relating burst duration and joint torque to a power function represent the muscle torque activation the best.

The problem that the study tries to address is of great importance to the field of cyborg, biomechanics, neuromechanics, mechano-sensing, and animal locomotion (see below). There have been very few studies that tried to quantify how muscle activation in invertebrates affects force/torque output, which is important for understanding the dynamics of their movement, and this is one of the first to investigate this. The approach is technically sound, and the experimental data and modeling analyses are solid and support the conclusions drawn.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Castano et al generate and test a small molecule inhibitor of CDKL5, an X-linked kinase whose loss-of-function is the cause of a severe neurodevelopmental disorder. Since the current knowledge of CDKL5 functions mainly rely on genetic models it is still unclear which effects are caused directly by CDKL5 loss and which can be ascribed to indirect effects. A specific inhibitor would therefore be an important tool for the field.

Castano and colleagues therefore tested a panel of twenty kinase inhibitors for their capacity to block phosphorylation of a EB2, a bona fide CDKL5 substrate, in rat neurons. Among the three that could inhibit EB2 phosphorylation at low concentrations, one was found to inhibit CDKL5 while not affecting GSK3 kinases, which share significant homology to CDKL5. Considering that genetic studies have previously linked CDKL5 to excitatory synaptic transmission, acute hippocampal slices were exploited to test the consequences of CDKL5 inhibition. While CDKL5 loss in the past was found to affect both AMPA- and NMDA-Rs, the small molecule-based inhibition affected only AMPA-R responses at the post-synaptic level. Since pharmacokinetic analyses showed that the inhibitor has a low capacity for brain penetration the molecule remains limited for testing the acute inhibition of CDKL5 in vitro and ex vivo. Such a tool represents an important aspect in the CDKL5 field and the findings suggesting a direct role of CDKL5 in regulating AMPA-R functions are interesting. However, the manuscript could be improved to render it more readable.

The description of the binding and orthogonal assays, which are the basis for the selection of the small molecule inhibitor, is not straightforward to understand for non-expert readers and could be improved.

While the in vitro and ex vivo assays are well presented, it is not clear why the myelin basic protein is used as a substrate for CDKL5 in the in vitro kinase assays. Does this protein contain a CDKL5 consensus site?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The present manuscript describes a new method to identify the emitter of ultrasonic vocalisations during social interactions between 2 or 3 mice. The method combines two technologies (an "acoustic camera" and a set of four microphones) and succeeds in increasing the spatial precision and the attribution of USV emission to one of the mice. The manuscript describes the characteristics and advantages of each method and the advantages of using both to optimize the identification of USV emitter. The authors used the method to confirm that females are also vocalising during male-female interactions and that females emit USV mostly during nose-nose contact while this was not the case for males. Interestingly, the authors identified that the vocal behaviour of two competing males was strongly asymmetric when facing a female. This was not the case for two females facing one male.

The method is really promising since the identification of the emitter of USVs during mouse social interactions is a necessary step to speed up our understanding of this communication modality. The increase in spatial precision and in the proportion of attributed vocalisations is non-negligible and will be of great utility in the future.

Generally, the statistical analyses should be adjusted. Indeed, the statistical analyses do not consider the fact that the same individuals were recorded several times (if we understood well the methods). Each point was considered independent (in non-parametric Wilcoxon tests), while this is not the case given the repetitions with the same individuals (the number of repeated encounters per individual should be given in the methods section, by the way). We strongly recommend revising the statistical analyses of the results in Figures 4 and 5. In addition, it could be interesting to check whether the vocal behaviour is stable within each individual (i.e., a male that is vocalising frequently in one situation vocalises always frequently in other situations).

It is not easy to understand the rationale behind testing animals in pairs and in triads from the beginning of the manuscript. The authors should better introduce this aspect in the manuscript, especially given the fact that biological results deal with this aspect in Figure 5. The authors might strengthen the parts on the biological results extracted from their new method.

More specifically, the fact that one male takes over the vocal behaviour within a triad is of high interest. Nevertheless, some behavioural data would be needed to strengthen these findings.

A small proportion of USVs was not assigned. The authors did not discuss the potential reason for this failure (Were the USVs too soft? Did they include specific acoustic characteristics that render them difficult to localise?). These points could be of interest when testing other mouse strains or other species.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Castano et al generate and test a small molecule inhibitor of CDKL5, an X-linked kinase whose loss-of-function is the cause of a severe neurodevelopmental disorder. Since the current knowledge of CDKL5 functions mainly rely on genetic models it is still unclear which effects are caused directly by CDKL5 loss and which can be ascribed to indirect effects. A specific inhibitor would therefore be an important tool for the field.

Castano and colleagues therefore tested a panel of twenty kinase inhibitors for their capacity to block phosphorylation of a EB2, a bona fide CDKL5 substrate, in rat neurons. Among the three that could inhibit EB2 phosphorylation at low concentrations, one was found to inhibit CDKL5 while not affecting GSK3 kinases, which share significant homology to CDKL5. Considering that genetic studies have previously linked CDKL5 to excitatory synaptic transmission, acute hippocampal slices were exploited to test the consequences of CDKL5 inhibition. While CDKL5 loss in the past was found to affect both AMPA- and NMDA-Rs, the small molecule-based inhibition affected only AMPA-R responses at the post-synaptic level. Since pharmacokinetic analyses showed that the inhibitor has a low capacity for brain penetration the molecule remains limited for testing the acute inhibition of CDKL5 in vitro and ex vivo. Such a tool represents an important aspect in the CDKL5 field and the findings suggesting a direct role of CDKL5 in regulating AMPA-R functions are interesting. However, the manuscript could be improved to render it more readable.

The description of the binding and orthogonal assays, which are the basis for the selection of the small molecule inhibitor, is not straightforward to understand for non-expert readers and could be improved.

While the in vitro and ex vivo assays are well presented, it is not clear why the myelin basic protein is used as a substrate for CDKL5 in the in vitro kinase assays. Does this protein contain a CDKL5 consensus site?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The paper by Li et al. describes the role of the TOR pathway in Aspergillus flavus. The authors tested the effect of rapamycin in WT and different deletion strains. This paper is based on a lot of experiments and work but remains rather descriptive and confirms the results obtained in other fungi. It shows that the TOR pathway is involved in conidiation, aflatoxin production, pathogenicity, and hyphal growth. This is inferred from rapamycin treatment and TOR1/2 deletions. Rapamycin treatment also causes lipid accumulation in hyphae. The phenotypes are not surprising as they have been shown already for several fungi. In addition, one caveat is in my opinion that the strains grow very slowly and this could cause many downstream effects. Several kinases and phosphatases are involved in the TOR pathway. They were known from S. cerevisiae or filamentous fungi. The authors characterized them as well with knock-out approaches.

As for many results, I miss the re-complementation of the created mutants throughout the manuscript. This is standard praxis.

Fig. 1: cultures were grown for 48 h before measuring the transcript level. The authors show that brlA, abaA, and some sexual regulators are less expressed. In my opinion, this does not allow the conclusion that there is a direct control through rapamycin. Since the colonies grow very slowly in the presence of rapamycin, the authors should add rapamycin and follow gene expression after 15, 30, 60, 90 min. The figure legend needs to be more detailed. Which type of cultures were used, liquid, solid medium? Etc.

Why in chapter one Fig. 9 is already cited? Those data should then be included in Fig. 1 for the general phenotype.

The authors wrote that radial growth and conidiation were gradually reduced with increasing rapamycin concentrations. This is not true. There is no gradient! However, it should be tested if there is a gradient if lower concentrations are used. The current data imply that there is a threshold concentration, so either there is 100 % growth or a reduction to 25 %. This looks strange.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this work, Kita et al., aim to understand the activation mechanisms of the kinesin-3 motors KLP-6 and UNC-104 from C. elegans. As with many other motor proteins involved in intracellular transport processes, KLP-6 and UNC-104 motors suppress their ATPase activities in the absence of cargo molecules. Relieving the autoinhibition is thus a crucial step that initiates the directional transport of intracellular cargo. To investigate the activation mechanisms, the authors make use of mass photometry to determine the oligomeric states of the full-length KLP-6 and the truncated UNC-104(1-653) motors at sub-micromolar concentrations. While full-length KLP-6 remains monomeric, the truncated UNC-104(1-653) displays a sub-population of dimeric motors that is much more pronounced at high concentrations, suggesting a monomer-to-dimer conversion. The authors push this equilibrium towards dimeric UNC-104(1-653) motors solely by introducing a point mutation into the coiled-coil domain and ultimately unleashing a robust processivity of the UNC-104 dimer. The authors find that the same mechanistic concept does not apply to the KLP-6 kinesin-3 motor, suggesting an alternative activation mechanism of the KLP-6 that remains to be resolved. The present study encourages further dissection of the kinesin-3 motors with the goal of uncovering the main factors needed to overcome the 'self-inflicted' deactivation.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This is an interesting and carefully done study that will be of considerable value to the field of cortical interneurons. The main result is the development of a novel intersectional genetic strategy to identify and manipulate neurogliaform cells (NGFCs), an interneuron subtype that has been somewhat under-explored to date (but perhaps not quite as enigmatic as implied by the authors). The new strategy, using Id2-CreER transgenic mice crossed with a pan-interneuronal Flp line, appears to label all interneurons which do not express PV, Sst, or VIP, and thus defines a fourth subclass of interneurons. The main members of this subclass are NPY-expressing NGFCs. The strategy allows the targeting of NGFCs in all cortical layers, in contrast to previous strategies using the NDNF-Cre mice which target mostly Layer 1 NGFCs (and possibly also other Layer 1 subtypes). The same strategy also labels a relatively small population of non-NGF Id2 cells belonging to the CCK-expressing subtype(s).

In the first stage of the study, the authors characterize the labeled neurons by their expression of protein markers (most notably NPY and CCK), by their dendritic and axonal morphology, and by their electrophysiological properties. This characterization is detailed and rigorous and the observed characteristics are consistent with what is already known about the properties of NGFCs. The weaknesses here are that the morphological features are not analyzed quantitatively, the definition of electrophysiological subtypes remains somewhat subjective, and the authors do not attempt a multivariate analysis that could provide a data-driven parcellation into subtypes.

The authors then go two steps further. First, they use ex-vivo recordings to demonstrate that presumed CCK+ neurons (identified by their firing pattern as "non-late-spiking), but not NGFCs (identified by their "late-spiking" phenotype), are sensitive to endocannabinoids released from postsynaptic pyramidal cells upon depolarization of the latter. This DSI ("depolarization suppression of inhibition") is a well-studied property of hippocampal CCK+ basket cells, so its demonstration adds to the validation of the intersectional strategy in targeting this subtype in the neocortex. Somewhat surprisingly, the authors do not attempt to demonstrate in their ex-vivo experiments what may be the best-known property of NGFCs - their propensity to preferentially activate GABAB receptors.

The authors then perform in-vivo silicon probe recordings in which Id2 cells are "optotagged" with ChR2 and can thus be identified in extracellular recordings. These in-vivo recordings are probably the first ever from identified NGFCs below layer 1, although some uncertainty remains about the identification of optotagged cells as NGFCs vs CCK-expressing interneurons. They find several differences between firing patterns of NGFCs and other interneurons or pyramidal cells (identified by their extracellular spike waveforms), the most dramatic being a pronounced "rebound" of NGFC firing during slow-wave sleep immediately after a DOWN-to-UP state transition. While the functional significance of these findings is not clear, these experiments provide proof of concept that this fourth (and last?) interneuron subclass can be identified, recorded, and manipulated in freely behaving animals.

In summary, while adding only modestly to our knowledge of NGFCs and CCK-expressing interneurons per se, this work provides an important new tool that will no doubt be used in future studies to target cortical NGFCs and CCK interneurons for in-vivo and ex-vivo recordings, for optogenetic manipulations and for calcium or voltage imaging using genetically-encoded probes. In this sense, the current study is a breakthrough into what may truly be "the last frontier" of cortical interneurons.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Overview: The authors propose a personalized ventricular computational model (Geno-DT) that incorporates the patient's structural remodeling (fibrosis and scar locations based on LGE-CMR scans) as well as genotyping (cell membrane kinetics based on genetic testing results) to predict VT locations and morphologies in ARVC setting.<br /> To test the model, the authors conducted a retrospective study using 16 ARVC patient data with two genotypes (PKP2, GE) and reported high degree of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. In addition, the authors determined that in GE patients, VT was driven by fibrotic remodeling, whereas, in PKP2 patients, VT was associated with a combination of structural and electrical remodeling (slowed conduction and altered restitution).<br /> Based on the findings, the authors recommend using Geno-DT approach to augment therapeutic accuracy in treatment of ARVC patients.

Critiques:

1. The small sample size is a limitation but has already been acknowledged and documented by the authors.

2. Another limitation is the consideration of only two of the possible genotypes in developing the cell membrane kinetics, but again has been acknowledged by the authors.

Final Thoughts: The authors have done a commendable job in targeting a disease phenotype that is relatively rare, which constrains the type of data that can be collected for research. Their personalized computational model approach makes a valuable contribution to furthering our understanding of ARVC mechanisms.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Two studies published in 2020 independently identified the alPg, pC1d, and pC1e neurons to be involved in initiating and maintaining a state of aggression in female Drosophila. Both studies combined behavioural analyses, optogenitic manipulation of neurons, and connectomics. One of these studies proposed that the extensive interconnections seen between the alPg and pC1d+e neurons might represent a recurrent motif known to support persistent behvioural states in other systems. In this manuscript, the authors test this idea and report that their data do not support it. Specifically, they report that alPg or pC1d+e (but not pC1d alone) can initiate a persistent state of aggression. But they find that the persistent aggressive state is maintained even when the pC1d neurons are inactivated. Finally, they show that neither of these neurons themselves sustains neuronal activity upon stimulation, nor do either of them induce a persistent activity in the other. Together, their data suggest that the recurrent connection between alPg and pC1d is not what supports the persistent state. The data underlying these claims are convincing. A possibility to explore before ruling out recurrent motifs (at this circuit level) in maintaining aggression is that the connections between alPg and pC1e can compensate for the loss of pC1e. Overall, the study is important and will be of interest to those who study the circuit basis of persistent behavioural states, but also to neuroscientists in general.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study addresses the major question of 'whether and when grid cells contribute to behavior'. There is no doubt that this is a very important question. My major concern is that I'm not convinced that this study gives a significant contribution to this question, although this study is well-performed and potentially interesting. This is mainly due to the fact that the relation between grid cell properties and behavior is exclusively correlative and entirely based on single cell activity, although the introduction mentions quite often the grid cell network properties and dynamics. In general, this study gives the impression that grid cells exclusively support the cognitive processes involved in this task. This problem is in part related to the text. However, it would be interesting to look at the population level (even beyond grid cells) to test whether at the network level, the link between behavioral performance and neural activity is more straightforward compared to the single-cell level. This approach could reconcile the present results with those obtained in their previous study following MEC inactivation.

The authors used a statistical method based on the computation of the frequency spectrum of the spatial periodicity of the neural firing to classify grid cells as 'position-coding' (with fields anchored to the virtual track) and 'distance-coding' (with fields repeating at regular intervals across trials). This is an interesting approach that has nonetheless the default to be based exclusively on autocorelograms. It would be interesting to compare with a different method based on the similarities between raw maps. Beyond this minor point, cell categorization is performed using all trial types. Each trial type (i.e. beacon or non-beacon) is supposed to force mice to use different strategies and should induce different spatial representations within the entorhinal-hippocampal circuit (and not only in the grid cell system). In that context, since all trials are mixed, it is difficult to extrapolate general information. On page 5 the authors state that 'Since only position representations should reliably predict the reward location, ..., we reasoned that the presence of positional coding could be used to assess whether grid firing contributes to the ongoing behaviour'.

I do not agree with this statement. First of all, position coding should be more informative only in a cue-guided trial. Second, distance coding could be as informative as position coding since at the network level may provide information relevant to the task (such as distance from the reward). This possibility is not tested here. Third, position-coding is interpreted as more relevant because it predominates in correct trials. However, this does not imply that this coding scheme is indeed used to perform correct trials. It could be more informative to push forward the correlative analysis by looking at whether behavioral performance can be predicted by the coding scheme on a trial-by-trial basis. This analysis would not provide a causal relation between cell activity and behavior, but could strengthen the correlation between the two.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this work, the authors shed light onto the structures of Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. lycopersici proteins involved in the infection of tomato. They unravelled several new secreted effector protein structures and additionally used computational approaches to structurally classify the remaining effectors known from this pathogen. Through this they uncovered a new and unique structural class of proteins which they found to be present and widely distributed in fungal plant pathogens and plant symbiotic fungi. The authors further predicted structural models for the full SIX effector set revealing that genome-proximal effector pairs share similar structural classes. Building on their Avr1 structure, the authors also define the C-terminal domain and specific amino acid residues that are essential to Avr1 detection by its cognate immune receptor.

A major strength of this work is a portfolio of several (Avr1, Avr3, SIX6, SIX8) new structurally resolved proteins which led to the discovery that several of them fall into the same structural class. These findings are supported by strong results.

The experiments addressing the structure-function relationship of Avr1's avirulence activity are highly relevant to our understanding of disease resistance mechanisms against Fusarium, but will require additional controls to allow for solid conclusions to be drawn. In particular, it needs to be demonstrated that specific I gene alleles are at all required for FonSIX4's cell death activity in N.benthamiana leaves or whether FonSIX4 and those of some chimeric proteins is independent of the tomato I receptor. Complementary work in Fusarium mutants lacking Avr1 and expressing chimeric versions would document that the observations from transient expressions in Nicotiana benthamiana are relevant in the biological context of a Fusarium/tomato interaction.

The discovered solvent-exposed residues conditioning Avr1 recognition by the I receptor seem to be positioned in an area of the protein which had previously been highlighted as being highly variable in FOLD proteins of symbiotic fungi but it is not clear from the work whether this is indeed the case or whether Avr1 differs significantly in its structure from FOLD proteins found in other fungi.<br /> It also remains to be addressed whether the residues conditioning avirulence activity is also crucial for virulence activity in Fusarium?

This work uncovered a new structural class of proteins with critical roles in plant-pathogen interactions. Structure-based predictions and genome-wide comparisons have emerged as a new approach enabling the identification of similar proteins with divergent sequences. The work undertaken by the authors adds to a growing body of work in plant-microbe research, predominantly from pathogenic organisms, and more recently in symbiotic fungi.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

There has been a long-standing link between the biology of sulfur-containing molecules (e.g., hydrogen sulfide gas, the amino acid cysteine, and its close relative cystine, et cetera) and the biology of hypoxia, yet we have a poor understanding of how and why these two biological processes and are co-regulated. Here, the authors use C. elegans to explore the relationship between sulfur metabolism and hypoxia, examining the regulation of cysteine dioxygenase (CDO1 in humans, CDO-1 in C. elegans), which is critical to cysteine catabolism, by the hypoxia inducible factor (HIF1 alpha in humans, HIF-1 in C. elegans), which is the key terminal effector of the hypoxia response pathway that maintains oxygen homeostasis. The authors are trying to demonstrate that (1) the hypoxia response pathway is a key regulator of cysteine homeostasis, specifically through the regulation of cysteine dioxygenase, and (2) that the pathway responds to changes in cysteine homeostasis in a mechanistically distinct way from how it responds to hypoxic stress.

Briefly summarized here, the authors initiated this study by generating transgenic animals expressing a CDO-1::GFP protein chimera from the cdo-1 promoter so that they could identify regulators of CDO-1 expression through a forward genetic screen. This screen identified mutants with elevated CDO-1::GFP expression in two genes, egl-9 and rhy-1, whose wild-type products are negative regulators of HIF-1, raising the possibility that cdo-1 is a HIF-1 transcriptional target. Indeed, the authors provide data showing that cdo-1 regulation by EGL-9 and RHY-1 is dependent on HIF-1 and that regulation by RHY-1 is dependent on CYSL-1, as expected from other published findings of this pathway. The authors show that exogenous cysteine activates cdo-1 expression, reflective of what is known to occur in other systems. Moreover, they find that exogenous cysteine is toxic to worms lacking CYSL-1 or HIF-1 activity, but not CDO-1 activity, suggesting that HIF-1 mediates a survival response to toxic levels of cysteine and that this response requires more than just the regulation of CDO-1. The authors validate their expression studies using a GFP knockin at the cdo-1 locus, and they demonstrate that a key site of action for CDO-1 is the hypodermis. They present genetic epistasis analysis supporting a role for RHY-1, both as a regulator of HIF-1 and as a transcriptional target of HIF-1, in offsetting toxicity from aberrant sulfur metabolism. The authors use CRISPR/Cas9 editing to mutate a key amino acid in the prolyl hydroxylase domain of EGL-9, arguing that EGL-9 inhibits CDO-1 expression through a mechanism that is largely independent of the prolyl hydroxylase activity.

