Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this revision, the authors significantly improved the manuscript. They now address some of my concerns. Specifically, they show the contribution of end-effects on spreading the inputs between dendrites. This analysis reveals greater applicability of their findings to cortical cells, with long, unbranching dendrites than other neuronal types, such as Purkinje cells in the cerebellum.

They now explain better the interactions between calcium and voltage signals, which I believe improve the take-away message of their manuscript. They modified and added new figures that helped to provide more information about their simulations.

However, some of my points remain valid. Figure 6 shows depolarization of ~5mV from -75. This weak depolarization would not effectively recruit nonlinear activation of NMDARs. In their paper, Branco and Hausser (2010) showed depolarizations of ~10-15mV.

More importantly, the signature of NMDAR activation is the prolonged plateau potential and activation at more depolarized resting membrane potentials (their Figure 4). Thus, despite including NMDARs in the simulation, the authors do not model functional recruitment of these channels. Their simulation is thus equivalent to AMPA only drive, which can indeed summate somewhat nonlinearly.

In the current study, we used short sequences of 5 inputs, since the convergence of longer sequences is extremely unlikely in the network configurations we have examined. This resulted in smaller EPSP amplitudes of ~5mV (Figure 6 - Supplement 2A, B). Longer sequences containing 9 inputs resulted in larger somatic depolarizations of ~10mV (Figure 6 - Supplement 2E, F). Although we had modified the (Branco, Clark, and Häusser 2010) model to remove the jitter in the timing of arrival of inputs and made slight modifications to the location of stimulus delivery on the dendrite, we saw similar amplitudes when we tested a 9-length sequence using (Branco, Clark, and Häusser 2010)’s published code (Figure 6 - Supplement 2I, J). In all the cases we tested (5 input sequence, 9 input sequence, 9 input sequence with (Branco, Clark, and Häusser 2010) code repository), removal of NMDA synapses lowered both the somatic EPSPs (Figure 6 - Supplement 2C,D,G,H,K,L) as well as the selectivity (measured as the difference between the EPSPs generated for inward and outward stimulus delivery) (Figure 6 Supplement 2M,N,O). Further, monitoring the voltage along the dendrite for a sequence of 5 inputs showed dendritic EPSPs in the range of 20-45 mV (Figure 6 - Supplement 2P, Q), which came down notably (10-25mV) when NMDA synapses were abolished (Figure 6 - Supplement 2R, S). Thus, even sequences containing as few as 5 inputs were capable of engaging the NMDA-mediated nonlinearity to show sequence selectivity, although the selectivity was not as strong as in the case of 9 inputs.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

Minor points:

Figure 8, what does the scale in A represent? I assume it is voltage, but there are no units. Figure 8, C, E, G, these are unconventional units for synaptic weights, usually, these are given in nS / per input.

We have corrected these. The scalebar in 8A represents membrane potential in mV. The units of 8C,E,G are now in nS.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

If synaptic input is functionally clustered on dendrites, nonlinear integration could increase the computational power of neural networks. But this requires the right synapses to be located in the right places. This paper aims to address the question of whether such synaptic arrangements could arise by chance (i.e. without special rules for axon guidance or structural plasticity), and could therefore be exploited even in randomly connected networks. This is important, particularly for the dendrites and biological computation communities, where there is a pressing need to integrate decades of work at the single-neuron level with contemporary ideas about network function.

Using an abstract model where ensembles of neurons project randomly to a postsynaptic population, back-of-envelope calculations are presented that predict the probability of finding clustered synapses and spatiotemporal sequences. Using data-constrained parameters, the authors conclude that clustering and sequences are indeed likely to occur by chance (for large enough ensembles), but require strong dendritic nonlinearities and low background noise to be useful.

Strengths:

(1) The back-of-envelope reasoning presented can provide fast and valuable intuition. The authors have also made the effort to connect the model parameters with measured values. Even an approximate understanding of cluster probability can direct theory and experiments towards promising directions, or away from lost causes.

(2) I found the general approach to be refreshingly transparent and objective. Assumptions are stated clearly about the model and statistics of different circuits. Along with some positive results, many of the computed cluster probabilities are vanishingly small, and noise is found to be quite detrimental in several cases. This is important to know, and I was happy to see the authors take a balanced look at conditions that help/hinder clustering, rather than to just focus on a particular regime that works.