Overall, the data seem rigorous, and the conclusions drawn from the data seem appropriate. The experiments test the hypothesis using logical and clever molecular genetic tools and design. The sample size is a bit lower than is typical for C. elegans papers; however, the experiments are clearly not underpowered, so this is not an issue. The paper is likely to drive many in the field (including the authors themselves) into deeper experiments on (1) how the pathway senses hypoxia and sulfur/cysteine/H2S using these distinct mechanisms/modalities, (2) how oxygen and sulfur/cysteine/H2S homeostasis influence one another, and (3) how this single pathway evolved to sense and respond to both of these stress modalities.

Major strengths of the paper include (1) the use of the powerful whole animal C. elegans model to reveal results that have meaning in vivo, (2) the careful demonstration through mutant rescue experiments that key transgenes have functional activity, (3) the use of CRISPR/Cas9 editing to mutate a critical residue in the catalytic domain of the EGL-9 prolyl hydroxylase, (4) transgenic rescue experiments that show that CDO-1 operates in the hypodermis with regard to the larval arrest phenotype, and (5) the thorough epistatic analysis of different pathway mutants.

Major weaknesses of the paper include (1) the over-reliance on genetic approaches, (2) the lack of novelty regarding prolyl hydroxylase-independent activities of EGL-9, and (3) the lack of biochemical approaches to probe the underlying mechanism of the prolyl hydroxylase-independent activity of EGL-9.

Major Issues We Feel the Authors Should Address:

1. One particularly glaring concern is that the authors really do not know the extent to which the prolyl hydroxylase activity is (or is not) impacted by the H487A mutation in egl-9(rae276). If there is a fair amount of enzymatic activity left in this mutant, then it complicates interpretation. The paper would be strengthened if the authors could show that the egl-9(rae276) eliminates most if not all prolyl hydroxylase activity. In addition, the authors may want to consider doing RNAi for egl-9 in the egl-9(rae276) mutant as a control, as this would support the claim that whatever non-hydroxylase activity EGL-9 may have is indeed the causative agent for the elevation of CDO-1::GFP. Without such experiments, readers are left with the nagging concern that this allele is simply a hypomorph for the single biochemical activity of EGL-9 (i.e., the prolyl hydroxylase activity) rather than the more interesting, hypothesized scenario that EGL-9 has multiple biochemical activities, only one of which is the prolyl hydroxylase activity.

2. The authors observed that EGL-9 can inhibit HIF-1 and the expression of the HIF-1 target cdo-1 through a combination of activities that are (1) dependent on its prolyl hydroxylase activity (and subsequent VHL-1 activity that acts on the resulting hydroxylated prolines on HIF-1), and (2) independent of that activity. This is not a novel finding, as the authors themselves carefully note in their Discussion section, as this odd phenomenon has been observed for many HIF-1 target genes in multiple publications. While this manuscript adds to the description of this phenomenon, it does not really probe the underlying mechanism or shed light on how EGL-9 has these dual activities. This limits the overall impact and novelty of the paper.

3. Cysteine dioxygenases like CDO-1 operate in an oxygen-dependent manner to generate sulfites from cysteine. CDO-1 activity is dependent upon availability of molecular oxygen; this is an unexpected characteristic of a HIF-1 target, as its very activation is dependent on low molecular oxygen. Authors neither address this in the text nor experimentally, and it seems a glaring omission.

4. The authors determined that the hypodermis is the site of the most prominent CDO-1::GFP expression, relevant to Figure 4. This claim would be strengthened if a negative control tissue, in the animal with the knockin allele, were shown. The hypodermal specific expression is a highlight of this paper, so it would make this article even stronger if they could further substantiate this claim.

Minor issues to note:

Mutants for hif-1 and cysl-1 are sensitive to exogenous cysteine levels, yet loss of CDO-1 expression is not sufficient to explain this phenomenon, suggesting other targets of HIF-1 are involved. Given the findings the authors (and others) have had showing a role for RHY-1 in sulfur amino acid metabolism, shouldn't the authors consider testing rhy-1 mutants for sensitivity to exogenous cysteine?

The cysteine exposure assay was performed by incubating nematodes overnight in liquid M9 media containing OP50 culture. The liquid culture approach adds two complications: (1) the worms are arguably starving or at least undernourished compared to animals grown on NGM plates, and (2) the worms are probably mildly hypoxic in the liquid cultures, which complicates the interpretation.

An easily addressable concern is the wording of one of the main conclusions: that cdo-1 transcription is independent of the canonical prolyl hydroxylase function of EGL-9 and is instead dependent on one of EGL-9's non-canonical, non-characterized functions. There are several points in which the wording suggests that CDO-1 toxicity is independent of EGL-9. In their defense, the authors try to avoid this by saying, "EGL-9 PHD," to indicate that it is the prolyl hydroxylase function of EGL-9 that is not required for CDO-1 toxicity. However, this becomes confusing because much of the field uses PHD and EGL-9/EGLN as interchangeable protein names. The authors need to be clear about when they are describing the prolyl hydroxylase activity of EGL-9 rather than other (hypothesized) activities of EGL-9 that are independent of the prolyl hydroxylase activity.

The authors state in the text, "the egl-9; suox-1 double mutants are extremely sick and slow growing." We appreciate that their "health" assay, based on the exhaustion of food from the plate, is qualitative. We also appreciate that it is a functional measure of many factors that contribute to how fast a population of worms can grow, reproduce, and consume that lawn of food. However, unless they do a lifespan assay and/or measure developmental timing and specifically determine that the double mutant animals themselves are developing and/or growing more slowly, we do not think it is appropriate to use the words "slow growing" to describe the population. As they point out, the rate of consumption of food on the plate in their health assay is determined by a multitude and indeed a confluence of factors; the growth rate is one specific one that is commonly measured and has an established meaning.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Sasani et al. develop and implement a new method for mutator allele discovery in the BXD mouse population. This new "IHD" method carries several notable strengths, including the ability to aggregate de novo mutations across individuals to reduce data sparsity and to combine mutation rate frequencies across multiple nucleotide contexts into a single estimate. These advantages may render the IHD method better suited to mutator discovery under certain scenarios, as compared to conventional QTL or association mapping. Overall, the theoretical premise of the IHD method is judged to be both strong and innovative, and careful simulation studies benchmark its power.

The authors then apply their method to the BXD mouse recombinant inbred mapping population. As proof-of-principle, they first successfully re-identify a known mutator locus in this population on chr4. Next, to assess possible genetic interactions involving this known mutator, Sasani et al. condition on the chr4 mutator genotype and reimplement the IHD scan. This strategy led them to identify a second locus on chr6 that interacts epistatically with the chr4 locus; mice with "D" alleles at both loci exhibit a significantly increased burden of C>A de novo mutations, even though mice with the D allele at the chr6 locus alone show no appreciable increase in the C>A mutation fraction. This exciting discovery not only adds to the catalog of known mutator alleles, but also reveals key aspects of mutator biology. Notably, this finding reinforces the hypothesis that segregating variants in genes associated with DNA repair influence germline mutation spectra. Further, Sasani et al.'s findings suggest that some mutators may lie dormant until recombined onto a permissive genetic background. This discovery could have intriguing implications for the evolution of mutators in natural populations.

Despite a high level of overall enthusiasm for this work, some weaknesses are identified in the IHD method, approach for nominating candidate genes within the newly identified chr6 locus, and the authors' conclusions.

Under simulated scenarios, the authors' new IHD method is not appreciably more powerful than conventional QTL mapping methods. While this does not diminish the rigor or novelty of the authors findings, it does temper enthusiasm for the IHD method's potential to uncover new mutators in other populations or datasets. Further, adaptation of this methodology to other datasets, including human trios or multigenerational families, will require some modification, which could present a barrier to broader community uptake. Notably, BXD mice are (mostly) inbred, justifying the authors consideration of just two genotype states at each locus, but this decision prevents out-of-the-box application to outbred populations and human genomic datasets. Lastly, some details of the IHD method are not clearly spelled out in the paper. In particular, it is unclear whether differences in BXD strain relatedness due to the breeding epoch structure are fully accounted for in permutations. The method's name - inter-haplotype distance - is also somewhat misleading, as it seems to imply that de novo mutations are aggregated at the scale of sub-chromosomal haplotype blocks, rather than across the whole genome.

Nominating candidates within the chr6 mutator locus requires an approach for defining a credible interval and excluding/including specific genes within that interval as candidates. Sasani et al. delimit their focal window to 5Mb on either side of the SNP with the most extreme P-value in their IHD scan. This strategy suffers from several weaknesses. First, no justification for using 10 Mb window, as opposed to, e.g., a 5 Mb window or a window size delimited by a specific threshold of P-value drop, is given, rendering the approach rather ad hoc. Second, within their focal 10Mb window, the authors prioritize genes with annotated functions in DNA repair that harbor protein coding variants between the B6 and D2 founder strains. While the logic for focusing on known DNA repair genes is sensible, this locus also houses an appreciable number of genes that are not functionally annotated, but could, conceivably, perform relevant biological roles. These genes should not be excluded outright, especially if they are expressed in the germline. Further, the vast majority of functional SNPs are non-coding, (including the likely causal variant at the chr4 mutator previously identified in the BXD population). Thus, the author's decision to focus most heavily on coding variants is not well-justified. Sasani et al. dedicate considerable speculation in the manuscript to the likely identity of the causal variant, ultimately favoring the conclusion that the causal variant is a predicted deleterious missense variant in Mbd4. However, using a 5Mb window centered on the peak IHD scan SNP, rather than a 10Mb window, Mbd4 would be excluded. Further, SNP functional prediction accuracy is modest [e.g., PMID 28511696], and exclusion of the missense variant in Ogg1 due its benign prediction is potentially premature, especially given the wealth of functional data implicating Ogg1 in C>A mutations in house mice. Finally, the DNA repair gene closest to the peak IHD SNP is Rad18, which the authors largely exclude as a candidate.

Additionally, some claims in the paper are not well-supported by the author's data. For example, in the Discussion, the authors assert that "multiple mutator alleles have spontaneously arisen during the evolutionary history of inbred laboratory mice" and that "... mutational pressure can cause mutation rates to rise in just a few generations of relaxed selection in captivity". However, these statements are undercut by data in this paper and the authors' prior publication demonstrating that a number of candidate variants are segregating in natural mouse populations. These variants almost certainly did not emerge de novo in laboratory colonies, but were inherited from their wild mouse ancestors. Further, the wild mouse population genomic dataset used by the authors falls far short of comprehensively sampling wild mouse diversity; variants in laboratory populations could derive from unsampled wild populations.

Finally, the implications of a discovering a mutator whose expression is potentially conditional on the genotype at a second locus are not raised in the Discussion. While not a weakness per se, this omission is perceived to be a missed opportunity to emphasize what, to this reviewer, is one of the most exciting impacts of this work. The potential background dependence of mutator expression could partially shelter it from the action of selection, allowing the allele persist in populations. This finding bears on theoretical models of mutation rate evolution and may have important implications for efforts to map additional mutator loci. It seems unfortunate to not elevate these points.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Qin and Zhou presents an approach to predict dynamical properties of an intrinsically disordered protein (IDP) from sequence alone. In particular, the authors train a simple (but useful) machine learning model to predict (rescaled) NMR R2 values from sequence. Although these R2 rates only probe some aspects of IDR dynamics and the method does not provide insight into the molecular aspects of processes that lead to perturbed dynamics, the method can be useful to guide experiments.

A strength of the work is that the authors train their model on an observable that directly relates to protein dynamics. They also analyse a relatively broad set of proteins which means that one can see actual variation in accuracy across the proteins.

A weakness of the work is that it is not always clear what the measured R2 rates mean. In some cases, these may include both fast and slow motions (intrinsic R2 rates and exchange contributions). This in turn means that it is actually not clear what the authors are predicting. The work would also be strengthened by making the code available (in addition to the webservice), and by making it easier to compare the accuracy on the training and testing data.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Alternative polyadenylation is an important aspect of RNA processing that can alter the type or amount of proteins that are produced from a gene, with consequences for many aspects of biology. Herron et al. set out to identify how the mTORC1 pathway, which regulates cellular metabolism, influences alternative polyadenylation in the mouse brain. They identified a novel mTORC1-regulated gene with alternative polyadenylation - TRIM9 - and convincingly demonstrate that its alternative polyadenylation is controlled by the CFIm complex of the cleavage and polyadenylation machinery. A major strength of these results is that the authors use multiple orthogonal methods - including PAPERCLIP, qPCR and western blotting, to demonstrate that TRIM9 is regulated by mTORC1 and CFIm. They also demonstrate that this regulation is conserved between mice and humans by using multiple different model systems, and use synthetic reporter constructs to identify the cis-regulatory elements that are responsible for TRIM9 regulation by CFIm. These results highlight the importance of alternative polyadenylation in controlling gene expression and are important for researchers wishing to understand how the mTORC1 pathway functions.

The authors also identify that a "twin" UGUA motif in the poly(A) site of the short form of TRIM9 is responsible for its regulation by CFIm. They show that this motif is conserved across mammals and suggest that the adjacent UGUA motifs are necessary for regulation by CFIm. The evidence supporting this aspect of the manuscript is incomplete because the authors only ever mutate both UGUA motifs of TRIM9, and so it is not possible to determine whether the full motif or only one of the UGUA motifs is necessary for regulation, nor whether the effect of the two UGUA motifs is simply additive. The only evidence for the necessity of the full twin motif comes from a synthetic JUNB reporter construct, where a single UGUA motif was insufficient to induce proximal polyadenylation. However, given that there is previous evidence that individual UGUA motifs can act as enhancers of polyadenylation, this may be due to context-specific issues with the JUNB reporter, and evidence from different contexts would make the authors conclusions more convincing.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors describe a mathematical and computational modeling study of RAF paradoxical activation (PA), a phenomenon in which RAF inhibitors exhibit a bell-shaped dose-response curve of Erk phosphorylation - activating signaling through wild-type RAF at low drug concentrations before inhibiting it at higher concentrations. They explore three distinct mechanisms that may contribute to PA - conformational autoinhibition, negative cooperativity, and drug-induced dimerization - and conclude that all three are required to best fit published data that show the PA phenomenon. They explore the effect of 14-3-3 binding to RAF both computationally and experimentally and reach the conclusion that 14-3-3 can potentiate the PA phenomenon via stabilization of the autoinhibited conformation.

Strengths:

One key finding will be quite valuable to the field - that paradoxical activation can arise in the absence of negative cooperativity and without any effect of the inhibitor on the propensity of RAF to dimerize, provided that there exists a "conformationally autoinhibited" state that cannot dimerize and cannot bind inhibitor. This finding is important because negative cooperativity and dimer-induction have been a major focus - arguably the main focus - of prior studies of the phenomenon and also a source of considerable confusion. Inhibitors with very different chemical structures and binding properties - type 1.5 inhibitors that are dimer-breakers (and may or may not exhibit negative cooperativity) and type I and II inhibitors that can promote dimers (and almost certainly do not exhibit negative cooperativity) can nevertheless both exhibit PA. Thus the authors' modeling provides a unifying explanation - it is not dimer-induction or negative cooperativity that is at the root of PA, rather it is that there exists an autoinhibited state that can neither bind inhibitor nor dimerize. The authors further show that negative cooperativity and dimer-induction can act in concert with "conformational autoinhibition" to modify the PA response in a drug-specific manner.

Weaknesses:

Unfortunately, the authors don't really explain in a straightforward manner what is going on with the conformational autoinhibition model (Figure 2A). One has to read carefully and all the way to section 3 of appendix 1 to piece it together. In short, what the math shows is that at least for certain ranges of parameter values, the presence of an inhibitor can increase the concentration of dimers, even when it does not change the equilibrium constant for dimer formation, and some of those dimers will have an active, drug-free protomer. This is because the inhibitor effectively traps open monomers, which can then capture drug-free open monomers to form active dimers (active in one subunit, inactive and drug-bound in the other). As inhibitor concentration increases, the pool of autoinhibited RAF is diminished, and eventually, it is shifted completely to fully inhibited dimers. But at low concentrations of inhibitor, there is a net increase in dimerized (active) but drug-free protomers (see figure on page 27 of the appendix). Voila, paradoxical activation, with no need to invoke negative cooperativity.

Considering the potential for confusion around what is meant by "drug-induced dimerization" as an effect distinct from the effect of the drug in promoting RAF dimerization in their conformational autoinhibition model, it would have been helpful for the authors to explicitly address the distinction (drug-induced dimerization alters the equilibrium constant for dimerization; this is not a feature of the conformational autoinhibition model).

Also, I am confused by Figure 3C. The figure shows, and the authors state in the text, that for type II inhibitors an f > ~1 indicates a propensity to break dimers. But type 1.5 inhibitors should break dimers, and Type I and II inhibitors should promote dimers (at least some Type I and II drugs have been shown to promote kinase dimers). Seems that the predictions of the model are inconsistent with experimental data, at least for some inhibitors.

A large part of the paper deals with the effect of 14-3-3 binding. In my view, this part of the manuscript is not particularly helpful. There is no evidence (that I am aware of) that 14-3-3 concentrations vary significantly, or that their variation affects RAF activity/signaling. Considering their abundance relative to RAF, and relatively high affinity for RAF, it is likely that both autoinhibited and active RAF are saturated with 14-3-3. (RAF that is not 14-3-3-bound is likely mostly bound to chaperones and not active). That said, the authors' conclusion (based on modeling) that 14-3-3 can increase the extent of paradoxical activation by stabilizing the autoinhibited state seems sensible, but hard to reconcile with their experimental result where they find increased basal signaling with 14-3-3 over-expression. It is also difficult to understand how increased 14-3-3 binding to RAF could lead to active RAF dimers that are not inhibited at 10-100 uM concentrations of potent RAF dimer inhibitors like LY3009120 (Fig. 5C). It seems more likely that 14-3-3 overexpression is promoting Erk phosphorylation in a manner that is (at least partially) Raf-independent. To their credit, the authors acknowledge this concern.

Finally, one comment regarding the presentation. The authors discuss conformational inhibition and 14-3-3 binding as if they are promoting and/or inducing paradoxical activation. This is pervasive in the paper, including in the title, and is distracting and potentially will mislead some readers. Obviously, it is RAF inhibitor that induces or promotes paradoxical activation. Conformational autoinhibition - mediated by 14-3-3 - is a feature of the system that makes paradoxical activation possible.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors employed a set of cell-based and animal studies with tumor model systems that harbor a genetically deleted specific isoform of p73 to identify a novel function of this isoform in the regulation of lipid metabolism and obese disorder, which are associated with tumorigenesis. Interestingly, this new function was found to be through the increase in leptin expression. This is probably the first study showing the connection of the p73 family members with leptin, a molecule that has been shown to play a critical role in obesity and metabolism. Overall, their findings are novel, interesting, and important.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Controlling the shape of biological tubes (blood vessels, lungs, etc) is essential for optimizing the traffick of liquid and gas in organisms. Tracheal tubulogenesis of Drosophila embryos is regulated separately in two dimensions, width, and length. Molecules controlling the tracheal tube length function at three levels of location, luminal ECM, plasma membrane mediating cell-apical ECM interaction, and the signaling at the membrane/cell junction. In this paper, Pinheiro et al. reported a novel function of a scavenger receptor family molecule, Emp, which mediates endocytosis of a subset of luminal proteins including chitin deacetylates Serp and Verm that are required for restricting the tube length. It was previously shown that endocytosis and recycling of Serp and Verm maintain the level of luminal chitin deacetylates for keeping the property of the apical ECM to restrict the tube length (10.1016/j.celrep.2014.03.066).

This work is novel in two ways. First, Emp was shown to mediate the endocytosis of Serp and Verm by most likely interacting with the LDLr domains of cargo molecules and acting in parallel with the clathrin-mediated endocytosis to clear luminal materials. Second and surprisingly, the Emp-mediate endocytosis is coupled with the widespread alteration of the apical plasma membrane, including reduction of junctional E-cadherin and Crumbs, apical membrane protein DAAM1, and the cortical membrane skeleton component beta heavy spectrin (Kst). The elevation of junctional Crumbs protein in Emp mutants is noteworthy because the authors showed Crumbs was selectively upregulated in the longitudinal cell junctions. This change in Crumbs polarity may be related to the axial over-elongation of the trachea in Emp mutants. Furthermore, the authors showed that Src42A, which was previously shown to promote tube elongation, is also regulated negatively by Emp.

Overall, the information provided in this work supports a model of endocytic coupling of luminal materials and the axial polarity of the tracheal tube. This leads to a new idea distinct (but none-exclusive) from the previously proposed mechanical coupling model (10.1016/j.celrep.2014.03.066) and would advance a fundamental understanding of biological tube shape regulation. One critical point of linking endocytosis to the axial polarity is the selective enrichment of Crumbs to the longitudinal cell boundaries (10.1371/journal.pgen.1007824), which is shown to be enhanced in Emp mutants (Fig. 5D-F). Discussing how the junction-enriched Crmbs contribute to selective axial cell elongation will be desirable to expand the scope of this work. This point is essential, given that the expression of the dominant-active form of Crumbs lacking the extracellular domain (Crumbs-intra) is mislocalized in the cytoplasmic puncta promotes axial cell elongation (Laprise et al., 2010).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Because of the position of pigeon embryos in eggs, light exposure will only stimulate the right eye, leading to lateralisation of brain responses and behaviour. Lorenzi and colleagues injected manganese chloride into pigeon eggs, to assess neuronal activation in the embryonic brain. While the eggs were placed in the light or dark, manganese ions accumulated in neurons that were activated (in cell bodies and axons), which was then visualized with MRI of the embryos before hatching. The authors report lateralisation of neuronal activity in three brain regions, which could potentially be important for our understanding of experience-dependent development of lateralised neural activation.

The tectofugal pathway in pigeons projects from the retina to the optical tectum, then to the nucleus rotundus in the thalamus, and then to the entopallium. The thalamofugal pathway projects from the retina to the GLd in the thalamus, and then to the wulst in the hyperpallium. The two pathways involve different thalamic nuclei (e.g., Deng 2006). In the methods and throughout the manuscript it should be specified which thalamic region is used as ROI.

This manuscript only describes neural activity, but the MEMRI technique should also be used to assess the effect of experimental manipulations on axonal connectivity. It is important to learn about the asymmetry of contralateral projections in the light vs dark groups for answering the research question.

There is an overinterpretation of post-hoc statistics that are reported without correction for multiple testing. The wulst light group lateralization is probably not actually different from zero (uncorrected p=0.04).

The first line in the discussion states that there is thalamofugal lateralization, but no lateralization in the tectofugal pathway. To my understanding, previous literature reported it the other way around: in altricial pigeons, light exposure in the egg mainly affected the tectofugal pathway (Deng & Rogers 2002), while the thalamofugal pathway in pigeons was not lateralized (Strockens et al., 2013). The manuscript should compare the current findings with the literature and discuss differences.

Moreover, the tectum is the only region shown here from the tectofugal pathway. However, lateralization of contralateral connections is expected from tectum to the nucleus rotundus in the thalamus, and thus lateralization of activation may only arise in downstream brain regions from the optical tectum. Therefore, the conclusion that there is no lateralization in the tectofugal pathway is not supported by the data.

In conclusion, I think it is interesting and worthwhile that the authors assessed neural activity in response to visual stimulation in the embryo prior to hatching, but multiple methodological weaknesses and unclarities should be addressed.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this latest installment of a growing body of work from Henry Colecraft's lab in which native enzymes, ion channels, and other machinery are hijacked for therapeutic potential, cells can be made to respond to beta-adrenergic signals even when lacking the critical adaptor protein AKAP9. Normally, the cardiac repolarizing current IKs is enhanced in the face of beta-adrenergic signaling when increased cAMP activates PKA anchored to the channel protein by AKAP9. PKA phosphorylates the channel, increasing function or density in the membrane, especially during exercise or fright. Under these circumstances, when AKAP9 is missing in patients, the action potential fails to repolarize in a timely manner and arrhythmias can result. In this study, targeting the PKA catalytic or regulatory subunit to the E1 auxiliary channel subunit via a targeting nanobody restores at least some of the normal modulation in the presence of cAMP. This primary finding demonstrates a potential therapeutic approach when mutations disrupt its interaction with the channel complex.

A secondary finding of the study is that, contrary to expectation, targeting the enzyme to the Q1 alpha subunit C-terminus does not restore modulation but rather inhibits current by tying up the protein in the ER. Retention apparently depends on phosphorylation because a kinase-dead PKA catalytic subunit exhibits normal current. These findings demonstrate that the efficacy of correction is critically dependent on the site of recruitment. The results represent a starting point whereby kinase-based signaling can be synthetically harnessed to restore normal function in a disease setting.

The strengths of the study are the therapeutic potential of its principal finding and the clever approach to redirecting cellular components. Controls for the constructs are carefully designed and executed. Most of the conclusions are supported by the data presented. The weaknesses are minor and include providing more than an exemplar to support findings of enhanced phosphorylation and an accounting of how the findings from immunofluorescent images were quantitatively established. The study represents a major contribution to an emerging field of study in which modulation is induced by the proximity of enzymes to otherwise undruggable targets.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This manuscript proposes to tackle a very interesting and methodologically challenging topic: the mechanistic underpinnings of neural specialization in the infant brain. The authors presented 4- to 7-month-old infants with social and non-social stimuli while their neural, hemodynamic, and metabolic activity was monitored, and they report a complex pattern of relationships between neural and metabolic or hemodynamic responses during social processing on the one hand, and during non-social processing on the other hand.

The approach described in this manuscript is very interesting and the combined use of EEG and bNIRS data appears very promising. However, there is some confusion between the initial aims of the study, and the analyses performed, which jeopardizes the clarity and the impact of this manuscript. Besides, the predictions of the authors are often underspecified which complexifies the interpretation of the results.

Based on its abstract, the goal of this work is to "combine simultaneous measures of coordinated neural activity metabolic rate and oxygenated blood supply to measure emerging specialization in the infant brain". The introduction nicely elaborates on the "interactive specialization theory" and the potential role of the interplay between brain energy consumption and neural activity in the emergence of functionally specialized brain regions during development. The authors present a novel multimodal approach, with potentially important implications for the study of brain specialization as a function of experience or maturation. Yet the experimental procedure presented in this manuscript only assesses specialized brain activity in response to social processing in 4- to 7-month-old infants, using multimodal neuroimaging.<br /> Indeed, the authors presented 4- to 7-month-old infants with social and non-social stimuli while their neural, hemodynamic, and metabolic activity was monitored. The authors report significant differences between the two conditions in terms of neural activity in the delta, alpha, beta, and gamma bands; as well as in the pattern of hemodynamic to metabolic coupling. Using a GLM approach, the authors report on fNIRS channels and EEG sensors showing significant relationships between the evoked neural activity in the beta and gamma frequency bands, and each of the bNIRS signals (HbO, HbR & CCO), in the social and in the non-social conditions. The authors identify a particular fNIRS channel overlaying posterior STS, showing a positive relationship between Pz EEG beta activity and HbO, as well as CCO, together with a negative relationship between that same neural activity and HbR, in the social condition. This pattern of activity was not observed in the non-social condition.<br /> Overall, these results indicate differential neural responses to social and non-social stimuli, coupled metabolic and hemodynamic activity in response to social as well as nonsocial stimuli. These results additionally indicate coordinated metabolic, hemodynamic, and neural responses in brain regions selective for social processing, but it does not allow us to conclude that this coordinated activity is actually related to the functional specialization process (e.g. last sentence of the abstract).

Another weakness of this manuscript relates to the unclear or underspecified motivations behind some of the performed analyses. For example, the authors contrast brain responses to social vs. baseline, non-social vs. baseline, and social vs. non-social. For clarity in the manuscript, the authors should specify the motivation behind each of these contrasts and their predictions.

Another example is in the analysis of the hemodynamic and metabolic coupling analysis, here the authors analyze only the social vs. baseline and non-social vs. baseline contrast, and they do not analyze the social vs non-social contrast. It would be useful for the reader to understand why only these two contrasts are performed and not the social vs. non-social, and what are the predictions of the authors.

Finally, the core result of this work derives from the final GLM analysis which relates EEG activity to hemodynamic or metabolic responses. This analysis implies the inspection of interactions between 3 neuroimaging modalities, with 4 EEG measures, 2 hemodynamic measures, and 1 metabolic measure, which represents a very rich and relatively complex analytic approach. Unfortunately, the predictions are not clearly specified, which makes results interpretation difficult.

Based on the results (L160-162) and discussion (L233-235) sections, it appears that the authors aim at identifying brain regions showing a precise pattern of activity, with a positive relationship between EEG activity and HbO/CCO responses together with a concurrent negative relationship between EEG and HbR responses in response to social events, but not in response to non-social events. Importantly, the social vs. non-social contrast seems crucial to assess the selectivity of the response. Yet, the authors analyze the 3 chromophores separately, and they do not contrast the two conditions (figure 3). As a result, the authors are limited to reporting a descriptive pattern of relationships between EEG and HbO/HbR/CCO activations for the social condition. And another one for the non-social condition. Overall, the authors conclude that channel 14, overlaying the right TPJ, shows the expected pattern of activity, specifically in response to social stimuli. Yet, this statement is only supported by visual inspection/comparison of the results between the social vs baseline and non-social vs baseline conditions. The authors do not assess analytically the differential patterns of activations between the two conditions. Instead, a GLM including all 3 chromophores and contrasting the two experimental conditions would allow us to directly test the predicted pattern of activity, and the selectivity of the activity for social stimuli.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors used passive acoustic monitoring over a vast range of the North Atlantic to study the call rates of fin whales. They found a 'take over' of a new rythm (inter call intervals) during their study period. This was interpreted as a change in song production.

I am not completely convinced the authors are correct in describing this change in rate as a change in the song. Even though fin whale calls are evidently a male mating ground display, little is known about its function. Compared to humpback whales with their impressive repertoire of vocalizations, repeating themselves on the breeding grounds after some tens of minutes and therefore qualifying as a very slow 'song' similar to bird song, fin whale only emit a single type of call, which is remaining the same throughout the study period. It can be contested, I would assume, that a ,erely change the repetition rate of calls, even though seemingly done here in an 'overtake' fasion, can qualify as a change and learning of song,

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors have made significant improvements in addressing my major concerns raised during the previous review. However, I still have some lingering concerns regarding the quantification and statistical analysis presented in the manuscript. Specifically, there is a lack of robust quantification and statistical analysis to support the conclusions drawn, particularly in relation to the numbers of DG, CA1, and CA3 neurons.

To strengthen the validity and reliability of the findings, I would strongly recommend the authors to incorporate a more rigorous quantitative approach in their research. This could involve implementing stereological methods or other appropriate techniques to accurately estimate the numbers of neurons in the DG, CA1, and CA3 regions. By doing so, the authors would enhance the credibility of their conclusions and provide more solid evidence for their claims.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

As naturalistic neuroscience becomes increasingly popular, the importance of new computational tools that facilitate the study of animals behaving in minimally constrained environments grows. Yi et al convincingly demonstrate the usefulness of their new method on data from neuroethological studies involving multiple animals, including those with social interactions. Briefly, their method improves upon prior semi-supervised machine learning methods in that extracted latent variables can be more cleanly separated into those representing the behavior of individual subjects and those representing social interactions between subjects. Such an improvement is broadly useful for downstream analysis tasks in multi-subject or social neuroethological studies.

Strengths:<br /> The authors tackle an important problem encountered in behavior analyses in an emerging subfield of neuroscience, naturalistic social neuroscience. They make a case for doing so using semi-unsupervised methods, a toolbox which balances competing scientific needs for building models using large neural-behavioral datasets and for model explainability. The paper is well written, with well-designed figures and relevant analyses that make for an enjoyable reading experience.

The authors provide a remarkable variety of examples that make a convincing case for the utility of their method when used by itself or in conjunction with other data analysis techniques commonly used in modern neuroscience (behavioral motif extraction, neural decoding, etc.). The examples show not just that the extracted latents are more disentangled, but also that the improvement in disentangling has positive effects in downstream analysis tasks.

Weaknesses:<br /> While the paper does a great job of applying the method to real world data, the components of the method itself are not as thoroughly investigated. For example, the contribution of the novel Cauchy-Schwarz regularization technique has not been systematically investigated. This could be done either by sharing additional data where hyperparameters control the contribution of the regularizer, or cite relevant papers where such an analysis have been carried out. It would also be valuable to understand what other regularization techniques might potentially have been applicable here.

The authors conclude from their empirical investigations that the specific prior distribution does not matter to the regularization process. This seems reasonable given that the neural network can learn a complex and arbitrary transformation of the data during training. It would be helpful if the authors could cite prior work where this type of prior distribution does matter and how their approach is different from such prior work. If there is a visualization/explainability related motivation for choosing one prior distribution over another, this could be clarified.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This paper reveals interesting physical connections between Elg1 and CST proteins that suggest a model where Elg1-mediated PCNA unloading is linked to regulation of telomere length extension via Stn1, Cdc13, and presumably Ten1 proteins. Some of these interactions appear to be modulated by sumolyation and connected with Elg1's PCNA unloading activity. The strength of the paper is in the observations of new interactions between CST, Elg1, and PCNA. These interactions should be of interest to a broad audience interested in telomeres and DNA replication.

What is not well demonstrated from the paper is the functional significance of the interactions described. The model presented by the authors is one interpretation of the data shown, and proposes that the role of sumolyation is temporally regulate the Elg1, PCNA and CST interactions at telomeres. This model makes some assumptions that are not demonstrated by this work (such as Stn1 sumolyation, as noted) and are left for future testing. Alternative models that envision sumolyation as a key in promoting spatial localization could also be proposed based on the data here (as mentioned in the discussion), in addition to or instead of a role for sumolyation in enforcing a series of switches governing a tightly sequenced series of interactions and events at telomeres. Critically, the telomere length data from the paper indicates that the proposed model depicts interactions that are not necessary for telomerase activation or inhibition, as telomeres in pol30-RR strains are normal length and telomeres in elg1∆ strains are not nearly as elongated as in stn1 strains. One possibility mentioned in the paper is the PCNAS and Elg1 interactions are contributing to the negative regulation of telomerase under certain conditions that are not defined in this work. Could it also be possible that the role of these interactions is not primarily directed toward modulating telomerase activity? It will be of interest to learn more about how these interactions and regulation by Sumo function intersect with regulation of telomere extension.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The introduction/background is excellent. It reviews evidence showing that the extinction of conditioned responding is regulated by noradrenaline and suggests that the locus coeruleus (LC) may be a critical locus of this regulation. This naturally leads to the aim of the study: to determine whether the locus coeruleus is involved in the extinction of an appetitive conditioned response. Overall, the study is well-designed, nicely conducted and the results advance our understanding of the role of the LC in the extinction of conditioned behaviour. As such, I believe that these results will be of interest to readers. I do, however, feel that the paper would benefit from the inclusion of additional data to clarify the impact of the LC manipulations (stimulation and inhibition) on performance in the task; and some comment regarding the likely source of differences between the groups at test.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Complex behavior requires complex neural control involving multiple brain regions. The currently available tools to measure neural activity in multiple brain regions in small animals are limited and often involve obligatory head-fixation. The latter, obviously, impacts the behaviors under study. Hur and colleagues present a novel recording device, the E-Scope, that combines optical imaging of fluorescent calcium imaging in one brain region with high-density electrodes in another. Importantly, the E-Scope can be implanted and is, therefore, compatible with usage in freely moving mice. The authors used their new E-Scope to study neural activity during social interactions in mice. They demonstrate the presence of neural correlates of social interaction that happen simultaneously in the cerebellum and the anterior cingulate cortex.

The major accomplishment of this study is the development and introduction of the E-Scope. The evaluation of this part can be short: it works, so the authors succeeded.

The authors managed to reduce the weight of the implant to 4.5 g, which is - given all functionality - quite an accomplishment in my view. However, a mouse weighs between 20 and 40 g, so that an implant of 4.5 g is still quite considerable. It can be expected that this has an impact on the behavior and, possibly, the well-being of the animals. Whether this is the case or not, is not really addressed in this study. The authors suffice with the statement that "Recorded animals made more contact with the other mouse than with the object (Figure 2A), suggesting a normal preference for social contact with the E-Scope attached."

Overall, the description of animal behavior is rather sparse. The methods state only that stranger age-matched mice were used, but do not state their gender. The nature of the social interactions was not described? Was their aggressive behavior, sexual approach and/or intercourse? Did the stranger mice attack/damage the E-Scope? Were the interactions comparable (using which parameters?) with and without E-Scope attached? It is not even described what the authors define as an "interaction bout" (Figure 2A). The number of interaction bouts is counted per 7 minutes, I presume? This is not specified explicitly.

In Figure 1 D-G, the authors present raw data from the neurophysiological recordings. In panel D, we see events with vastly different amplitudes. It would be very insightful if the authors would describe which events they considered to be action potentials, and which not. Similarly, the raw traces of Figure 1E are declared to be single-unit recordings of Purkinje cells. Partially due to the small size of the traces (invisible in print and pixelated in the digital version), I have a hard time recognizing complex spikes and simple spikes in these traces. This is a bit worrisome, as the authors declare the typical duration of the pause in simple spike firing after a complex spike to be 20-100 ms. In my experience, such long pauses are rare in this region, and definitely not typical. In the right panel of Figure 1A, an example of a complex spike-induced pause is shown. This pause is around 15 ms, so not typical according to the text, and starts only around 4 ms after the complex spike, which should not be the case and suggests either a misalignment of the figure or the detection of complex spike spikelets as simple spikes, while the abnormally long pause suggests that the authors fail to detect a lot of simple spikes. The authors could provide more confidence in their data by including more raw data, making explicit how they analyzed the signals, and by reporting basic statistics of firing properties (like rate, cv or cv2, pause duration). In this respect, Figure 2 - figure supplement 3 shows quite a large percentage of cells to have either a very low or a very high firing rate.

The number of Purkinje cells recorded during social interactions is quite low: only 11 cells showed a modulation in their spiking activity (unclear whether in complex spikes, simple spikes or both. During object interaction, only 4 cells showed a significant modulation. Unclear is whether the latter 4 are a subset of the former 11, or whether "social cells" and "object cells" are different categories. Having so few cells, and with these having different types of modulation, the group of cells for each type of modulation is really small, going down to 2 cells/group. It is doubtful whether meaningful interpretation is possible here.

This brings us to the next point: neural correlates of social interaction are notoriously difficult to interpret. Social behavior is complex, and involves the processing of sensory cues (olfaction, touch (whiskers), visual and auditory), the production of ultrasonic vocalizations (in specific contexts), movements, and emotional behavior (fear, pleasure, sexual interest). In other words, neural activity patterns observed during social interaction do not necessarily relate specifically to social interaction, but can also occur in a non-social context. The authors control this by comparing social interactions with object interactions, but I miss a direct comparison between the two conditions, both in terms of behavior (now only the number of interactions is counted, not their duration or intensity), and in terms of neural activity. There is some analysis done on the interaction between movement and cerebellar activity (Figure 2 - figure supplement 4), but it is unclear to what extent social interactions and movements are separated here. It would already help to indicate in the plots with trajectories (e.g., Fig. 2H) indicate the social interactions (e.g., social interaction-related movements in red, the rest of the trajectories in black).

The neuron count in the anterior cingulate cortex is much higher than for the cerebellum, but also here it is not so clear what is "social" and what is "non-social". In Figure 3G-H, the authors indicate a near-perfect separation between cells active during social encounters and those active during object encounters. This could indicate that there is here indeed a social aspect, but as we do not know to what extent the sensory and motor aspects differ between social and non-social interactions, this is still hard to interpret.

Finally, the authors show that there are correlations between the modulation in neurons of the anterior cingulate cortex and cerebellar neurons related to bouts of social activity. Here, it could be interesting to see whether there are differences in latency between the two brain areas.

In conclusion, the authors present a novel method to record neural activity with single cell-resolution in two brain regions in freely moving mice. Given the challenges associated with understanding of complex behaviors, this approach can be useful for many neuroscientists. The authors demonstrate the potential of their approach by studying social interactions in mice. Clearly, there are correlations in the activity of neurons in the anterior cingulate cortex and the cerebellum related to social interactions. To bring our understanding of these patterns to a higher level, more detailed analyses (and probably also larger group sizes of cerebellar neurons) are required, though.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study investigated what kind of reference (allocentric or egocentric) frame we used for perception in darkness. This question is essential and was not addressed much before. The authors compared the perception in the walking condition with that in the stationary condition, which successfully separated the contribution of self-movement to the spatial representation. In addition, the authors also carefully manipulated the contribution of the waiting period, attentional load, vestibular input, testing task, and walking direction (forward or backward) to examine the nature of the reference frame in darkness systematically.

I am a bit confused by Figure 2b. Allocentric coordinate refers to the representation of the distance and direction of an object relative to other objects but not relative to the observer. In Figure 2, however, the authors assumed that the perceived target was located on the interception between the intrinsic bias curve and the viewing line from the NEW eye position to the target. This suggests that the perceived object depends on the observer's new location, which seems odd with the allocentric coordinate hypothesis.

According to Fig 2b, the perceived size should be left-shifted and lifted up in the walking condition compared to that in the stationary condition. However, in Figure 3C and Fig 4, the perceived size was the same height as that in the baseline condition.