(3) This paper is also a timely reminder that synaptic clusters and sequences can exist on multiple spatial and temporal scales. The authors present results pertaining to the standard `electrical' regime (~50-100 µm, <50 ms), as well as two modes of chemical signaling (~10 µm, 100-1000 ms). The senior author is indeed an authority on the latter, and the simulations in Figure 5, extending those from Bhalla (2017), are unique in this area. In my view, the role of chemical signaling in neural computation is understudied theoretically, but research will be increasingly important as experimental technologies continue to develop.

Weaknesses:

(1) The paper is mostly let down by the presentation. In the current form, some patience is needed to grasp the main questions and results, and it is hard to keep track of the many abbreviations and definitions. A paper like this can be impactful, but the writing needs to be crisp, and the logic of the derivation accessible to non-experts. See, for instance, Stepanyants, Hof & Chklovskii (2002) for a relevant example.

It would be good to see a restructure that communicates the main points clearly and concisely, perhaps leaving other observations to an optional appendix. For the interested but time-pressed reader, I recommend starting with the last paragraph of the introduction, working through the main derivation on page 7, and writing out the full expression with key parameters exposed. Next, look at Table 1 and Figure 2J to see where different circuits and mechanisms fit in this scheme. Beyond this, the sequence derivation on page 15 and biophysical simulations in Figures 5 and 6 are also highlights.

We appreciate the reviewers' suggestions. We have tightened the flow of the introduction. We understand that the abbreviations and definitions are challenging and have therefore provided intuitions and summaries of the equations discussed in the main text.

Clusters calculations

Our approach is to ask how likely it is that a given set of inputs lands on a short segment of dendrite, and then scale it up to all segments on the entire dendritic length of the cell.

Thus, the probability of occurrence of groups that receive connections from each of the M ensembles (PcFMG) is a function of the connection probability (p) between the two layers, the number of neurons in an ensemble (N), the relative zone-length with respect to the total dendritic arbor (Z/L) and the number of ensembles (M).

Sequence calculations

Here we estimate the likelihood of the first ensemble input arriving anywhere on the dendrite, and ask how likely it is that succeeding inputs of the sequence would arrive within a set spacing.

Thus, the probability of occurrence of sequences that receive sequential connections (PcPOSS) from each of the M ensembles is a function of the connection probability (p) between the two layers, the number of neurons in an ensemble (N), the relative window size with respect to the total dendritic arbor (Δ/L) and the number of ensembles (M).

(2) I wonder if the authors are being overly conservative at times. The result highlighted in the abstract is that 10/100000 postsynaptic neurons are expected to exhibit synaptic clustering. This seems like a very small number, especially if circuits are to rely on such a mechanism. However, this figure assumes the convergence of 3-5 distinct ensembles. Convergence of inputs from just 2 ense mbles would be much more prevalent, but still advantageous computationally. There has been excitement in the field about experiments showing the clustering of synapses encoding even a single feature.

We agree that short clusters of two inputs would be far more likely. We focused our analysis on clusters with three of more ensembles because of the following reasons:

(1) The signal to noise in these clusters was very poor as the likelihood of noise clusters is high.

(2) It is difficult to trigger nonlinearities with very few synaptic inputs.

(3) At the ensemble sizes we considered (100 for clusters, 1000 for sequences), clusters arising from just two ensembles would result in high probability of occurrence on all neurons in a network (~50% in cortex, see p_CMFG in figures below.). These dense neural representations make it difficult for downstream networks to decode (Foldiak 2003).

However, in the presence of ensembles containing fewer neurons or when the connection probability between the layers is low, short clusters can result in sparse representations (Figure 2 - Supplement 2). Arguments 1 and 2 hold for short sequences as well.

(3) The analysis supporting the claim that strong nonlinearities are needed for cluster/sequence detection is unconvincing. In the analysis, different synapse distributions on a single long dendrite are convolved with a sigmoid function and then the sum is taken to reflect the somatic response. In reality, dendritic nonlinearities influence the soma in a complex and dynamic manner. It may be that the abstract approach the authors use captures some of this, but it needs to be validated with simulations to be trusted (in line with previous work, e.g. Poirazi, Brannon & Mel, (2003)).