Is the left-shifted perceived distance possibly reflecting a kind of compensation mechanism? Participants could not see the target's location but knew they had moved forward. Therefore, their brain automatically compensates for this self-movement when judging the location of a target. This would perfectly predict the left-shifted but not upward-shifted data in Fig 3C. A similar compensation mechanism exists for size constancy in which we tend to compensate for distance in computing object size.

According to Fig 2a, the target, perceived target, and eye should be aligned in one straight line. This means that connecting the physical targets and the corresponding perceived target results in straight lines that converge at the eye position. This seems, however, unlikely in Figure 3c.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Prior studies have shown that locomotion (e.g., running) modulates mouse V1 activity to a similar extent as visual stimuli. However, it's unclear if these findings hold in species with more specialized and advanced visual systems such as nonhuman primates. In this work, Liska et al. leverage population and single neuron analyses to investigate potential differences and similarities in how running modulates V1 activity in marmosets and mice. Specifically, they discovered that although a shared gain model could describe well the trial-to-trial variations of population-level neural activity for both species, locomotion more strongly modulated V1 population activity in mice. Furthermore, they found that at the level of individual units, marmoset V1 neurons, unlike mice V1 neurons, experience suppression of their activity during running.

A major strength of this work is the introduction and completion of primate electrophysiology recordings during locomotion. Data of this kind was previously limited, and this work moves the field forward in terms of data collection in a domain previously inaccessible in primates. Another core strength of this work is that it adds to a limited collection of cross-species data collection and analysis of neural activity at the single-unit and population level, attempting to standardize analysis and data collection to be able to make inferences across species.

However, the authors did not take full advantage of the quantity and diversity of the marmoset visual cortex recordings in their analyses. They mention recording and analyzing the activity of peripheral V1 neurons but mainly present results involving foveal V1 neurons. Foveal neurons, with their small receptive fields strongly affected by precise eye position, would seem to be less likely to be comparable to rodent data. If the authors have a reason for not doing so, they should provide an explanation. Given that the marmosets are motivated to run with liquid rewards, the authors should provide more context as to how this may or may not affect marmoset V1 activity. Additionally, the lack of consideration of eye movements or position presents a major absence for the marmoset results, and fails to take advantage of one of the key differences between primate and rodent visual systems - the marmosets have a fovea, and make eye movements that fixate in various locations on the screen during the task. Finally, the model provides a strong basis for comparison at the level of neuronal populations, but some methodological choices are insufficiently described and may have an impact on interpreting the claims.

Overall, the methods and data are supportive of the main claims of the work. The use of single neuron and population level approaches demonstrate that the activity of V1 in mice and marmoset is categorically different. Since primate V1 is so diverse, this limits the interpretation of the cross-species comparison. Still, the work is a great step forward in the field, especially with the novel methodology of collecting neural activity from running primates.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Yin-wei Lin et al set out to visualize the inactive conformation of full-length Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK), a molecule that has evaded high-resolution structural studies in its full-length form to this date. An open question in the field is how the Pleckstrin Homology-Tec Homology (PHTH) domain inhibits BTK activity, with multiple competing models in the field. The authors used a complimentary set of biophysical techniques combined with well-thought-out stabilizing mutations to obtain structural insights into BTK regulation in its full-length form. They were able to crystallize the full-length construct of BTK but unfortunately, the PHTH was not resolved yielding a structure similar to that previously obtained in the field. The investigation of the same construct by SAXS yielded an elongated structural model, consistent with previous SAXS studies. Using cryo-EM the authors obtained a low-resolution model for the FL BTK with a loosely connected density assigned to the dynamic PHTH around the compact SH2-SH3-Kinase Domain (KD) core. To gain further molecular insights into PHTH-KD interactions the authors followed a previously reported strategy and generated a fusion of PHTH-KD with a longer linker, yielding a crystal structure with a novel PHTH-KD interface which they tested in biochemical assays. Lastly, Yin-wei Lin et al crystallized the BTK KD in a novel partially active state in a "face-to-face" dimer with kinases exchanging the activation loops, although partially disordered, being theoretically perfectly positioned for transphosphorylation. Overall this presents a valiant effort to gain molecular insights into what clearly is a dynamic regulatory motif on BTK and is a valuable addition to the field.

However, this work can be improved by considering these points:

1) The cryo-EM reconstructions are potentially over-interpreted. The reported resolution for all of the analyzed reconstructions is better than 8Å, at which point helices should be recognized as well-resolved structural elements. In the current view/depiction of the cryo-EM maps/models it is hard to see such structural features and it would be great if the authors could include a panel showing maps at higher thresholds to show correspondence between the helices in the kinase C lobe and the cryo-EM maps. Otherwise, the overall positioning of the models within the cryo-EM maps is hard to evaluate and may very well be wrong. (Fig 4, S2).

2) With the above in mind, if the maps are not at the point where helices are well resolved, it may be beneficial to low-pass filter the maps to a more conservative resolution for fitting, analysis, and representation. (Fig 4, S2).

3) It would be valuable to get a quantitative metric on the model/map fitting for the cryo-EM work. One good package for this is Situs which provides cross-correlation values for the top orthogonal fits, without user input for initial fitting. This would again increase the confidence in the correctness of model positioning on the map. (Fig 4, S2).

4) It would be great to see 2D class averages from the particles contributing to each of the 3D classes. Theoretically, a clear bright "blob" (hypothesized to be the PHTH domain) should be observable in the 2D class averages. In the current 2D class averages that region is unconvincingly weak. (Fig 4, S2).

5) It seems like there was quite a large circular mask applied during 2D classification. Are authors confident that the weak density attributed to the PHTH domain is not neighboring particles making their way into the extraction box? It would be great if the authors would trim their particle stack with a very stringent inter-particle distance cutoff (or report the cutoff in the manuscript if already done so) to minimize this possibility.

6) The cryo-EM processing may benefit from more stringent particle picking. The authors picked over 2M particles from 750 micrographs which likely represents very heavy overpicking. I would encourage the authors to re-pick the micrographs with 2D class averages and use more stringent metrics to reduce the overpicking. This may result in higher-resolution reconstructions. (Fig 4, S2).

7) The Dmax from SAXS for the Full Length BTK is at 190Å. It would be great if the authors could make a cartoon of what domain arrangement may satisfy this distance, as it is quite extended for such a small particle. Can the authors rule out dimerization at SAXS concentrations? (Fig 1).

8) In Figure S1 (C) it seems that the curves are just scattering curves with Guinier plots in the inserts, but are labeled as Guinier plots in the legend. The Guinier plots for some samples (FL 4P1F) show signs of aggregation, which may complicate the analysis, it could be beneficial to redo.

9) Have the authors verified that the activation loop mutations that they introduce do not disrupt the PHTH binding as they previously reported an activation loop on BTK to interact with PHTH, an interaction they do not see here? If so, a citation would be helpful in the text. If not, testing this would strengthen the paper.

10) Can the authors comment on the surfaces which are accessible and inaccessible to the PHTH in the crystal (Fig 3E)? The fact that PHTH doesn't adopt a stable conformation in the solvent channel to some degree indicates that the accessible interaction surfaces are not suitable for PHTH interactions, as the "effective concentration" of the PHTH would be quite high. Are these surfaces consistent with the cryo-EM analysis?

11) For the novel active state dimer of the Kinase Domain it would be great to see some functional validation of the dimerization interface. It is structurally certainly quite suggestive, but without such experiments the functional significance is unclear. If appropriate mutations have been published previously a citation would be helpful.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Verdikt et al. focused on the influence of Δ9-THC, the most abundant phytocannabinoid, on early embryonic processes. The authors chose an in vitro differentiation system as a model and compared the proliferation rate, metabolic status, and transcriptional level in ESCs, exposure to Δ9-THC. They also evaluated the change of metabolism and transcriptome in PGCLCs derived from Δ9-THC-exposed cells. All the methods in this paper do not involve the differentiation of ESCs to lineage-specific cells. So the results cannot demonstrate the impact of Δ9-THC on preimplantation developmental stages. In brief, the authors want to explore the impact of Δ9-THC on preimplantation developmental stages, but they only detected the change in ESCs and PGCLCs derived from ESCs, exposure to Δ9-THC, which showed the molecular characterization of the impact of Δ9-THC exposure on ESCs and PGCLCs.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This paper presents the cognitive implications of claims made in two accompanying papers (Berger et al. 2023a, 2023b) about the creation of rock engravings, the intentional disposal of the dead, and fire use by Homo naledi. The importance of the paper, therefore, relies on the validity of the claims for the presence of socio-culturally complex and cognitively demanding behaviors that are presented in the associated papers. Given the archaeological, hominin, and taphonomic analyses in the associated papers are not adequate to enable the exceptional claims for naledi-associated complex behaviors, the inferences made in this paper are currently inadequate and incomplete.

The claimed behaviors are widely recognized as complex and even quintessential to Homo sapiens. The implications of their unequivocal association with such a small-brained Middle Pleistocene hominin are thus far reaching. Accordingly, the main thrust of the paper is to highlight that greater cognition and complex socio-cultural behaviors were not necessarily associated with a positively encephalized brain. This argument begs the obvious question of whether absolute brain size and/or encephalization quotient (i.e., the actual brain volume of a given species relative the expected brain size for a species of the same average body size) can measure cognitive capacity and the complexity of socio-cultural behaviors among late Middle Pleistocene hominins.

Claims for a positive correlation between absolute and/or relative brain size and cognitive ability are not common in discussions surrounding the evolution of Middle- and Late Pleistocene hominin behavior. Currently, the bulk of the evidence for early complex technological and social behaviors derives from multiple sites across South Africa and postdates the emergence of H. sapiens by more than 100,000 years. Such lag in the expression of complex technologies and behaviors within our species renders the brain size-implies-cognitive capacity argument moot. Instead, a rich body of research over the past several decades has focused on aspects related to socio-cultural, environmental, and even the wiring of the brain in order to understand factors underlying the expression of the capacity for greater behavioral variability. In this regard, even if the claimed evidence for complex behaviors among the small-brained naledi populations proves valid, the exploration of the specific/potential socio-cultural, neuro-structural, ecological and other factors will be more informative than the emphasis on absolute/relative brain size.

The paper presents as supporting evidence previous claims for the appearance of similar complex behaviors predating the emergence of our species, H. sapiens, although it does acknowledge their controversial nature. It then uses the current claims for the association of such behaviors with H. naledi as decisive. Given the inadequate analyses in the accompanying papers and the lack of evidence for stone tools in the naledi sites, the present claims for the expression of culturally and symbolically mediated behaviors by this small-brained hominin must be adequately established. The importance of the paper thus rests on the validity of the claimed evidence--including contextual aspects--for rock engraving, mortuary practices, and the use of fire presented in the associated two papers. The claims in both associated papers are inadequate, incomplete, and largely assumption- (rather than evidence) based. As responsible and ethical researchers, the team must return to the sites, conduct the required standard chronomoetric and taphonomic studies and weigh the strength of the evidence before proceeding with the current claims.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Lee Berger and colleagues argue here that markings they have found in a dark isolated space in the Rising Star Cave system are likely over a quarter of a million years old and were made intentionally by Homo naledi, whose remains nearby they have previously reported. As in a European and much later case they reference ('Neanderthal engraved 'art' from the Pyrenees'), the entangled issues of demonstrable intentionality, persuasive age and likely authorship will generate much debate among the academic community of rock art specialists. The title of the paper and the reference to 'intentional designs', however, leave no room for doubt as to where the authors stand, despite avoidance of the word art, entering a very disputed terrain. Iain Davidson's (2020) 'Marks, pictures and art: their contributions to revolutions in communication', also referenced here, forms a useful and clearly articulated evolutionary framework for this debate. The key questions are: 'are the markings artefactual or natural?', 'how old are they?' and 'who made them?, questions often intertwined and here, as in the Pyrenees, completely inseparable. I do not think that these questions are definitively answered in this paper and I guess from the language used by the authors (may, might, seem etc) that they do not think so either.

First, a few referencing issues: the key reference quoted for distinguishing natural from artefactual markings (Fernandez-Jalvo et al. 2014), whilst mentioned in the text, is not included in the references. In the acknowledgements, the claim that "permits to conduct research in the Rising Star Cave system are provided by the South African National Research Foundation" should perhaps refer rather to SAHRA? In the primary description of their own markings from Rising Star and their presumed significance, there are, oddly, several unacknowledged quotes from the abstract of one of the most significant European references (Rodriguez-Vidal et al. 2014). These need attention.

Before considering the specific arguments of the authors to justify the claims of the title, we should recognise the shift in the academic climate of those concerned with 'ancient markings' that has taken place over the past two or three decades. Before those changes, most specialists would probably have expected all early intentional markings to have been made by Homo sapiens after the African diaspora as part of the explosion of innovative behaviours thought to characterise the 'origins of modern humans'. Now, claims for earlier manifestations of such innovations from a wider geographic range are more favourably received, albeit often fiercely challenged as the case for Pyrenean Neanderthal 'art' shows (White et al. 2020). This change in intellectual thinking does not, however, alter the strict requirements for a successful assertion of earlier intentionality by non-sapiens species. We should also note that stone, despite its ubiquity in early human evolutionary contexts, is a recalcitrant material not easily directly dated whether in the form of walling, artefact manufacture or potentially meaningful markings. The stakes are high but the demands are no less so.

Why are the markings not natural? Berger and co-authors seem to find support for the artefactual nature of the markings in their location along a passage connecting chambers in the underground Rising Star Cave system. The presumption is that the hominins passed by the marked panel frequently. I recognise the thinking but the argument is weak. More confidently they note that "In previous work researchers have noted the limited depth of artificial lines, their manufacture from multiple parallel striations, and their association into clear arrangement or pattern as evidence of hominin manufacture (Fernandez-Jalvo et al. 2014)". The markings in the Rising Star Cave are said to be shallow, made by repeated grooving with a pointed stone tool that has left striations within the grooves and to form designs that are "geometric expressions" including crosshatching and cruciform shapes. "Composition and ordering" are said to be detectable in the set of grooved markings. Readers of this and their texts will no doubt have various opinions about these matters, mostly related to rather poorly defined or quantified terminology. I reserve judgement, but would draw little comfort from the similarities among equally unconvincing examples of early, especially very early, 'designs'. Two or even three half-convincing arguments do not add up to one convincing one.

The authors draw our attention to one very interesting issue: given the extensive grooving into the dolomite bedrock by sharp stone objects, where are these objects? Only one potential 'lithic artefact' is reported, a "tool-shaped rock [that] does resemble tools from other contexts of more recent age in southern Africa, such as a silcrete tool with abstract ochre designs on it that was recovered from Blombos Cave (Henshilwood et al. 2018)", also figured by Berger and colleagues. A number of problems derive from this comparison. First, 'tool-shaped rock' is surely a meaningless term: in a modern toolshed 'tool-shaped' would surely need to be refined into 'saw-shaped', 'hammer-shaped' or 'chisel-shaped' to convey meaning? The authors here seem to mean that the Rising Star Cave object is shaped like the Blombos painted stone fragment. But the latter is a painted fragment, not a tool and so any formal similarity is surely superficial and offers no support to the 'tool-ness' of the Rising Star Cave object. Does this mean that Homo naledi took (several?) pointed stone tools down the dark passageways, used them extensively and, whether worn out or still usable, took them all out again when they left? Not impossible, of course. And the lighting?

The authors rightly note that the circumstance of the markings "makes it challenging to assess whether the engravings are contemporary with the Homo naledi burial evidence from only a few metres away" and more pertinently, whether the hominins did the markings. Despite this honest admission, they are prepared to hypothesise that the hominin marked, without, it seems, any convincing evidence. If archaeologists took juxtaposition to demonstrate authorship, there would be any number of unlikely claims for the authorship of rock paintings or even stone tools. The idea that there were no entries into this Cave system between the Homo naledi individuals and the last two decades is an assertion, not an observation, and the relationship between hominins and designs no less so. In fact, the only 'evidence' for the age of the markings is given by the age of the Homo naledi remains, as no attempt at the, admittedly very difficult, perhaps impossible, task of geochronological assessment, has been made.

The claims relating to artificiality, age and authorship made here seem entangled, premature and speculative. Whilst there is no evidence to refute them, there isn't convincing evidence to confirm them.

References:

• Davidson, I. 2020. Marks, pictures and art: their contribution to revolutions in communication. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 27: 3 745-770.

• Henshilwood, C.S. et al. 2018. An abstract drawing from the 73,000-year-old levels at Blombos Cave, South Africa. Nature 562: 115-118.

• Rodriguez-Vidal, J. et al. 2014. A rock engraving made by Neanderthals in Gibralter. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

• White, Randall et al. 2020. Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This paper provides new information on the Dinaledi Chamber at the Rising Star Cave System. In short, a previously excavated area was expanded and resulted in the discovery of a cluster of bones appearing to be of one individual, a second similar cluster, and a third cluster with articulated elements (though with several individuals). Two of these clusters are argued to be intentionally buried individuals (the third one has not been investigated) and thus Homo naledi not only placed conspecifics in deep and hard to reach parts of caves but also buried them (apparently in shallow graves). This would be the oldest evidence of intentional burial. The main issue with the paper is that the purported burials were not fully excavated. Two are still in the ground, and one was removed in blocks but left unexcavated. As burials are mostly about sediments, it means the authors are lacking important lines of evidence. Instead, they bring other lines of argument as outlined below. While their preferred scenario is possible, there are important issues with the evidence as presented and they are severely hampered by the lack of detailed archaeological and geoarchaeological information both from the specific skeletal contexts and more generally from the chamber (because in fact the amount of excavation conducted here is still quite limited in scope). I also found that while the presentations of the various specialists in the team was quite good, the integration of these contributions into the main text was not. In particular, the geology of the cave system and the chamber need (especially what is known of the depositional and post-depositional processes) need to be better integrated into the presentation of the archaeology and the interpretation of the finds.

Often times the presence of articulated or mostly articulated skeletons is used to argue for intentional burial. This argument, however, is based on the premise that if not buried, these skeletons would have otherwise become disarticulated. Normally disarticulation would happen as a result of subsequent use of the site by hominins (e.g. purported burials in Neandertal cave sites) or by carnivores scavenging the body. Indeed this latter point is why bodies are buried so deeply in many Western societies (i.e. beyond the reach and smell of carnivores). Bodies can also be disarticulated by natural processes of deposit and erosion.

However, here in the case of the Dinaledi Chamber, we apparently don't have any of these other processes. The chamber was not used by carnivores and it was not a living area where H. naledi would have frequently returned and cleared out the space. As for depositional processes, it is more complex, but it is clear from Wiersma et al. that there is a steady, constant movement of these sediments towards drains. They also think that this process can account for the mix of articulated and non-articulated elements in the cave. Importantly, that same paper makes the argument that the formation of these sediments is not the result of water movement and that the cave has been dry since the formation of this deposit. So bodies lying on the surface and slowly covered by the formation of the deposit and slowly moving towards the drains could perhaps account for the pattern observed, meaning burial is not needed to account for articulations (note that more information on fabrics would be good in this context - orientation analysis of surface finds or of excavated finds is either completely lacking or minimal - see figure 13b and c report orientations on 79 bones of unknown context that appear to show perhaps elevated plunge angles and some slightly patterning in bearing but there is no associated statistics or text explaining the significance).

So, unless the team can provide some process that would have otherwise disarticulated these skeletons after the bodies arrived here and decomposed, their articulated state is not evidence of burial (no more than finding an articulated or mostly articulated bear skeleton deep in a European cave would suggest that it was buried).

As for the elemental analysis, what I understood from the paper is that the sediment associated with bones is different from the sediment not associated with bones. It is therefore unsurprising that the sediment associated with the reported skeletons clusters with sediments with bones. The linking argument for why this makes this sediment pit fill is unclear to me. Perhaps it is there, but as written I didn't follow it.

What the elemental analysis could suggest, I think, is that there has not been substantial reworking of the sediments (as opposed to the creep suggested by Wiersma et al.) since the bones leached these minerals into the sediment. What I don't know, and what is not reported, is how long after deposition we can expect the soil chemistry to change. If this elemental analysis were extended in a systematic way across the chamber (both vertically and horizontally) after more extensive excavations, I could see it perhaps being useful for better understanding the site formation processes and depositional context. As it is now, I did not see the argument in support of a burial pit.

The other line of evidence here is that some bones are sediment supported. The argument here is that when a body decomposes, bones that were previously held in place by soft tissues will be free to move and will shift their position. How the bones shift will differ depending on whether the body is surrounded by matrix (as they argue here in an excavated burial pit) or whether it is in the open (say, for instance, in a coffin) (and there are other possibilities as well - for instance wrapped in a shroud). Experiments have also shown the order in which the tendons, for instance, decompose and therefore which bones are likely to be free to move first or last.

I will note that this literature is poorly cited. I think the only two papers cited for how bodies decompose are Roksandic 2002 and Mickleburgh and Wescott 2019. The former is a review paper that summarizes a great many contexts that are clearly not appropriate here, and it generally makes the point that it is difficult to sort out, and it notes that progressively filled is an additional alternative to not buried/buried. The other looks at experimental data of bodies decomposing without being buried. In the paper here, this citation is used to argue that the body must have been buried. I don't see the linking argument at all. And the cited paper is mostly about how complicated it is to figure this all out and how many variables are still unaccounted for (including the initial positioning of the body and the consumption of the body by insects - something that is attested to at Naledi - plus snails - see not just Val but also Wiersma et al. and I think the initial Dirk et al. paper).

So the team here instead simply speaks of how the body decomposes in burials as if it is known. For the Feature 1 skeleton, the authors note that the ribs are "apparently" sediment supported and that a portion of the partial cranium is vertical or subvertical and sediment supported. For both of these, the figures show it very poorly. We really have to take their word for it. Second, I would have liked to have seen some reference and comparison to the literature for how the ribs should be in sediment burial cases. For the cranium, seems like a broken cranium resting on a surface will have vertical aspects regardless of sediment support. To the contrary, the orientation of the cranium will change depending on whether there is sediment holding it in place or not. But that argument is not made here. It is very hard from the figures to have a detailed idea of how these skeletons are oriented in the sediments, to know which elements are in articulation, which are missing, etc.

In the case of the Hill Antechamber Feature, an additional argument is made about the orientation of the finds in relation to the natural stratigraphy in this location. The team argues that the skeleton is lying more horizontally than the sediments and that in fact the foot is lying against the slope. First, there is no documentation of the slope of the layers here (e.g. a stratigraphic profile with the layers marked or a fabric analysis). There is a photo in the SI that says it shows sloping, but it needs some work. Second, this skeleton was removed in three blocks and then scanned. So the position of the skeleton is being worked out separate from its context. This is doable, but I would have liked to have seen some mention of how the blocks were georeferenced in the field and then subsequently in the lab and of how the items inside the block (i.e. the data coming from the CT scanner) were then georeferenced. I can think of ways I would try to do this, but without some discussion of this critical issue, the argument presented in Figure 10c is difficult to evaluate. Further, even if we accept this work, it is hard for me to see how the alignment of the foot is 15 degrees opposite the slope (the figure in the SI is better). It is also hard to understand the argument that the sediment separating the lower limb from the torso means burial. The team gives the explanation that if the body was in an open pit it would have been flat with no separation. Maybe. I mean I guess if the pit was flat. But there is no evidence here of a pit (at all). And what if the body was stuffed down the chute and was resting on a slope and covered with additional sediments from the chute (or additional bodies) as it decomposed? It seems that this should be the starting point here rather than imagining a pit.

One of the key pieces of evidence for demonstrating deliberate burial is the recognition of a pit. Pits can be identified because of the rupture they create in the stratigraphy when older sediments are brought to the surface, mixed, and then refilled into the pit with a different color, texture, compaction, etc. In some homogenous sediments a pit can be hard to detect and in some instances post-depositional processes (e.g. burrowing) can blur the distinction between the pit and the surrounding sediments. But the starting point of any discussion of deliberate burial has to be the demonstration of a pit. And I don't see it here. It might just be that the figures need to be improved. But I am skeptical because the team has taken the view that these finds can't be excavated. While I appreciate the scanning work done on the Antechamber find, it is not the same as excavating. Same comment for Features 1 and 2.

In short, my view is that they have an extremely interesting dataset. That H. naledi buried their dead here can't be excluded based on the data, but neither is it supported here. My view is that this paper is premature and that more excavation and the use of geoarchaeological techniques (especially micromorphology) are required to sort this out (or go a long way towards sorting it out).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study explores how condensin and telomere proteins cooperate to facilitate sister chromatid disjunction at chromosome ends during anaphase. Building upon previous results published by the same group (Reyes et al. 2015, Berthezene et al. 2020), the authors demonstrate that condensin is essential for sister telomere disjunction in anaphase in fission yeast. The primary role of condensin appears to be counteracting cohesin, which holds sister telomeres together. Furthermore, condensin is found to be enriched at telomeres, and this enrichment partially relies on Taz1, the principal telomere factor in S. pombe. The loss of Taz1 does not cause an obvious defect in sister telomere disjunction, which prevents drawing strong conclusions about its role in this process.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this study, Gadani et al. induced EAE in SJL/J mice and performed a comprehensive spatial transcriptomic analysis in areas of meningeal inflammation during the relapse phase of the disease. The authors found specific enrichment in spatial gene signatures (cluster 11) in the regions of increased contrast-enhancement by MRI (where meningeal extravasation of activated immune cells is observed) that overlap with signatures in the adjacent brain parenchyma, namely the thalamus. Several pathways were similarly upregulated in the meningeal-associated cluster 11 and adjacent parenchymal clusters (like adaptive mediated immunity, and antigen processing and presentation), suggestive of a "leakage" of inflammatory mediators from the meninges into the brain during the re-activation of disease. The tested hypothesis, as well as the data presented in this study, is quite interesting and novel.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

It is well known that as seasonal day length increases, molecular cascades in the brain are triggered to ready an individual for reproduction. Some of these changes, however, can begin to occur before the day length threshold is reached, suggesting that short days similarly have the capacity to alter aspects of phenotype. This study seeks to understand the mechanisms by which short days can accomplish this task, which is an interesting and important question in the field of organismal biology and endocrinology.

The set of studies that this manuscript presents is comprehensive and well-controlled. Many of the effects are also strong and thus offer tantalizing hints about the endo-molecular basis by which short days might stimulate major changes in body condition. Another strength is that the authors put together a compelling model for how different facets of an animal's reproductive state come "on line" as day length increases and spring approaches. In this way, I think the authors broadly fulfill their aims.

I do, however, also think that there are a few weaknesses that the authors should consider, or that readers should consider when evaluating this manuscript. First, some of the molecular genetic analyses should be interpreted with greater caution. By bioinformatically showing that certain DNA motifs exist within a gene promoter (e.g., FSHbeta), one is not generating robust evidence that corresponding transcription factors actually regulate the expression of the gene in question. In fact, some may argue that this line of evidence only offers weak support for such a conclusion. I appreciate that actually running the laboratory experiments necessary to generate strong support for these types of conclusions is not trivial, and doing so may even be impossible. I would therefore suggest a clear admission of these limitations in the paper.

Second, I have another issue with the interpretation of data presented in Figure 3. The data show that FSHbeta increases in expression in the 8Lext group, suggesting that endogenous drivers likely act to increase the expression of this gene despite no change in day length. However, more robust effects are reported for FSHbeta expression in the 10v and 12v groups, even compared to the 8Lext group. Doesn't this suggest that both endogenous mechanisms and changes in day length work together to ramp up FSHbeta? The rest of the paper seemed to emphasize endogenous mechanisms and gloss over the fact that such mechanisms likely work additively with other factors. I felt like there was more nuance to these findings than the authors were getting into.

Third, studies 1 - 3 are well controlled; however, I'm left wondering how much of an effect the transitions in day length might have on the underlying molecular processes that mediate changes in body condition. While the changes in day length are themselves ecologically relevant, the transitions between day length states are not. How do we know, for example, that more gradual changes in day length that occur over long timespans do not produce different effects at the levels of the brain and body? This seemed especially relevant for study 3, where animals experience a rather sudden change in day length. I recognize that these experimental methods are well described in the literature, and they have been used by endocrinologists for a long time; nonetheless, I think questions remain.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Touray et al investigate the mechanisms by which PIP5Pase and RAP1 control VSG expression in T. brucei and demonstrate an important role for this enzyme in a signalling pathway that likely plays a role in antigenic variation in T. brucei.

The methods used in the study are rigorous and well-controlled. The authors convincingly demonstrate that RAP1 binds to PI(3,4,5)P3 through its N-terminus and that this binding regulates RAP1 binding to VSG expression sites, which in turn regulates VSG silencing. Overall their results support the conclusions made in the manuscript.

There are a few small caveats that are worth noting. First, the analysis of VSG derepression and switching in Figure 1 relies on a genome that does not contain minichromosomal (MC) VSG sequences. This means that MC VSGs could theoretically be misassigned as coming from another genomic location in the absence of an MC reference. As the origin of the VSGs in these clones isn't a major point in the paper, I do not think this is a major concern, but I would not over-interpret the particular details of switching outcomes in these experiments.

The authors state that "our data imply that antigenic variation is not exclusively stochastic." I am not sure this is true. While I also favor the idea that switching is not exclusively stochastic, evidence for a signaling pathway does not necessarily imply that antigenic variation is not stochastic. This pathway could be important solely for lifecycle-related control of VSG expression, rather than antigenic variation during infection. Nevertheless, these data are critical for establishing a potential pathway that could control antigenic variation and thus represent a fundamental discovery.

Another aspect of this work that is perhaps important, but not discussed much by the authors, is the fact that signalling is extremely poorly understood in T. brucei. In Figure 1B, the RNA-seq data show many genes upregulated after expression of the Mut PIP5Pase (not just VSGs). The authors rightly avoid claiming that this pathway is exclusive to VSGs, but I wonder if these data could provide insight into the other biological processes that might be controlled by this signaling pathway in T. brucei.

Overall, this is an excellent study that represents an important step forward in understanding how antigenic variation is controlled in T. brucei. The possibility that this process could be controlled via a signalling pathway has been speculated for a long time, and this study provides the first mechanistic evidence for that possibility.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Bierman et al. present a novel statistical framework for examining the subcellular localisation of RNA molecules. Subcellular Patterning Ranked Analysis With Labels, SPRAWL, uses the data available in multiplexed single-cell imaging datasets to assign four metrics of localisation patterns to RNA at a gene per cell level. These easy-to-understand scores, ranging from -1 to 1, can be averaged to detect cell-type specific spatial patterns or used in tandem with tools for RNA 3' UTR length or splicing state to determine the correlation between subcellular localisation and RNA isoforms. Such quantitive association between RNA isoforms and localisation provides a useful tool to determine candidate genes for future studies.

The peripheral and central scores indicate the proximity of RNA molecules to the cell boundary and centre of the cell respectively in relation to other RNA present in the cell. Whilst understanding whether a gene tends to be localised to the cellular membrane is important, it is unclear what biological benefits the central metric gives compared to high "anti-peripheral" scores considering that no single organelle (eg. the nucleus) is located specifically at the centre of the cell in all cell-types.

The punctate and radial patterning scores provide information on the spatial aggregation of RNA molecules of a given gene within a cell. Whilst the punctate score is easy to understand as simply the distance between RNA, the radial score, the angle between RNA, is harder to understand from the main text and would benefit from a schematic showing how this is in respect to the cell-boundary centroid.

Despite endeavouring to create a robust statistical measure of RNA subcellular localisation, this paper is full of inconsistencies. Values (eg. Pearson correlation coefficient values, number of significant genes, number of total genes) and names (eg. cell types, gene names) stated throughout the main text and figures/table do not match repeatedly and without fixing these disparities, the conclusions from this paper are hard to believe.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The article by Ma et al pursues the previous work of the Schekman group, exploring the mechanisms of targeting of miRNAs into extracellular vesicles (EVs), or possibly exosomes, in HEK293 and U2OS cells. The authors had identified YBX1 as an RNA-binding protein required for the sorting of miR223 into CD63-expressing small EVs, probably mainly exosomes. Here they further observed that YBX1 directly binds miR223, which also binds to another protein, YBAP1, localized in mitochondria, where it sequesters miR223, thus preventing its targeting to MVBs' intraluminal vesicles. They observe the association of YBX1-containing P-bodies in the cytoplasm with mitochondria and with enlarged Rab5-endosomes and propose that this step is required for the exchange of miR223 for its loading into MVBs intraluminal vesicles and future exosomes.

The biochemical parts of the article, with quantitative experiments to decipher the molecular interactions of YBX1 and YBAP1 with miR223, are nicely performed and convincing. By contrast, the parts on the involvement of YBX1 and of YBAP1 in the release of miR223 in EVs or exosomes are more correlative than demonstrative and lack some controls. In particular, it is far-fetched to conclude from the observed movement (which may be serendipitous) of 2 P-bodies between mitochondria and enlarged endosomes (without any visualization of the miR) that this movement may be instrumental in the transfer of miR223 between mitochondria and putative exosomes (figures 6 and model in figure 7).

The experiments designed to evidence the mechanisms of miR223 release in EVs are also not sufficiently controlled and analysed to really support the interpretations. And the EV isolation steps are not performed in a way that supports the actual exosomal nature (i.e. exclusive origin from multivesicular endosome) of the EV analysed.

Another experimental weakness is that the authors make strong conclusions on MVBs and exosomes when they only analyse artificially-enlarged endosomes induced by overexpression of mutant Rab5. Although this approach has been used previously and shown CD63 in these induced enlarged compartments, it is an artificial blocking of normal endosomal trafficking, and may not reflect the situation of intracellular trafficking of miR223 in normal cells.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Sarkari et al. describe the effects of TTFields on inter-cellular communication structures called tunneling nanotubes in malignant pleural mesothelioma cells. Recent studies have implicated these F-actin-based nanotubes in promoting malignant transformation and biology by allowing long-range communications between malignant cells. The authors suggest that TTFields disrupt these structures by impacting the expression of genes involved in nanotube formation and cell proliferation. Although TTFields are thought to affect tubulin-based structures, recent studies suggest that TTFields also impact actin-based structures. Therefore, the authors' findings are in keeping with this new understanding. They also found that TTFields upregulated marker genes in immunity. This is one of the first studies that implicate TTFields in these tunneling nanotube structures. Overall, the study adds to our understanding of TTFields on various cellular structures. However, conclusions are only partially supported by the data presented. The study is largely descriptive and there are many areas that need to be addressed to substantively improve the premise and rigors and strengthen the conclusions.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors investigate the potential effect of OGlcNacylation on the activity of the DNA methyltransferase DNMT1.

Some results that are convincingly obtained include:<br /> - There is more overall OGlcNacylation when Glucose concentration in the culture medium or the feed is high;<br /> - DNMT1 is OGlcNacylated, and more so in high glucose or on rich chow;<br /> - The position S878 can be OGlcNacylated;<br /> - The activity of transfected DNMT1 is decreased in high glucose conditions. This effect is lessened when S878 is mutated to A or D.

Some results that are suggested but not fully backed by experimental data include:<br /> - This process happens to the endogenous protein under physiologically relevant conditions;<br /> - This process is responsible for changes in DNA methylation, leading to changes in gene expression, leading to increased ROS and increased apoptosis.

Studying the connection between cellular metabolism and epigenetic phenomena is interesting. However, I feel that the article falls short of its aims because of the limits of the experimental system, some missing controls, and some data overinterpretation.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This US study presents findings from an online survey and in-person interviews of healthcare providers regarding themes associated with cervical screening in federally qualified health centres (FQHCs). The study provides insights during the post-acute phase of the pandemic into a range of areas, including perceived changes in the provision of cervical cancer screening services and the impact of the pandemic, staffing and systems barriers to cervical cancer screening, strategies for tracking missed screens and catch-ups, follow-up of abnormal screening results, as well as attitudes towards HPV self-sampling. Results indicate persisting pandemic-related impacts on patient engagement and staffing, as well as system barriers to effective screening, catch-up of missed screens and follow-ups. Taken together, these issues may lead to increases in cervical cancer in the long-term in populations serviced by these centres, if measures are not taken to adequately support them. Participants were recruited from various regions in the US, however, the study was not conducted using a nationally-representative sample. Although highlighted issues are informative, findings cannot be generalised and larger studies are warranted in the future to monitor cervical screening provision and outcomes in FQHCs.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study presents a new pipeline for mapping the auditory-language pathway in children with profound congenital sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), focusing on those with inner ear malformations and/or cochlear nerve deficiency (IEM&CND). Using structural and diffusional MRI, the researchers investigated the structural fiber properties of the auditory-language networks in affected children under six years old. Findings suggest that the language pathway is more sensitive to peripheral auditory than the central auditory pathway, emphasizing the need for early intervention to provide speech inputs. The study also proposes a comprehensive pre-surgical evaluation from the cochlea to the auditory-language network.

Strengths:

1. Investigating fiber properties across various brain network levels (from peripheral structures to central auditory and higher-level language pathways) using high-resolution diffusion imaging and an innovative pipeline.

2. Evaluating presurgical fiber properties in two subgroups of SNHL children (cochlear implant and auditory brainstem implant candidates) to demonstrate the relationship between peripheral auditory structure damage and the development of auditory-language structural pathways.

Weaknesses:

1. Limited sample size: The study analyzed data from 13 SNHL children and 10 normal-hearing children, potentially restricting the validity and reproducibility of the findings, particularly in correlation results based on individual differences.

2. Lack of speech and language behavioral measures: Although the researchers collected behavioral data post-CI/ABI surgery for most participants, no such data was reported. Consequently, the association between presurgical fiber measures and postsurgical outcomes remains unclear.

3. Unclear practical implications: The relevance of the presurgical evaluation of the auditory-language network for surgical decision-making and prognosis estimation is not evident, as fiber measures may not correlate with behavioral outcomes.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

A useful and potentially powerful analysis of gene expression correlations across major organ and tissue systems that exploits a subset of 310 humans from the GTEx collection (subjects for whom there are uniformly processed postmortem RNA-seq data for 18 tissues or organs). The analysis is complemented by a Shiny R application web service.

The need for more multisystems analysis of transcript correlation is very well motivated by the authors. Their work should be contrasted with more simple comparisons of correlation structure within different organs and tissues, rather than actual correlations across organs and tissues.

Strengths and Weaknesses:

The strengths and limitations of this work trace back to the nature of the GTEx data set itself. The authors refer to the correlations of transcripts as "gene" and "genetic" correlations throughout. In fact, they name their web service "Genetically-Derived Correlations Across Tissues". But all GTEx subjects had strong exposure to unique environments and all correlations will be driven by developmental and environmental factors, age, sex differences, and shared and unshared pre- and postmortem technical artifacts. In fact we know that the heritability of transcript levels is generally low, often well under 25%, even studies of animals with tight environmental control.

This criticism does not comment materially detract for the importance and utility of the correlations-whether genetic, GXE, or purely environmental-but it does mean that the authors should ideally restructure and reword text so as to NOT claim so much for "genetics". It may be possible to incorporate estimates of chip heritability of transcripts into this work if the genetic component of correlations is regarded as critical (all GTEx cases have genotypes).

Appraisal of Work on the Field:

There are two parts to this paper: 1. "case studies" of cross-tissue/organ correlations and 2. the creation of an R/Shiny application to make this type of analysis much more practical for any biologist. Both parts of the work are of high potential value, but neither is fully developed. My own opinion is that the R/Shiny component is the more important immediate contribution and that the "case studies" could be placed in the context of a more complete primer. Or Alternatively, the case studies could be their own independent contributions with more validation.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this paper, the authors analyze a large previously published deep mutational scanning data set using a reference-free regression approach. They extract the contributions of single locus and epistatic effects to the functionality of the sequence (no, weak or strong transcription activation of two response elements). They find that pairwise epistasis plays a crucial and dominant role at creating functional sequences and at connecting the functional sequence space.

I enjoyed reading the paper and the topic (role of epistasis at creating and connecting functional sequences; development of measures of epistasis) is very exciting to me. However, I found it difficult to judge the strength of the paper both because it is written in a rather dense and yet potentially redundant fashion (see comment 1) and because I was left with a number of questions upon reading. I will focus on conceptual questions in the following comments, since I am not able to judge the statistical approach in detail.

1/ Regarding the biological result (importance of pairwise epistasis) I was wondering how potentially redundant the consecutive sections of the paper are. In which situation would the authors expect that pairwise epistasis does *not* play a crucial role for mutational steps, trajectories, or space connectedness, if it is dominant in the genotype-phenotype landscape? I would also appreciate an explanation of how much new biological results this paper delivers as compared with the paper in which the data were published (which I, unfortunately, cannot access at the moment of writing this report).

2a/ Regarding the regression approach: I very much appreciate a reference-free approach to the estimation of epistasis. However, I would enjoy an explanation of how the results would have been (potentially) different if a reference-based approach was used, and how it compares with other reference-free approaches to estimating epistasis (e.g., linear regression or the gamma statistics of Ferretti et al. 2015).

2b/ When comparing the outcomes with and without epistasis, I understood that the authors compare the estimated "full model" with the outcome if epistatic effects were ignored - but without a new estimation of main effects if epistasis is ignored. Wouldn't that be a more fair comparison?