We agree that multiple factors might affect the influence of nonlinearities on the soma. The key goal of our study was to understand the role played by random connectivity in giving rise to clustered computation. Since simulating a wide range of connectivity and activity patterns in a detailed biophysical model was computationally expensive, we analyzed the exemplar detailed models for nonlinearity separately (Figures 5, 6, and new figure 8), and then used our abstract models as a proxy for understanding population dynamics. A complete analysis of the role played by morphology, channel kinetics and the effect of branching requires an in-depth study of its own, and some of these questions have already been tackled by (Poirazi, Brannon, and Mel 2003; Branco, Clark, and Häusser 2010; Bhalla 2017). However, in the revision, we have implemented a single model which incorporates the range of ion-channel, synaptic and biochemical signaling nonlinearities which we discuss in the paper (Figure 8, and Figure 8 Supplement 1, 2,3). We use this to demonstrate all three forms of sequence and grouped computation we use in the study, where the only difference is in the stimulus pattern and the separation of time-scales inherent in the stimuli.

(4) It is unclear whether some of the conclusions would hold in the presence of learning. In the signal-to-noise analysis, all synaptic strengths are assumed equal. But if synapses involved in salient clusters or sequences were potentiated, presumably detection would become easier? Similarly, if presynaptic tuning and/or timing were reorganized through learning, the conditions for synaptic arrangements to be useful could be relaxed. Answering these questions is beyond the scope of the study, but there is a caveat there nonetheless.

We agree with the reviewer. If synapses receiving connectivity from ensembles had stronger weights, this would make detection easier. Dendritic spikes arising from clustered inputs have been implicated in local cooperative plasticity (Golding, Staff, and Spruston 2002; Losonczy, Makara, and Magee 2008). Further, plasticity related proteins synthesized at a synapse undergoing L-LTP can diffuse to neighboring weakly co-active synapses, and thereby mediate cooperative plasticity (Harvey et al. 2008; Govindarajan, Kelleher, and Tonegawa 2006; Govindarajan et al. 2011). Thus if clusters of synapses were likely to be co-active, they could further engage these local plasticity mechanisms which could potentiate them while not potentiating synapses that are activated by background activity. This would depend on the activity correlation between synapses receiving ensemble inputs within a cluster vs those activated by background activity. We have mentioned some of these ideas in a published opinion paper (Pulikkottil, Somashekar, and Bhalla 2021). In the current study, we wanted to understand whether even in the absence of specialized connection rules, interesting computations could still emerge. Thus, we focused on asking whether clustered or sequential convergence could arise even in a purely randomly connected network, with the most basic set of assumptions. We agree that an analysis of how selectivity evolves with learning would be an interesting topic for further work.

References

• Bhalla, Upinder S. 2017. “Synaptic Input Sequence Discrimination on Behavioral Timescales Mediated by Reaction-Diffusion Chemistry in Dendrites.” Edited by Frances K Skinner. eLife 6 (April):e25827. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25827.

• Branco, Tiago, Beverley A. Clark, and Michael Häusser. 2010. “Dendritic Discrimination of Temporal Input Sequences in Cortical Neurons.” Science (New York, N.Y.) 329 (5999): 1671–75. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1189664.

• Foldiak, Peter. 2003. “Sparse Coding in the Primate Cortex.” The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks. https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/2994/FoldiakSparse HBTNN2e02.pdf?sequence=1.

• Golding, Nace L., Nathan P. Staff, and Nelson Spruston. 2002. “Dendritic Spikes as a Mechanism for Cooperative Long-Term Potentiation.” Nature 418 (6895): 326–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature00854.

• Govindarajan, Arvind, Inbal Israely, Shu-Ying Huang, and Susumu Tonegawa. 2011. “The Dendritic Branch Is the Preferred Integrative Unit for Protein Synthesis-Dependent LTP.” Neuron 69 (1): 132–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.12.008.

• Govindarajan, Arvind, Raymond J. Kelleher, and Susumu Tonegawa. 2006. “A Clustered Plasticity Model of Long-Term Memory Engrams.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7 (7): 575–83. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1937.