2c/ Where do the authors see the applicability of their approach to data beyond those analyzed in the present study? What are the requirements to use it? Does it only work for combinatorially complete landscapes? I did not have a chance to look at the code - how easily could other researchers apply the approach to their data?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This work provides a novel design of implantable and high-density EMG electrodes to study muscle physiology and neuromotor control at the level of individual motor units. Current methods of recording EMG using intramuscular fine-wire electrodes do not allow for isolation of motor units and are limited by the muscle size and the type of behavior used in the study. The authors of myomatrix arrays had set out to overcome these challenges in EMG recording and provided compelling evidence to support the usefulness of the new technology.

Strengths:

• They presented convincing examples of EMG recordings with high signal quality using this new technology from a wide array of animal species, muscles, and behavior.<br /> • The design included suture holes and pull-on tabs that facilitate implantation and ensure stable recordings over months.<br /> • Clear presentation of specifics of the fabrication and implantation, recording methods used, and data analysis

Weaknesses:

• The justification for the need to study the activity of isolated motor units is underdeveloped. The study could be strengthened by providing example recordings from studies that try to answer questions where isolation of motor unit activity is most critical. For example, there is immense value for understanding muscles with smaller innervation ratio which tend to have many motor neurons for fine control of eyes and hand muscles.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The manuscript describes new ligand-bound structures within the larger bile acid sodium symporter family (BASS). This is the primary advance in the manuscript, together with molecular simulations describing how sodium and the bile acids sit in the structure when thermalized. What I think is fairly clear is that the ligands are more stable when the sodiums are present, with a marked reduction in RMSD over the course of repeated trajectories. This would be consistent with a transport model where sodium ions bind first, and then the bile acid binds, followed by a conformational change to another state where the ligands unbind.

While the authors mention that BASS transporters are thought to undergo an elevator transport mechanisms, this is not tested here. In my reading, all the crystal structures describe the same conformational state, and the simulations do not make an attempt to induce a transition on accessible simulation timescales. Instead, there is a morph between two states where different substrates are bound, which induces a conformational change that looks unrelated to the transport cycle.

Instead, the focus is on what kinds of substrates bind to this transporter, interrogating this with isothermal calorimetry together with mutations. With a Kd in the micromolar range, even the best binder, pantoate, actually isn't a particularly tight binder in the pharmaceutical sense. For a transporter, tight binding is not actually desirable, since the substrate needs to be able to leave after conformational change places it in a position accessible to the other side.

There is one really important point that readers and authors should be aware of. In Figure 2A, the names are not consistent with the chemical structure. "-ate" denotes when a carboxylic acid is in the deprotonated form, creating a charged carboxylate. What is drawn is pantoic acid, ketopantoic acid, and pantoethenic acid. Less importantly, the wedges and hashes for the methyl group are arguably not appropriate, since the carbon they are attached to is not a chiral center. For the crystallization, this makes no difference, since under near-neutral pKas the carboxylic acid will spontaneously deprotonate, and the carboxylate form will be the most common. However, if the structures in Figure 2A were used for classical molecular simulation, that would be a big problem, since now that would be modeling the much rarer neutral form rather than the charged state. I am reasonably sure based on Figure 5 that the MD correctly modeled the deprotonated form with a carboxylate, but that is inconsistent with Figure 2A. Otherwise, the structure and simulation analysis falls into the mainstream of modern structural biology work.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors investigate the mechanisms by which ISG65 and C3 recognize and interact with each other. The major strength is the identification of eco-site by determining the cryoEM structure of the complex, which suggests new intervention strategies. This is a solid body of work that has an important impact on parasitology, immunology, and structural biology.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The manuscript describes a combination of in vitro and in vivo results implicating Dyrk1a in the regulation of mTORC. Particular strengths of the data are this combination of cell and whole animal (drosophila) based studies. However, most of the experiments seem to lack a key additional experimental condition that could increase confidence in the authors' conclusions. Overall some tantalizing data is presented. However, there are several issues that should be clarified or otherwise addressed with additional data.

1. In Figure 1G, why not test overexpression levels of Dyrk1a via western rather than only looking at the RNA levels?

2. In Figure 2, while there is clearly TSC1 protein in the Dyrk1a and FLAG-Dyrk1a IPs that supports an interaction between the proteins, it would be good to see the reciprocal IP experiment wherein TSC1 or TSC2 are pulled down and then the blot probed for Dyrk1a.

3. Figures 3 A and D tested the effects of Dyrk1a knockdown using different methods in different cell lines. This is a reasonable approach to ascertain the generalizability of findings. However, each experiment is performed differently. For example, in 3A, the authors found no difference in baseline pS6, so they did a time course of treatment to induce phosphorylation and found differences depending on Dyrk1a expression. In 3D, they only show baseline effects from the CRISPr knockdown. Why not do the time course as well for consistency? Also, why the inconsistency in approaches wherein one shows baseline effects and the other does not? The authors could also consider the pharmacologic inhibition of Dyrk1a activity as well.

4. In Figure 4, RHEB overexpression increases cell size in both Dyrk1a wt and Dyrk1a shRNA treated cells, although the magnitude of the effect appears reduced in Dyrk1a shRNA cells. However, there is the possibility here that RHEB acts independently of Dyrk1a. Why not also do the experiment of Figure 1 wherein Dyrk1a is overexpressed and then knockdown RHEB in that context? If the hypothesis is supported, then RHEB knockdown should eliminate the cell size effect of Dyrk1a overexpression.

5. The discussion should incorporate relevant findings from other models, such as Arabidopsis. Barrada et al., Development (2019), 146 (3).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

A detailed understanding of how membrane receptor guanylyl cyclases (mGC) are regulated has been hampered by the absence of structural information on the cytoplasmic regions of these signaling proteins. The study by Caveney et al. reports the 3.9Å cryo-EM structure of the human mGC cyclase, GC-C, bound to the Hsp90-Cdc37 chaperone complex. This structure represents a first view of the intracellular functional domains of any mGC and answers without doubt that Hsp90-Cdc37 recognizes mGCs via their pseudokinase (PK) domain. This is the primary breakthrough of this study. Additionally, the new structural data reveals that the manner in which Hsp90-Cdc37 recognizes the GC-C PK domain C-lobe is akin to how kinase domains of soluble kinases docks to the chaperone complex. This is the second major finding of this study, which provides a concrete framework to understand, more broadly, how Hsp90-Cdc37 recruits a large number of other diverse client proteins containing kinase or pseudokinase domains. Finally, the Hsp90-Cdc37-GC-C structure offer clues as to how GC-C may be regulated by phosphorylation and/or ubiquitinylation by serving as a platform for recruitment of PP5 and/or E3 ligases.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors set out to demonstrate the utility of functional ultrasound for evaluating changes in brain hemodynamics elicited acutely and subacutely by the middle cerebral artery occlusion model of ischemic stroke in awake rats.

Functional ultrasound affords a distinct set of tradeoffs relative to competing imaging modalities. Acclimatization of rats for awake imaging has proven difficult with most, and the high quality of presented data in awake rats is a major achievement. The major weakness of the approach is in its being restricted to single-slice acquisitions, which also complicates the registration of acquisition across multiple imaging sessions within the same animal. Establishing that awake imaging represents an advancement in relation to studies under anesthesia hinges upon the establishment of the level of stress experienced by the animals in the course of imaging, i.e., requires providing data on the assessment of stress over the course of these long imaging sessions. This is particularly significant given how significant a stressor physical restraint has been established to be in rodent models of stress. Furthermore, assessment of the robustness of these measurements is of particular significance for supporting the wide applicability of this approach to preclinical studies of brain injury: the individual animal data (effect sizes, activation areas, kinetics) should thus be displayed and the statistical analysis expanded. Both within-subject, within/across sessions, and across-subjects variability should be evaluated. Thoughtful comments on the relationship between power doppler signal and cerebral blood volume are important to include and facilitate comparisons to studies recording other blood volume-weighted signals. Finally, the contextualization of the observations with respect to other studies examining acute and subacute changes in brain hemodynamics post focal ischemic stroke in rats is needed. It is also quite helpful, for establishing the robustness of the approach, when the statistical parametric maps are shown in full (i.e. unmasked).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Rossato and colleagues present a method for real-time decoding of EMG into putative single motor units. Their manuscript details a variety of decision points in their code and data collection pipeline that lead to a final result of recording on the order of ~10 putative motor units per muscle in human males. Overall the manuscript is highly restricted in its potential utility but may be of interest to aficionados. For those outside the field of human or nonhuman primate EMG, these methods will be of limited interest.

Notes<br /> 1. Artificial data should be used with this method to provide ground truth performance evaluations. Without it, the study assumptions are unchallenged and could be seriously flawed.

2. From the point of view of a motor control neuroscientist studying movement in animals other than humans or non-human primates, the title was misleadingly hopeful. The use case presented in this study requires human participants to perform isometric contractions, facilitating spatially redundant recordings across the muscle for the algorithm to work. It is unclear whether these methods will be of utility to use cases under more physiological conditions (ie. dynamic movement).

3. The text states that "EMG signals recorded with an array of electrodes can be considered and instantaneous mixture of the original motor unit spike trains and their delayed versions." While this may be a true statement, it is not a complete statement, since motor units at distal sites may be shared, not shared, or novel. It was not clear to me whether the diversity of these scenarios would affect the performance of the software or introduce artifacts. In other words, if at site 1 you can pick up the bulk signal of units 1,2,3,4; at site two you pick up the signals of units 2,3,4,5 and site three you pick up the signal of units 3,4,5,6, what does the algorithm assume is happening and what does it report and why?

4. I could not fully appreciate the performance gap solved by the current methods. What was not achievable before that is now achievable? The 125 ms speed of deconvolution? What was achievable before? Intro text around ln 85 states that 'most of the current implementations of this approach rely on offline processing, which restricts its ability to be used..." but no reference is provided here about what the non 'most' of can achieve.

5. Relatedly, it would have been nice to see a proof of concept using real-time feedback for some kind of biofeedback signal. If that is the objective here, why not show us this? I found the actual readout metrics of performance rather esoteric. They may be of interest to very close experts so I will defer to them for input.

6. I was disappointed to see that only male participants are used because of some vague statement that 'it is widely known in the field' that more motor units can be resolved in males, without thorough referencing. It seems that the objective of the algorithm is the speed of analysis, not the number of units, which makes the elimination of female participants not justified.

7. Human curation is often used in spike sorting, but the description of criteria used in this step or how the human curation choices are documented is missing.

8. The authors might try to add text to be more circumspect about the contributions of this method. I would recommend emphasizing the conceptual advances over the specifics of the performance of the algorithm since processor speed and implementation of the ideas in a faster environment (Matlab can be slow) will change those outcomes in a trivial way. Yet, much of the results section is very focused on these metrics.<br /> Minor<br /> Ln 115, "inversing" is not a word. "inverse" is not a verb<br /> Ln 186, typo, bioadhesive<br /> MVC should be defined on first use. It is currently defined on 3rd use or so.<br /> The term rate is used in a variety of places without units. Eg line 465 but not limited to that

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This paper analyses self-citation rates in the field of Neuroscience, comprising in this case, Neurology, Neuroscience and Psychiatry. Based on data from Scopus, the authors identify self-citations, that is, whether references from a paper by some authors cite work that is written by one of the same authors. They separately analyse this in terms of first-author self-citations and last-author self-citations. The analysis is well-executed and the analysis and results are written down clearly. There are some minor methodological clarifications needed, but more importantly, the interpretation of some of the results might prove more challenging. That is, it is not always clear what is being estimated, and more importantly, the extent to which self-citations are "problematic" remains unclear.

When are self-citations problematic? As the authors themselves also clarify, "self-citations may often be appropriate". Researchers cite their own previous work for perfectly good reasons, similar to reasons of why they would cite work by others. The "problem", in a sense, is that researchers cite their own work, just to increase the citation count, or to promote their own work and make it more visible. This self-promotional behaviour might be incentivised by certain research evaluation procedures (e.g. hiring, promoting) that overly emphasise citation performance. However, the true problem then might not be (self-)citation practices, but instead, the flawed research evaluation procedures that emphasis citation performance too much. So instead of problematising self-citation behaviour, and trying to address it, we might do better to address flawed research evaluation procedures. Of course, we should expect references to be relevant, and we should avoid self-promotional references, but addressing self-citations may just have minimal effects, and would not solve the more fundamental issue.

Some other challenges arise when taking a statistical perspective. For any given paper, we could browse through the references, and determine whether a particular reference would be warranted or not. For instance, we could note that there might be a reference included that is not at all relevant to the paper. Taking a broader perspective, the irrelevant reference might point to work by others, included just for reasons of prestige, so-called perfunctory citations. But it could of course also include self-citations. When we simply start counting all self-citations, we do not see what fraction of those self-citations would be warranted as references. The question then emerges, what level of self-citations should be counted as "high"? How should we determine that? If we observe differences in self-citation rates, what does it tell us?

For example, the authors find that the (any author) self-citation rate in Neuroscience is 10.7% versus 15.9% in Psychiatry. What does this difference mean? Are psychiatrists citing themselves more often than neuroscientists? First author men showed a self-citation rate of 5.12% versus a self-citation rate of 3.34% of women first authors. Do men engage in more problematic citation behaviour? Junior researchers (10-year career) show a self-citation rate of about 5% compared to a self-citation rate of about 10% for senior researchers (30-year career). Are senior researchers therefore engaging in more problematic citation behaviour? The answer is (most likely) "no", because senior authors have simply published more, and will therefore have more opportunities to refer to their own work. To be clear: the authors are aware of this, and also take this into account. In fact, these "raw" various self-citation rates may, as the authors themselves say, "give the illusion" of self-citation rates, but these are somehow "hidden" by, for instance, career seniority.

Again, the authors do consider this, and "control" for career length and number of publications, et cetera, in their regression model. Some of the previous observations then change in the regression model. Neuroscience doesn't seem to be self-citing more, there just seem to be junior researchers in that field compared to Psychiatry. Similarly, men and women don't seem to show an overall different self-citation behaviour (although the authors find an early-career difference), the men included in the study simply have longer careers and more publications.

But here's the key issue: what does it then mean to "control" for some variables? This doesn't make any sense, except in the light of causality. That is, we should control for some variable, such as seniority, because we are interested in some causal effect. The field may not "cause" the observed differences in self-citation behaviour, this is mediated by seniority. Or is it confounded by seniority? Are the overall gender differences also mediated by seniority? How would the selection of high-impact journals "bias" estimates of causal effects on self-citation? Can we interpret the coefficients as causal effects of that variable on self-citations? If so, would we try to interpret this as total causal effects, or direct causal effects? If they do not represent causal effects, how should they be interpreted then? In particular, how should it "inform author, editors, funding agencies and institutions", as the authors say? What should they be informed about?

The authors also "encourage authors to explore their trends in self-citation rates". It is laudable to be self-critical and review ones own practices. But how should authors interpret their self-citation rate? How useful is it to know whether it is 5%, 10% or 15%? What would be the "reasonable" self-citation rate? How should we go about constructing such a benchmark rate? Again, this would necessitate some causal answer. Instead of looking at the self-citation rate, it would presumably be much more informative to simply ask authors to check whether references are appropriate and relevant to the topic at hand.

In conclusion, the study shows some interesting and relevant differences in self-citation rates. As such, it is a welcome contribution to ongoing discussions of (self) citations. However, without a clear causal framework, it is challenging to interpret the observed differences.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The present study aims to investigate whether pain influences cortical excitability. To this end, heat pain stimuli are applied to healthy human participants. Simultaneously, TMS pulses are applied to M1 and TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs) and pain ratings are assessed after each TMS pulse. TEPs are used as measures of cortical excitability. The results show that TEP amplitudes at 45 msec (N45) after TMS pulses are higher during painful stimulation than during non-painful warm stimulation. Control experiments indicate that auditory, somatosensory, or proprioceptive effects cannot explain this effect. Considering that the N45 might reflect GABAergic activity, the results suggest that pain changes GABAergic activity. The authors conclude that TEP indices of GABAergic transmission might be useful as biomarkers of pain sensitivity.

Pain-induced cortical excitability changes is an interesting, timely, and potentially clinically relevant topic. The paradigm and the analysis are sound, the results are mostly convincing, and the interpretation is adequate. The following clarifications and revisions might help to improve the manuscript further.

1. Non-painful control condition. In this condition, stimuli are applied at warmth detection threshold. At this intensity, by definition, some stimuli are not perceived as different from the baseline. Thus, this condition might not be perfectly suited to control for the effects of painful vs. non-painful stimulation. This potential confound should be critically discussed.<br /> 2. MEP differences between conditions. The results do not show differences in MEP amplitudes between conditions (BF 1.015). The analysis nevertheless relates MEP differences between conditions to pain ratings. It would be more appropriate to state that in this study, pain did not affect MEP and to remove the correlation analysis and its interpretation from the manuscript.<br /> 3. Confounds by pain ratings. The ISI between TMS pulses is 4 sec and includes verbal pain ratings. Considering this relatively short ISI, would it be possible that verbal pain ratings confound the TEP? Moreover, could the pain ratings confound TEP differences between conditions, e.g., by providing earlier ratings when the stimulus is painful? This should be carefully considered, and the authors might perform control analyses.<br /> 4. Confounds by time effects. Non-painful and painful conditions were performed in a fixed order. Potential confounds by time effects should be carefully considered.<br /> 5. Data availability. The authors should state how they make the data openly available.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Magnuson and colleagues investigate the meiotic functions of ARID1A, a putative DNA binding subunit of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeler BAF. The authors develop a germ cell specific knockout mouse model using Stra8-cre and observe that ARID1A-deficient cells undergo pachytene arrest, although due to inefficiency of the Stra8-cre system the mice retain ARID1A-expressing cells that yield sperm and allow fertility. Because ARID1A was found to accumulate at the XY body late in Prophase I, the authors suspected a potential role in meiotic silencing and by RNAseq observe significant misexpression of sex-linked genes that typically are silenced at pachytene. They go on to show that ARID1A is required for exclusion of RNA PolII from the sex body, consistent with a meiotic sex chromosome inactivation (MSCI) defect. The authors proceed to investigate the impacts of ARID1A on chromatin accessibility and H3.3 deposition genome-wide. H3.3 is known be regulated by ARID1A and is linked to silencing, and here the authors find that upon loss of ARID1A, overall H3.3 enrichment at the sex body as measured by IF failed to occur, but H3.3 was enriched specifically at transcriptional start sites of sex-linked genes that are normally regulated by ARID1A. The results suggest that ARID1A normally prevents H3.3 accumulation at target promoters on sex chromosomes and based on additional data, restricts H3.3 to intergenic sites. Finally, the authors present data implicating ARID1A and H3.3 occupancy in DSB repair, finding that ARID1A KO leads to a reduction in focus formation by DMC1, a key repair protein. Overall the paper covers a lot of ground, provides important new insights into the process of MSCI from the perspective of chromatin composition and structure, and raises many interesting questions. In general the paper is well written and the data are clear. Specific points to address are as follows:

1. A challenge with the author's CKO model is the incomplete efficiency of ARID1A loss, due to incomplete CRE-mediated deletion. The authors effectively work around this issue, but they don't state specifically what percentage of CKO cells lack ARID1A staining. This information should be added. They refer to cells that retain ARID1A staining in CKO testes as 'internal controls' but this reviewer finds that label inappropriate. Although some cells that retain ARID1A won't have undergone CRE-mediated excision, others may have excised but possibly have delayed kinetics of deletion or ARID1A RNA/protein turnover and loss. Such cells likely have partial ARID1A depletion to different extents and therefore in some cases are no longer wild-type. In subsequent figures in which co-staining for ARID1A is done, it would be appropriate for the authors to specify if they are quantifying all cells from CKO testes, or only those that lack ARID1A staining.

2. The authors don't see defects in a few DDR markers in ARID1A CKO cells and conclude that the role of ARID1A in silencing is 'mutually exclusive to DDR pathways' (p 12) and 'occurs independently of DDR signaling' (p30). The data suggest that ARID1A may not be required for DDR signaling, but do not rule out the possibility that ARID1A is downstream of DDR signaling (and the authors even hypothesize this on p30). The data provided do not justify the conclusion that ARID1A acts independently of DDR signaling.

3. After observing no changes in levels or localization of H3.3 chaperones, the authors conclude that 'ARID1A impacts H3.3 accumulation on the sex chromosomes without affecting its expression or incorporation during pachynema.' It's not clear to this reviewer what the authors mean by this. Aside from the issue of not having tested DAXX or HIRA activity, are they suggesting that some other process besides altered incorporation leads to H3.3 accumulation and if so what process would that be?