• Harvey, Christopher D., Ryohei Yasuda, Haining Zhong, and Karel Svoboda. 2008. “The Spread of Ras Activity Triggered by Activation of a Single Dendritic Spine.” Science (New York, N.Y.) 321 (5885): 136–40. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1159675.

• Losonczy, Attila, Judit K. Makara, and Jeffrey C. Magee. 2008. “Compartmentalized Dendritic Plasticity and Input Feature Storage in Neurons.” Nature 452 (7186): 436–41. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06725.

• Poirazi, Panayiota, Terrence Brannon, and Bartlett W. Mel. 2003. “Pyramidal Neuron as Two-Layer Neural Network.” Neuron 37 (6): 989–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00149-1.

• Pulikkottil, Vinu Varghese, Bhanu Priya Somashekar, and Upinder S. Bhalla. 2021. “Computation, Wiring, and Plasticity in Synaptic Clusters.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, Computational Neuroscience, 70 (October):101–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2021.08.001.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this revision, the authors significantly improved the manuscript. They now address some of my concerns. Specifically, they show the contribution of end-effects on spreading the inputs between dendrites. This analysis reveals greater applicability of their findings to cortical cells, with long, unbranching dendrites than other neuronal types, such as Purkinje cells in the cerebellum.

They now explain better the interactions between calcium and voltage signals, which I believe improve the take-away message of their manuscript. They modified and added new figures that helped to provide more information about their simulations.

However, some of my points remain valid. Figure 6 shows depolarization of ~5mV from -75. This weak depolarization would not effectively recruit nonlinear activation of NMDARs. In their paper, Branco and Hausser (2010) showed depolarizations of ~10-15mV.

More importantly, the signature of NMDAR activation is the prolonged plateau potential and activation at more depolarized resting membrane potentials (their Figure 4). Thus, despite including NMDARs in the simulation, the authors do not model functional recruitment of these channels. Their simulation is thus equivalent to AMPA only drive, which can indeed summate somewhat nonlinearly.

In the current study, we used short sequences of 5 inputs, since the convergence of longer sequences is extremely unlikely in the network configurations we have examined. This resulted in smaller EPSP amplitudes of ~5mV (Figure 6 - Supplement 2A, B). Longer sequences containing 9 inputs resulted in larger somatic depolarizations of ~10mV (Figure 6 - Supplement 2E, F). Although we had modified the (Branco, Clark, and Häusser 2010) model to remove the jitter in the timing of arrival of inputs and made slight modifications to the location of stimulus delivery on the dendrite, we saw similar amplitudes when we tested a 9-length sequence using (Branco, Clark, and Häusser 2010)’s published code (Figure 6 - Supplement 2I, J). In all the cases we tested (5 input sequence, 9 input sequence, 9 input sequence with (Branco, Clark, and Häusser 2010) code repository), removal of NMDA synapses lowered both the somatic EPSPs (Figure 6 - Supplement 2C,D,G,H,K,L) as well as the selectivity (measured as the difference between the EPSPs generated for inward and outward stimulus delivery) (Figure 6 Supplement 2M,N,O). Further, monitoring the voltage along the dendrite for a sequence of 5 inputs showed dendritic EPSPs in the range of 20-45 mV (Figure 6 - Supplement 2P, Q), which came down notably (10-25mV) when NMDA synapses were abolished (Figure 6 - Supplement 2R, S). Thus, even sequences containing as few as 5 inputs were capable of engaging the NMDA-mediated nonlinearity to show sequence selectivity, although the selectivity was not as strong as in the case of 9 inputs.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

Minor points:

Figure 8, what does the scale in A represent? I assume it is voltage, but there are no units. Figure 8, C, E, G, these are unconventional units for synaptic weights, usually, these are given in nS / per input.

We have corrected these. The scalebar in 8A represents membrane potential in mV. The units of 8C,E,G are now in nS.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

If synaptic input is functionally clustered on dendrites, nonlinear integration could increase the computational power of neural networks. But this requires the right synapses to be located in the right places. This paper aims to address the question of whether such synaptic arrangements could arise by chance (i.e. without special rules for axon guidance or structural plasticity), and could therefore be exploited even in randomly connected networks. This is important, particularly for the dendrites and biological computation communities, where there is a pressing need to integrate decades of work at the single-neuron level with contemporary ideas about network function.