4. The authors find an interesting connection between certain regions that gained chromatin accessibility after ARID1A loss (clusters G1 and G3) and presence of the PRDM9 sequence motif. The G1 and G3 clusters also show DMC1 occupancy and H3K4me3 enrichment. However, an additional cluster with gained accessibility (G4) also shows DMC1 occupancy and H3K4me3 enrichment but unlike clusters G1 and G3 has modest H3.3 accumulation. The paper would benefit for additional discussion about the G4 cluster (which encompasses 960 peak calls). Is there any enrichment of PRDM9 sites in G4? If H3.3 exclusion governs meiotic DSBs, how does cluster G4 fit into the model?

5. The impacts of ARID1A loss on DMC1 focus formation (reduced sex chromosome association) are very interesting and also raise additional questions. Are DMC1 foci on autosomes also affected during pachynema? The corresponding lack of apparent effect on RAD51 implies that breaks are still made and resected, enabling RAD51 filament formation. A more thorough quantitative assessment of RAD51 focus formation will be interesting in the long run, enabling determination of the number of break sites and the kinetics of repair, which the authors suggest is perturbed by ARID1A loss but don't directly test. It isn't clear how a nucleosomal factor (H3.3) would influence loading of recombinases onto ssDNA, especially if the alteration is not at the level of resection and ssDNA formation. Additional discussion of this point is warranted. Lastly, there currently are various notions for the interplay between RAD51 and DMC1 in filament formation and break repair, and brief discussion of this area and the implications of the new findings from the ARID1A CKO would strengthen the paper further.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Neuronal migration is one of the key processes for appropriate neuronal development. Defects in neuronal migration are associated with different brain disorders often accompanied by intellectual disabilities. Therefore, the study of the mechanisms involved in neuronal migration helps to understand the pathogenesis of some brain malformations and psychiatric disorders.

FMRP is an RNA-binding protein implicated in RNA metabolism regulation and mRNA local translation. FMRP loss of function causes fragile X syndrome (FXS), the most common form of inherited intellectual disability. Previous studies have shown the role of FMRP in the multipolar to bipolar transition during the radial migration in the cortex and its possible relation with periventricular heterotopia and altered synaptic communication in humans with FXS. However, the role of FMRP in neuronal tangential migration is largely unknown. In this manuscript, the authors aim to decipher the role of FMRP in the tangential migration of neuroblasts along the rostral migratory stream (RMS) in the postnatal brain. By extensive live-imaging analysis of migrating neuroblasts along the RMS, they demonstrate the requirement of FMRP for neuroblast migration and centrosomal movement. These migratory defects are cell-autonomous and mediated by the microtubule-associated protein Map1b.

Overall, the manuscript highlights the importance of FMRP in neuronal tangential migration. They performed an analysis of different aspects of migration such as nucleokinesis and cytokinesis in migrating neuroblasts from live-imaging videos.<br /> However, the work is quite incomplete. The role of FMRP and Map1b in neuronal migration is not well introduced and discussed. In the cortex, FMRP is mainly implicated in the multipolar to bipolar transition of immature neurons, but not in the migration itself (la Fata et al., 2014). In fact, Fmr1 KO mice do not show impairment in cortical lamination. On the other hand, very less is mentioned about the role of Map1b in neuronal migration. It is not shown whether overexpression of Map1b alters neuroblast migration and recapitulates the Fmr1 KO phenotype.

Moreover, it is unclear to me which are the anatomical consequences of aberrant migration of neuroblasts in the Fmr1 KO mice. Authors mention that neuroblasts properly arrive at the OB and they refer to a previous publication (Scotto-Lomassese et al., 2011). However, this study does not show the distribution of neuroblasts in the SVZ, along the RMS or in the olfactory bulb (OB) in mutant mice. On the contrary, they said that there is no delay in the migration or maturation of granular cells arriving at the OB (Scotto-Lomassese et al., 2011). In summary, the authors do not show the functional consequences of aberrant neuroblast migration in the Fmr1 KO mice, making weaker the assumption that the study is important for the understanding of FXS pathophysiology.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This important manuscript investigates the role of basal forebrain cholinergic interneurons in conditioned responding by measuring the licking behaviour of head-fixed mice during photostimulation of the aforementioned neurons. Licking is found to increase only during windows when licking is rewarded, and similar behaviour is observed when terminals are stimulated in basolateral amygdala, then several more experiments are conducted to determine the behavioural and anatomical specificity of the effect. The findings are solid, particularly those relating to the recordings, although the interpretation of the behavioural findings is still somewhat unclear.

Strengths<br /> • The manuscript is beautifully written and structured. I found it really easy to follow and felt that the authors did an exceptional job of walking me through each experiment that they completed, the rationale for it, and what they found.<br /> • The question of the function of basal forebrain cholinergics is an interesting one and a somewhat understudied question, so the study is timely and on an interesting topic.<br /> • The experiments are well-designed and the findings are novel. There are a number of important control experiments performed to determine that the observed effects were not due to locomotor activity and that stimulating basal forebrain ACh neurons is not inherently reinforcing.<br /> • The discussion is really nice - covering important topics such as potential interactions with dopamine, the potential anatomical specificity of the effects observed, and the possibility that projections other than those studied here might mediate effects, among other things.

Weaknesses<br /> • Although very clearly written and set out, I found myself confused by the behavioural findings and their interpretation. Mainly this was because photostimulation only increased licking during the window of opportunity, which is not signalled by any discrete stimulus, which means that the only signal that the animal receives to determine that they are within the reward window is them receiving the reward. Therefore, the only time within this window that licking could be increased is post-reward (otherwise the reward window is identical to a non-rewarded window) and it is not clear to me what this increase in post-award licking might mean? In fact, this time post-award is actually the time the animal is most certain to not receive another reward for a few seconds, meaning that licking at this time is not a useful behaviour and therefore it is difficult to interpret what it means to artificially increase licking at this time. I think it would probably have been less confusing for the authors to study a paradigm in which animals develop a conditioned response that is unsignaled by discrete stimuli and then to inhibit basal forebrain ACh prior to that response.<br /> • I should also note that the authors state (Lines 249-251) that stimulation increases responding prior to reinforcer delivery, but I couldn't find evidence for this, and it seems counterintuitive to me that it would do so because then how would the animals discriminate the window of opportunity from a non-rewarded window? Perhaps I misunderstood something, but I found this confusing.<br /> • I do not think the behaviour in this task can be classed as operant - it is still a good task and still fine for detecting conditioned responding, but it cannot determine whether the responding is governed by a response-outcome association in the absence of a stimulus-outcome association (with stimuli being the licking spout, other facets of the behavioural context etc) through bidirectionality or omission, as would be required to demonstrate its operant nature.<br /> • I was confused by the pupil dilation data in Figure S4 as the authors seem to want to argue that this effect, although specific to the rewarded window as licking is, is independent of the licking behaviour as it develops more slowly than the behaviour (Lines 201-202). I was curious as to how the authors interpret these data then? Does it indicate that stimulating basal forebrain ACh interneurons does both things (i.e. increases arousal AND conditioned responding in the absence of discrete stimuli) but that the two things are independent of each other?<br /> • The authors refer to the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex in mice, which from the methods appears to be the prelimbic region. My understanding is that dmPFC has fallen out of favour for use in mice as it is not homologous to the same region in primates and can be confusing for this reason.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The present article attempts to answer both the ultimate question of why different stinging behaviours have evolved in Cnidiarians with different ecological niches and shed light on the proximate question of which electro-physiological mechanisms underlie these distinct behaviours.

Account of major methods and results:<br /> In the first part of the paper, the authors try to answer the ultimate question of why distinct dependencies of the sting response on internal starvation levels have evolved. The premise of the article that Exaiptasia's nematocyte discharge is independent of the presence of prey (Artemia nauplii) as compared to Nematostella's significant dependence of the discharge on the presence of actual prey, is shown be a robust phenomenon justified by the data in Figure 1.

The hypothesis that defensive vs. predatory stinging leads to different nematocyte discharge behaviours is analysed in mathematical models based on the suitable framework of optimal control/decision theory. By assuming functional relations between the:<br /> 1) cost of a full nematocyte discharge and the starvation level.<br /> 2) probability of successful predation/avoidance on the discharge level.<br /> 3) desirability/reward of the reached nutritional state.

Based on these assumptions of environmental and internal influences, the optimal choice of attack intensity is calculated using Bellman's equation for this problem. The model predictions are validated using counted nematocytes on a coverslip. The scaling of normalised nematocyte discharge numbers with scaled starvation time is qualitatively comparable to what is predicted from the models. The abundance of nematocytes in the tentacles was, on the other hand, independent of the starvation state of the animals.

Next, the authors turn to investigate the proximate cause of the differential stinging behaviour. The authors have previously reported convincing evidence that a strongly inactivating Cav2.1 channel ortholog (nCav) is used by Nematostella to prevent stinging in the absence of prey (Weir et al. 2020). This inactivation is released by hyperpolarising sensory inputs signalling the presence of prey. In this article, it is clearly shown by blocking respective currents that Exaiptasia, too, relies on extracellular Ca2+ influx to initiate stinging. Patch clamp data of the involved currents is provided in support. However, the authors find that in addition to the nCav with a low-inactivation threshold, Exaiptasia has a splice variant with a higher inactivation threshold expressed (Figure 3D).

The authors hypothesise that it is this high-threshold nCav channel population that amplifies any voltage depolarisation to release a sting irrespective of the presence of prey signals. They found that the β subunit that is responsible for Nematostella's unusually low inactivation threshold exists in Exaiptasia as two alternative splice isoforms. These N-terminus variants also showed the greatest variation in a phylogenetic comparison (Figure 5), rendering it a candidate target for mutations causing variation in stinging responses.

Appraisal of methodology in support of the conclusions:<br /> The authors base their inference on a normative model that yields quantitative predictions which is an exciting and challenging approach. The authors take care in stating the model assumptions as well as showing that the data indeed does not contradict their model predictions. The interesting comparative nature of the modelling part of the study is complicated by slightly different cost assumptions for the two scenarios. Hence, Figure 2 needs to be carefully digested by readers.

It would be even more prudent to analyse the same set of cost-of-discharge vs. starvation scenarios for both species. Specifically, for Nematostella the complete cost-of-discharge vs starvation-state curves as for Exaiptasia (Figure 2E, example 2-4) could be used. It is likely that the differential effect size of Nematostella and Exaiptasia behaviour is the strongest if only the flat cost-of-discharge vs starvation is used (Figure 2A) for Nematostella. But as a worst-case comparison the other curves, where the cost to the animal scales with starvation would be a good comparison. This could help the reader to understand when the different prediction of Nematostella's behaviour breaks down. In addition, this minor change could shed light on broader topics like common trade-offs in pursuit predation.

The qualitatively similar scaling of the model-derived relation between starvation and sting intensity with the counted nematocytes for different feeding pauses is evidence that feeding has indeed been optimised for the two distinct ecological niches.<br /> To prove that Exaiptasia uses a similar Ca2+ channel ortholog as well as a different splice variant, the authors employed both clean electrophysiological characterisaiton (Figure 3) as well as transcriptomics data (Figure 4S1).

To strengthen the authors' hypothesis that variation in the N-termini leads to changes in Ca2+ channel inactivation and hence altered stinging, the response sequence variability of 6 Cnidaria was analysed.

Additional context:<br /> Although, the present article focuses on nematocytes alone, currently, there has been a refocus in neurobiology on the nervous systems of more basal metazoans, which received much attention already in the works of Romanes (1885). In part, this is driven by the goal to understand the early evolution of nervous systems. Cnidarians and Ctenophors are exciting model organisms in this venture. This will hopefully be accompanied by more comparative studies like the present one. Some of the recent literature also uses computational models to understand mechanisms of motor behaviour using full-body simulations (Pallasdies et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2023), which can be thought of as complementary to the normative modelling provided by the authors.

Comparative studies of recent Cnidarians, such as the present article, can shed light on speculative ideas on the origin of nervous systems (Jékely, Keijzer, and Godfrey-Smith 2015). During a time (the Ediacarium/Cambrium transition) that has seen the genesis of complex trophic foodwebs with preditor-prey interaction, symbioses, but also an increase of body sizes and shapes, multiple ultimate causes can be envisioned that drove the increase in behavioural complexity. The authors show that not all of it needs to be implemented in dedicated nerve cells.

References:

Jékely, Gáspár, Fred Keijzer, and Peter Godfrey-Smith. 2015. "An Option Space for Early Neural Evolution." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370 (December): 20150181. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0181.

Pallasdies, Fabian, Sven Goedeke, Wilhelm Braun, and Raoul-Martin Memmesheimer. 2019. "From Single Neurons to Behavior in the Jellyfish Aurelia Aurita." eLife 8 (December). https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.50084.

Romanes, G. J. 1885. Jelly-Fish, Star-Fish and Sea-Urchins: Being a Research on Primitive Nervous Systems. Appleton.

Wang, Hengji, Joshua Swore, Shashank Sharma, John R. Szymanski, Rafael Yuste, Thomas L. Daniel, Michael Regnier, Martha M. Bosma, and Adrienne L. Fairhall. 2023. "A Complete Biomechanical Model of hydra Contractile Behaviors, from Neural Drive to Muscle to Movement." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120 (March). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2210439120.

Weir, Keiko, Christophe Dupre, Lena van Giesen, Amy S-Y Lee, and Nicholas W Bellono. 2020. "A Molecular Filter for the Cnidarian Stinging Response." eLife 9 (May). https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.57578.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this study, Hwangbo and co-workers investigate the extent to which the well-established life extending effects of DR rely on the molecular circadian clock and how the landscape of clock-controlled gene expression changes in the face of DR within the fat body of the fly, a tissue that performs the functions associate with both the liver and adipose tissue of mammals. The authors evidence that DR extends lifespan in a manner that depends on only one of the two major limbs of the fly's molecular circadian clock, namely the positive limb, that DR produces major changes in the identities of cycling clock output genes, and that genes related to the proteosome represent a major component of DR-induced transcript cycling. Though interesting, these conclusions are not strongly supported by the data and there are two major reasons for this. First, the authors rely on only one loss of function genotype each for the loss of positive and negative limb clock gene function. Second, though they wish to address the "circadian transcriptome" under normal and DR conditions, the authors conduct all their work under strong Light/Dark cycles, making it impossible to address circadian phenomena. These shortcomings are problematic in the extreme, as they leave open obvious alternative explanations for the results and fail to directly determine if the rhythmic expression, they observe are clock controlled or merely driven by the light/dark cycles, which themselves produce major effects on activity, feeding, etc., that may be responsible for differentially driving rhythmic transcripts under normal and DR conditions in the fat bodies.

Major Weakness One: The use of only genotype each for the loss of positive (Clk^JRK) and negative (Per^01) limb of the circadian represents a major challenge for a central conclusion of the study. Phenotypes caused by the loss of a single clock gene may be due to the loss of circadian timekeeping, or they may represent a pleiotropic effect of the loss of function mutant being used. There are multiple precedents for pleiotropic (non-circadian) effects of clock gene mutants. It is, therefore, possible that the differences in the extent of DR mediated life extension between Clk^JRK and Per^01 may not represent a difference between breaking the positive and negative limbs of the clock but may simply reflect a pleiotropic effect of the dominant negative Clk^JRK. This possibility is acknowledged by the authors (lines 343-344). This could be addressed quite easily by extending the analysis to other loss of function mutants, for example, tim01 for the negative limb and cyc01 for the positive. Given the central focus here on the "circadian transcriptome," leaving open this alternative explanation for Clk's role in DR induced life extension represents a major weakness of the study. Furthermore, given the fact that Clk^JRK appears to be short lived on most of the media tested in the study, is it really surprising or informative that they would display lower life extension under DR?

Major Weakness Two: The authors have not established that any of cycling transcripts they have detected in the fat body under normal and DR conditions are driven by the circadian clock. This is because: 1.) they have conducted their transcriptomic analysis on cells taken from flies entrained to light dark cycles, which can themselves drive daily changes in expression levels and 2.) they have not shown that the cycling measured on normal diet or DR conditions depends on a functional circadian clock. The "significant reorganization of the circadian transcriptome" is presented as a major conclusion of this study, but the authors have not addressed circadian control of transcription at all here, either by an examination of transcription under free-running conditions and/or in loss of function clock mutants.

In addition, there is a logical gap in this study. The authors have shown that DR produces less life extension in Clk^JRK mutants than Per^01 or wild-type controls. They then show that DR produces changes in the rhythmic transcriptome when flies are place on DR. The central model presented in Fig. 6 shows/concludes that CLK drives increases in proteome-related transcript rhythms under DR. This conclusion could have been directly tested by asking if the changes in rhythmic gene expression induced by DR are gone the loss of function Clk mutants, or if the transcriptomic landscapes fail to differ between feeding conditions in these mutants.

In conclusion, the study falls far short of directly testing the ideas it puts forth, greatly limiting its impact and interest.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this study, Ciampa and colleagues demonstrate that HIF-1α activity is increased with gestation in humans and mice placentas and use several in vitro models to indicate that HIF activation in trophoblasts may release factors (yet to be identified) which promote myometrial contraction. Previous studies have linked placental factors to the preparation of the myometrium for labour (e.g. prostaglandins), but HIF-1α has not been implicated.

Weaknesses and concerns:

1) The author's rebuttal state that placentas undergo subclinical cellular aging as they reach term. Although several future studies are described to test functional deficits at the cellular level, the current manuscript does not provide convincing evidence of cellular aging. The only evidence of cellular senescence provided in both human and mouse data is the mRNA expression of a single gene associated with senescence.

2) The authors have not responded to the concern regarding CoCl2 mediating differentiation. The paragraph from a ref states that JAR cells do not respond as well as BeWOs to forskolin. However, this does not mean that JAR cells do not differentiate. This point is particularly pertinent as a quick search of their RNA-seq data shows upregulation of STB genes following CoCl2 treatment including ERVs (ERVFRD1, ERVV-1, ERVV-2, ERV3-1), CYP19A1 and OVOL1 just to name a few. If the authors' conclusion is that CoCl2 treatment did not alter trophoblast differentiation, the authors should provide additional data showing this. For example, cell fusion assays showing E-cadherin/desmoplakin staining and nuclear localization within stained boundaries.

3) The authors acknowledge the possibility of extraplacental effects of DMOG in the initiation of labour in their model, no additional evidence has been provided to support placental effects of their model. The authors also argue that although PMID 30808919 (which specifically overexpressed HIF-1a in the placenta) did not show changes in birth length, they propose that this may be due to constitutive HIF1a expression at the beginning of pregnancy. This argument is invalid since placental maldevelopment is consistently linked with several pregnancy complications including spontaneous preterm birth. If anything, perturbations in the beginning of pregnancy are more likely to lead to worse outcomes than those at the end of pregnancy.

4) Regarding induction of syncytialisation, please provide additional evidence that the cells have/have not syncytialised.

5) Lack of cohesion between experimental models. Please provide evidence that DMOG mediates similar effects on SA-β gal activity as CoCl2 in JARs.

6) Evidence of senescence and mitochondrial abundance could be strengthened by providing additional markers. E.g. only GLB1 mRNA expression is provided as evidence of senescence, and COX IV protein for mitochondrial abundance in mouse and human placentas. This point has not been addressed. Please provide at least one additional marker of senescence and mitochondrial abundance.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The computational study reported in the manuscript "Free energy landscapes of KcsA inactivation" by Pérez-Conesa and Delemotte is quite interesting and insightful.

The computations provide the first complete analysis of how the opening of the activation gate and the constriction of the selectivity filter are coupled in the KcsA channel.

The analysis is careful and is state-of-the-art. The results reveal remarkable differences between the CHARMM and AMBER force fields.

Unfortunately, the "elephant in the room" with regards to K+ channel inactivation is the significance of the dilated structures more recently obtained by Xray and EM. While it is worthwhile doing our best to really understand the constriction mechanism of KcsA, and the present manuscript does an excellent job at that, the ground has shifted and understanding finer points about KcsA constriction has become, unfortunately, not the most prominent issue in the field at the present time.

Let's discuss the current situation about the inactivation of K+ channels. The situation is fairly unsettled. The KcsA channel was the first for which some atomic structure and mechanism, centered on a constriction of the selectivity filter, were proposed. The constricted conformation really does not conduct because the filter is too narrow. More recently a few structures (Xray and EM) for channel mutants known to have more propensity to inactivate have revealed a different conformation of the filter which appears to be dilated toward the extracellular side. This is a conformation that had never been seen previously. Different "camps" co-exist in the K+ channel community about inactivation. Those who were very skeptical about the constricted conformation claim that the new dilated structures is the final truth. While the dilated structures are certainly part of the body of information that we have now, but their significance remains somewhat unclear if anything because of the fact that they are not perfectly occluded and they allow ion conduction! While it is worthwhile doing our best to really understand the constriction mechanism of KcsA, and the present manuscript does an excellent job at that, the ground has shifted and understanding finer points about KcsA constriction has become, unfortunately, not the most prominent issue in the field at the present time.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

How chromatin state is defined is an important question in the epigenetics field. Here, Jamge et al. proposed that the dynamics of histone variant exchange control the organization of histone modifications into chromatin states. They found 1) there is a tight association between H2A variants and histone modifications; 2) H2A variants are major factors that differentiate euchromatin, facultative heterochromatin, and constitutive heterochromatin; 3) the mutation in DDM1, a remodeler of H2A variants, causes the mis-assembly of chromatin states in TE region. The topic of this paper is of general interest and the results are novel.