Using an abstract model where ensembles of neurons project randomly to a postsynaptic population, back-of-envelope calculations are presented that predict the probability of finding clustered synapses and spatiotemporal sequences. Using data-constrained parameters, the authors conclude that clustering and sequences are indeed likely to occur by chance (for large enough ensembles), but require strong dendritic nonlinearities and low background noise to be useful.

Strengths:

(1) The back-of-envelope reasoning presented can provide fast and valuable intuition. The authors have also made the effort to connect the model parameters with measured values. Even an approximate understanding of cluster probability can direct theory and experiments towards promising directions, or away from lost causes.

(2) I found the general approach to be refreshingly transparent and objective. Assumptions are stated clearly about the model and statistics of different circuits. Along with some positive results, many of the computed cluster probabilities are vanishingly small, and noise is found to be quite detrimental in several cases. This is important to know, and I was happy to see the authors take a balanced look at conditions that help/hinder clustering, rather than to just focus on a particular regime that works.

(3) This paper is also a timely reminder that synaptic clusters and sequences can exist on multiple spatial and temporal scales. The authors present results pertaining to the standard `electrical' regime (~50-100 µm, <50 ms), as well as two modes of chemical signaling (~10 µm, 100-1000 ms). The senior author is indeed an authority on the latter, and the simulations in Figure 5, extending those from Bhalla (2017), are unique in this area. In my view, the role of chemical signaling in neural computation is understudied theoretically, but research will be increasingly important as experimental technologies continue to develop.

Weaknesses:

(1) The paper is mostly let down by the presentation. In the current form, some patience is needed to grasp the main questions and results, and it is hard to keep track of the many abbreviations and definitions. A paper like this can be impactful, but the writing needs to be crisp, and the logic of the derivation accessible to non-experts. See, for instance, Stepanyants, Hof & Chklovskii (2002) for a relevant example.

It would be good to see a restructure that communicates the main points clearly and concisely, perhaps leaving other observations to an optional appendix. For the interested but time-pressed reader, I recommend starting with the last paragraph of the introduction, working through the main derivation on page 7, and writing out the full expression with key parameters exposed. Next, look at Table 1 and Figure 2J to see where different circuits and mechanisms fit in this scheme. Beyond this, the sequence derivation on page 15 and biophysical simulations in Figures 5 and 6 are also highlights.

We appreciate the reviewers' suggestions. We have tightened the flow of the introduction. We understand that the abbreviations and definitions are challenging and have therefore provided intuitions and summaries of the equations discussed in the main text.

Clusters calculations

Our approach is to ask how likely it is that a given set of inputs lands on a short segment of dendrite, and then scale it up to all segments on the entire dendritic length of the cell.

Thus, the probability of occurrence of groups that receive connections from each of the M ensembles (PcFMG) is a function of the connection probability (p) between the two layers, the number of neurons in an ensemble (N), the relative zone-length with respect to the total dendritic arbor (Z/L) and the number of ensembles (M).

Sequence calculations

Here we estimate the likelihood of the first ensemble input arriving anywhere on the dendrite, and ask how likely it is that succeeding inputs of the sequence would arrive within a set spacing.

Thus, the probability of occurrence of sequences that receive sequential connections (PcPOSS) from each of the M ensembles is a function of the connection probability (p) between the two layers, the number of neurons in an ensemble (N), the relative window size with respect to the total dendritic arbor (Δ/L) and the number of ensembles (M).

(2) I wonder if the authors are being overly conservative at times. The result highlighted in the abstract is that 10/100000 postsynaptic neurons are expected to exhibit synaptic clustering. This seems like a very small number, especially if circuits are to rely on such a mechanism. However, this figure assumes the convergence of 3-5 distinct ensembles. Convergence of inputs from just 2 ense mbles would be much more prevalent, but still advantageous computationally. There has been excitement in the field about experiments showing the clustering of synapses encoding even a single feature.

We agree that short clusters of two inputs would be far more likely. We focused our analysis on clusters with three of more ensembles because of the following reasons:

(1) The signal to noise in these clusters was very poor as the likelihood of noise clusters is high.

(2) It is difficult to trigger nonlinearities with very few synaptic inputs.