Overall, the paper is well-written and the results are clearly presented. The biochemical analysis part is solid.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this work, Urbanska et al. link the mechanical phenotypes of human glioblastoma cell lines and murine iPSCs to their transcriptome, and using machine learning-based network analysis identify genes with putative roles in cell mechanics regulation. The authors identify 5 target genes whose transcription creates a combinatorial marker which can predict cell stiffness in human carcinoma and breast epithelium cell lines as well as in developing mouse neurons. For one of the target genes, caveolin1 (CAV1), the authors perform knockout, knockdown, overexpression and rescue experiments in human carcinoma and breast epithelium cell lines. They determine the cell stiffness via RT-DC, AFM indentation and AFM rheology and confirm that high CAV1 expression levels correlate with increased stiffness in those model systems. This work brings forward an interesting approach to identify novel genes in an unbiased manner, but surprisingly the authors validate caveolin 1, a target gene with known roles in cell mechanics regulation.

I have two main concerns with the current version of this work:<br /> 1) The authors identify a network of 5 genes that can predict mechanics. What is the relationship between the 5 genes? If the authors aim to highlight the power of their approach by knockdown, knockout or over-expression of a single gene why choose CAV1 (which has an individual p-value of 0.16 in Fig S4)? To justify their choice, the authors claim that there is limited data supporting the direct impact of CAV1 on mechanical properties of cells but several studies have previously shown its role in for example zebrafish heart stiffness, where a knockout leads to higher stiffness (Grivas et al., Scientific Reports 2020), in cancer cells, where a knockdown leads to cell softening (Lin et al., Oncotarget 2015), or in endothelial cell, where a knockout leads to cell softening (Le Master et al., Scientific Reports 2022).<br /> 2) The authors do not show how much does PC-Corr outperforms classical co-expression network analysis or an alternative gold standard. It is worth noting that PC-Corr was previously published by the same authors to infer phenotype-associated functional network modules from omics datasets (Ciucci et al., Scientific Reports 2017).

Altogether, the authors provide an interesting approach to identify novel genes associated with cell mechanics changes, but the current version does not fulfill such potential by focusing on a single gene with known roles in cell mechanics.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The goal of this study was to use a combination of fluorescent dyes and genetically encoded reporters to estimate the temperature of mitochondria. The authors provide additional evidence that they claim to support "hot" mitochondria.

Strengths:<br /> 1. The authors use several methods, including a mitochondrial fluorescent reporter dye, as well as a genetically encoded gTEMP temperature probe, to estimate mitochondrial temperature.<br /> 2. The authors couple these measurements with other perturbation of mitochondria, such as OXPHOS inhibitors, to show consistency

Weaknesses:<br /> 1. The methodology for inferring mitochondrial temperature is not well-established to begin with and requires additional controls for interpretation.<br /> a. Very little benchmarking is done of the "basal" fluorescence ratio, and whether that fluorescence ratio actually reflects true organelle temperature. For instance, the authors should in parallel compare between different organelles to see if only mitochondria appear "hot" or whether this is some calibration error. Another control is to use different incubator temperatures and see how mitochondrial (vs other organelle) temperature varies as a function of external temperature.<br /> b. The authors do not rigorously control for other factors that may also be changing fluorescence and may be confounders to the delta fluorescence (eg, delta calcium in response to mito inhibitors, membrane potential, redox status, ROS, etc.). There should be additional calibration for all potential confounders.<br /> c. It was unclear where the mito-targeted dyes/probes localized in terms of mitochondrial compartment. Regardless, one important control would be to target these dyes to each of the different compartments eg. Matrix vs IMS vs outer membrane to determine if a gradient of temperatures can be observed.<br /> d. Can these probes be used in isolated mitochondria and other isolated organelles. Such data would also help to clarify whether the high temperature is a specific to mitochondria.<br /> 2. The authors should try to calibrate their fluorescence inference of temperature with an alternative method and benchmark to others in the field. For instance, Okabe et al Nat Comm 2012 used a polymeric thermometer to measure temperature and reported 33degC cytoplasm and 35degC nucleus. Can the authors also show a ~2degC difference in their hands between those two compartments, and under those conditions are mitochondria still 10degC hotter?<br /> 3. There are some theoretical considerations and critiques about temperature imaging in cells (eg Baffou et al Nat Methods 2014; Lane et al Plos Biology 2018), and the possible magnitude of theoretical variation between compartments. The authors should address some of those theoretical concerns, either experimentally or in the discussion.

Based on the aforementioned weaknesses, in my opinion, the authors did not achieve their Aims to accurately determine the temperature of mitochondria. The results, while interesting, are preliminary and require additional controls before conclusions can be drawn. Previous studies have indicated intra-organelle temperature variations within cells; typically, previous reports have estimated that the variation is within a few degrees (Okabe et al Nat Comm 2012). Only one report has previously suggested that mitochondria are at 50degC (Cretien, Plos biology 2018). The study does not substantially clarify the true temperature of mitochondria or resolve potential discrepancies in previous estimates of mitochondrial temperature.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

To assess the degree to which highly social primates like marmosets share a human-like Theory of Mind (ToM), the authors used eye tracking and functional magnetic resonance brain imaging on marmosets and humans who were viewing two of the three categories from classic Frith-Happé animations. Humans viewing the ToM animations showed, relative to the random movement animations, longer fixation times, more viewing of the large shape, and more viewing of the small shape. In contrast, the marmosets did not differ in their viewing of the ToM videos as a category and did not show differential viewing of the small shape. The marmosets did show differential viewing of the large shape, but this difference was blunted relative to that seen in humans. Neurally, both species showed widespread brain activation in many areas that discriminated between ToM videos and random movement videos. This pattern of activation partially overlapped and partially was different in humans and marmosets. It was also partially overlapping and partially different when comparing humans in this study to humans in another study. Overall, the authors conclude that their evidence cannot address whether marmosets have a Theory of Mind, but that marmosets show a "clear preference for interacting shapes" that may be an ancestral form of human Theory of Mind.

There are several laudable strengths to this report. It reports a direct human/monkey comparison. It uses a robust population of subjects, especially for the monkey experiment. It uses strong imaging methods that use modern parcellation maps, compares human data from this study to comparable data from another study, and accounts for lateralization differences convincingly using maps of signal-to-noise ratio. It uses eye-tracking methods and stimuli that are solidly grounded in the human literature and that has recently been used in a different monkey species.

Unfortunately, the weaknesses of this report limit its interpretability. First, it omits one of the three major categories of the Frith-Happé animations: Goal-Directed actions. Data from this category are critical because they provide a case where the shapes are engaging in biological motion but are not behaving as if they attribute minds to each other. Without including it, readers cannot interpret whether any given finding is due to biological motion or mentalizing. Second, the study did not gather explicit reports of mental state attribution from humans. This does not allow for a manipulation check about whether humans were even engaging in mentalizing and does not allow the researchers to separate out what brain activation patterns are due to mentalizing and which are due to eye movements or stimulus movement. Third, in interpreting the data, the researchers gloss over the major species differences and primarily focus on one small species similarity. Both this study and a previous human study (Klein et al., 2009, Quart. J. Exp. Psychol.) have shown longer fixations for the ToM videos relative to the random motion videos and that these fixations correlate with explicit ratings of the intentionality of the shapes (Klein et al., 2009). That the marmosets don't show this difference should be a major piece of evidence against the hypothesis that they are engaging in anything like mentalizing. The marmosets also failed to show a viewing difference for the small shape. In short, the small viewing difference in the large shape, itself blunted relative to that seen in humans, is not sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that marmosets engage in anything like ToM or even that they show a "clear preference for interacting shapes". Fourth, alternative explanations for the small differences that do exist were not sufficiently explored. The videos that make up the categories in the Frith-Happé animations differ in many ways, such as in the amount of visual motion, smoothness/jerkiness of motion, amount of the screen taken up by shapes vs white space, etc. Indeed, in the prior study to use these stimuli with monkeys, the authors also found that the categories differed in viewing parameters but that this difference disappeared once low-level visual motion was accounted for (Schafroth et al., 2021, Sci. Rep.). Without a similar analysis here or a second experiment that assesses generalization to stimuli that don't differ on low-level perceptual features, readers cannot know whether the small viewing difference that exists is due to something like mentalizing or something about low-level visual motion. Indeed, other studies have found overlapping brain activity patterns in monkeys that are driven primarily by low-level visual motion (e.g., Russ et al., 2015, Neuroimage). Fifth, the prior monkey study to use these stimuli raised the point that these stimuli may not even be appropriate to test ToM in nonhumans. Human-like displays of "mocking", "coaxing", or "seducing" are likely meaningless to monkeys. This weakness has not been addressed in the current study.

Considering the weaknesses in the behavioral methods, the well-collected neural activity patterns cannot be interpreted in a meaningful way. As such, the authors' conclusions are not justified at the current time. Nevertheless, this report may be useful to others who attempt similar experiments of their own.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Aso et al. provide insight into how learned valences are transformed into concrete memory-driven actions, using a diverse set of proven techniques.

Here the authors use a four-armed arena to evaluate flies' preference for a reward-predicting odor and measure upwind locomotion. This behavioral paradigm was combined with the photoactivation of different memory-eliciting neurons, revealing that appetitive memories stored in different compartments of the mushroom bodies (center of olfactory memory) induce different levels of upwind locomotion. The authors then proceed to a non-exhaustive optogenetic screen of the neurons located downstream of the output neurons of the mushroom bodies (MBONs) and identify a group of 8-11 Cholinergic neurons promoting significant changes in upwind locomotion, the UpWins. By combining confocal immunolabelling of these neurons with electron microscope images, they manage to establish the UpWins' connectome within themselves and with the MBONs. Then, using two in vivo cell recording techniques, electrophysiology, and calcium imaging, they define that UpWins integrate both inhibitory and excitatory synaptic inputs from the MBONs encoding appetitive and aversive memory, respectively. In addition, they show that the UpWins' response to a reward-predicting odor is increased after appetitive training. On a behavioral level, the authors establish that the UpWins respond to wind direction only and are not involved in lower-level motor parameters, such as turning direction and acceleration. Finally, they demonstrate that the UpWins' activity is necessary for long-term appetitive memory retrieval, and even suggest a broader role for the UpWins in olfactory navigation, as their photoactivation increases the probability of revisiting behavior. In the end, the authors state that they provide new insights into how memory is translated into concrete behavior, which is fully supported by their data. Altogether, the authors present a pretty complete study that provides very interesting and reliable data, and that opens a new field of investigation into memory-driven behaviors.

Strengths of the study:

- To support their conclusions, the authors provide detailed data from different levels of analysis (behavioral, cellular, and molecular), using multiple sophisticated techniques.

- The measurement of multiple parameters in the behavioral analysis supports the strong changes in upwind locomotion. In addition, taken individually these parameters provide precise insights into how upwind locomotion changes, and allow the authors to more precisely define the role of the UpWins.

- The authors use split-Gal4 drivers instead of Gal4, allowing them to better refine neuron labelling.

The authors discussed and investigated all possible biases, making their data very reliable. For example, they demonstrated that the phenotypes observed in the behavioral assay were wind-directed behaviors and could not be explained by bias avoidance of the arena's center area.

Limitations of the study:

- In the absence of more precise drivers, the UpWins' labelling lacks precision. For example, there is no way to know exactly which UpWin is responding in the electrophysiological experiment presented in Figure 4.

- The screening of neurons located downstream of the MBONs is not exhaustive, meaning that other groups of neurons might be involved in memory-driven upwind locomotion. Although, it does not diminish the authors' conclusions.

- All data were obtained with walking flies. So far, there have been no experiments on flying flies.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors are presenting a new simulation for artificial vision that incorporates many recent advances in our understanding of the neural response to electrical stimulation, specifically within the field of visual prosthetics. The authors succeed in integrating multiple results from other researchers on aspects of V1 response to electrical stimulation to create a system that more accurately models V1 activation in a visual prosthesis than other simulators. The authors then attempt to demonstrate the value of such a system by adding a decoding stage and using machine-learning techniques to optimize the system to various configurations. While there is merit to being able to apply various constraints (such as maximum current levels) and have the system attempt to find a solution that maximizes recoverable information, the interpretability of such encodings to a hypothetical recipient of such a system is not addressed. The authors demonstrate that they are able to recapitulate various standard encodings through this automated mechanism, but the advantages to using it as opposed to mechanisms that directly detect and encode, e.g., edges, are insufficiently justified. The authors make a few mistakes in their interpretation of biological mechanisms, and the introduction lacks appropriate depth of review of existing literature, giving the reader the mistaken impression that this is simulator is the only attempt ever made at biologically plausible simulation, rather than merely the most recent refinement that builds on decades of work across the field. The authors have importantly not included gaze position compensation which adds more complexity than the authors suggest it would, and also means the simulator lacks a basic, fundamental feature that strongly limits it utility. Finally, the computational capacity required to run the described system is substantial and is not one that would plausibly be used as part of an actual device, suggesting that there may be difficulties with converting results from this simulator to an implantable system. With all of that said, the results do represent an advance, and one that could have wider impact if the authors were to reduce the computational requirements, and add gaze correction.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this study, titled "Epigenetic signature of human immune aging: the GESTALT study," the authors reanalysed data from five highly purified human immune cell types from 55 healthy volunteers across a wide age range to characterize age-related changes in DNA methylation status. Additionally, they performed some integrative analyses with chromatin state and transcriptional data. Findings support that age-related DNA methylation changes are predominantly cell type-specific. Out of thousands of age-associated sites, only 350 sites were differentially methylated in the same direction in all cell types and validated in an independent longitudinal cohort. Some conserved changes exist, which appear to be underpinned by alterations in the hypoxia response, with linked enrichment of transcription factor binding motifs related to ARNT and REST. The authors conclude that DNA methylation changes in healthy aging may represent adaptive responses to fluctuations in oxygen availability.

Strengths:

- The study utilised data from a large cohort of individuals (n=55), with participants ranging in age from their 20s to 80s, providing a comprehensive age-related analysis.

- The data set reanalysed was based on highly purified cells rather than unfractionated PBMCs. This revealed the largely cell-type-specific nature of these changes and demonstrated that conflicting directional changes can cancel each other out, going undetected at the PBMC level.

- The authors were able to verify the DNA methylation changes that were conserved across cell types longitudinally in PBMCs by reanalyzing published datasets from the InCHIANTI study, adding robustness to their findings.

Weaknesses:

- The authors make statements in the abstract and manuscript that overreach the study's findings. Specifically, they claim that "DNA methylation changes in healthy aging may represent adaptive responses to fluctuations in oxygen availability." In reality, the study shows that a small minority of conserved DNA methylation changes across hematopoietic cell types appear to be driven by hypoxia response processes. The study does not demonstrate that hypoxia response processes account for a large proportion of DNA methylation changes or that these processes apply to non-hematopoietic cell types. These statements should be put into context relative to the study findings.

- The authors should make it clear in the introduction and methods section that this current study is merely reanalysing a data set they published before. Also, the authors should describe in the introduction the key findings of the initial analysis as presented in their 2021 Immunity publication.

- In some instances, the manuscript lacks citations to support claims.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors are aiming to demonstrate that a fatty-acyl synthase gene (fas5) is involved in the composition of the blend of surface hydrocarbons of a parasitoid wasp and that it affects the sexual attractiveness of females for males. Overall, the manuscript reads very well, it is very streamlined, and the authors' claims are mostly supported by their experiments and observations. However, I find that some experiments, information and/or discussion are absent to assess how the effects they observe are, at least in part, not due to other factors than fas5 and the methyl-branched (MB) alkanes. I'm also wondering if what the authors observe is only a change in the sexual attractiveness of females and not related to species recognition as well.

The authors explore the function of cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs) and a fatty-acyl synthase in Nasonia vitripennis, a parasitic wasp. Using RNAi, they successfully knockdown the expression of the fas5 gene in wasps. The authors do not justify their choice of fatty-acyl synthase candidate gene. It would have been interesting to know if that is one of many genes they studied or if there was some evidence that drove them to focus their interest in fas5. The authors observe large changes in the cuticular hydrocarbons (CHC) profile of male and females. These changes are mostly a reduction of some MB alkanes and an increase in others as well as an increase of n-alkene in fas5 knockdown females. For males fas5 knockdowns, the overall quantity of CHC is increased and consequently, multiple types of compounds are increased compared to wild-type, with only one compound appearing to decrease compared to wild-type. Insects are known to rely on ratios of compounds in blends to recognize odors. Authors address this by showing a plot of the relative ratios, but it seems to me that they do show statistical tests of those changes in the proportions of the different types of compounds. In the results section, the authors give percentages while referring to figures showing the absolute amount of CHCs. They should also test if the ratios are significantly different or not between experimental conditions. Similar data should be displayed for the males as well. Furthermore, the authors didn't use an internal standard to measure the quantity of CHCs in the extracts, which, to me, is the gold standard in the field. If I understood correctly, the authors check the abundance measured for known quantities of n-alkanes. I'm sure this method is fine, but I would have liked to be reassured that the quantities measured through this method are good by either testing some samples with an internal standard, or referring to work that demonstrates that this method is always accurate to assess the quantities of CHC in extracts of known volumes.

The authors provide a sensible control for their RNAi experiments: targeting an unrelated gene, absent in N. vitripennis (the GFP). This allows us to see if the injection of RNAi might affect CHC profiles, which it appears to do in some cases in males, but not in females. The authors also show to the reader that their RNAi experiments do reduce the expression of the target gene. However, one of the caveats of their experiments, is that the authors don't provide evidence or information to allow the (non-expert) reader to assess whether the fas5 RNAi experiments did affect the expression of other fatty-acyl synthase genes. I'm not an expert in RNAi, so maybe this suggestion is not relevant, but it should, at least, be addressed somewhere in the manuscript that such off-target effects are very unlikely or impossible, in that case, or more generally.

The authors observe that the modified CHCs profiles of RNAi females reduce courtship and copulation attempts, but not antennation, by males toward live and (dead) dummy females. They show that the MB alkanes of the CHC profile are sufficient to elicit sexual behaviors from males towards dummy females and that the same fraction from extracts of fas5 knockdown females does so significantly less. From the previous data, it seems that dummy females with fas5 female's MB alkanes profile elicit more antennation than CHC-cleared dummy females, but the authors do not display data for this type of target on the figure for MB alkane behavioral experiments. Unfortunately, the authors don't present experiments testing the effect of the non-MB alkanes fractions of the CHC extracts on male behavior toward females. As such, they are not able to (and didn't) conclude that the MB-alkane is necessary to trigger the sexual behaviors of males. I believe testing this would have significantly enhanced the significance of this work. I would also have found it interesting for the authors to comment on whether they observe aggressive behavior of males towards females (live or dead) and/or whether such behavior is expected or not in inter-individual interactions in parasitoids wasps.

CHCs are used by insects to signal and/or recognize various traits of targets of interest, including species or groups of origin, fertility, etc. The authors claim that their experiments show the sexual attractiveness of females can be encoded in the specific ratio of MB alkanes. While I understand how they come to this conclusion, I am somewhat concerned. The authors very quickly discuss their results in light of the literature about the role of CHCs (and notably MB alkanes) in various recognition behaviors in Hymenoptera, including conspecific recognition. Previous work (cited by the authors) has shown that males recognize males from females using an alkene (Z9C31). As such, it remains possible that the "sexual attractiveness" of N. vitripennis females for males relies on them not being males and being from the right species as well. The authors do not address the question of whether the CHCs (and the MB alkanes in particular) of females signal their sex or their species. While I acknowledge that responding to this question is beyond the scope of this work, I also strongly believe that it should be discussed in the manuscript. Otherwise, non-specialist readers would not be able to understand what I believe is one of the points that could temper the conclusions from this work.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Rossini et al suggests an interesting novel mechanism for the regulation of tyrosine kinase Src by spermidine. The idea is interesting and some of the data suggest that spermidine may regulate Src activity. However, the manuscript suffers from multiple major shortcomings. The mechanism proposed by the authors is not supported by their studies. Authors tend to overinterpret data and overlook critical information that is missing. Some of the data is insufficient to support the statements that the authors make. Authors tend to use confusing nomenclature without clarifications making it difficult to interpret the data. The extent of Src activation by spermidine should be carefully evaluated by comparing it to the maximum activity of constitutively active Src. Furthermore, the biological significance of this regulation is not demonstrated. Only a few overexpression data are shown.