(3) At the ensemble sizes we considered (100 for clusters, 1000 for sequences), clusters arising from just two ensembles would result in high probability of occurrence on all neurons in a network (~50% in cortex, see p_CMFG in figures below.). These dense neural representations make it difficult for downstream networks to decode (Foldiak 2003).

However, in the presence of ensembles containing fewer neurons or when the connection probability between the layers is low, short clusters can result in sparse representations (Figure 2 - Supplement 2). Arguments 1 and 2 hold for short sequences as well.

(3) The analysis supporting the claim that strong nonlinearities are needed for cluster/sequence detection is unconvincing. In the analysis, different synapse distributions on a single long dendrite are convolved with a sigmoid function and then the sum is taken to reflect the somatic response. In reality, dendritic nonlinearities influence the soma in a complex and dynamic manner. It may be that the abstract approach the authors use captures some of this, but it needs to be validated with simulations to be trusted (in line with previous work, e.g. Poirazi, Brannon & Mel, (2003)).

We agree that multiple factors might affect the influence of nonlinearities on the soma. The key goal of our study was to understand the role played by random connectivity in giving rise to clustered computation. Since simulating a wide range of connectivity and activity patterns in a detailed biophysical model was computationally expensive, we analyzed the exemplar detailed models for nonlinearity separately (Figures 5, 6, and new figure 8), and then used our abstract models as a proxy for understanding population dynamics. A complete analysis of the role played by morphology, channel kinetics and the effect of branching requires an in-depth study of its own, and some of these questions have already been tackled by (Poirazi, Brannon, and Mel 2003; Branco, Clark, and Häusser 2010; Bhalla 2017). However, in the revision, we have implemented a single model which incorporates the range of ion-channel, synaptic and biochemical signaling nonlinearities which we discuss in the paper (Figure 8, and Figure 8 Supplement 1, 2,3). We use this to demonstrate all three forms of sequence and grouped computation we use in the study, where the only difference is in the stimulus pattern and the separation of time-scales inherent in the stimuli.

(4) It is unclear whether some of the conclusions would hold in the presence of learning. In the signal-to-noise analysis, all synaptic strengths are assumed equal. But if synapses involved in salient clusters or sequences were potentiated, presumably detection would become easier? Similarly, if presynaptic tuning and/or timing were reorganized through learning, the conditions for synaptic arrangements to be useful could be relaxed. Answering these questions is beyond the scope of the study, but there is a caveat there nonetheless.

We agree with the reviewer. If synapses receiving connectivity from ensembles had stronger weights, this would make detection easier. Dendritic spikes arising from clustered inputs have been implicated in local cooperative plasticity (Golding, Staff, and Spruston 2002; Losonczy, Makara, and Magee 2008). Further, plasticity related proteins synthesized at a synapse undergoing L-LTP can diffuse to neighboring weakly co-active synapses, and thereby mediate cooperative plasticity (Harvey et al. 2008; Govindarajan, Kelleher, and Tonegawa 2006; Govindarajan et al. 2011). Thus if clusters of synapses were likely to be co-active, they could further engage these local plasticity mechanisms which could potentiate them while not potentiating synapses that are activated by background activity. This would depend on the activity correlation between synapses receiving ensemble inputs within a cluster vs those activated by background activity. We have mentioned some of these ideas in a published opinion paper (Pulikkottil, Somashekar, and Bhalla 2021). In the current study, we wanted to understand whether even in the absence of specialized connection rules, interesting computations could still emerge. Thus, we focused on asking whether clustered or sequential convergence could arise even in a purely randomly connected network, with the most basic set of assumptions. We agree that an analysis of how selectivity evolves with learning would be an interesting topic for further work.

References

Bhalla, Upinder S. 2017. “Synaptic Input Sequence Discrimination on Behavioral Timescales Mediated by Reaction-Diffusion Chemistry in Dendrites.” Edited by Frances K Skinner. eLife 6 (April):e25827. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25827.

Branco, Tiago, Beverley A. Clark, and Michael Häusser. 2010. “Dendritic Discrimination of Temporal Input Sequences in Cortical Neurons.” Science (New York, N.Y.) 329 (5999): 1671–75. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1189664.

Foldiak, Peter. 2003. “Sparse Coding in the Primate Cortex.” The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks. https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/2994/FoldiakSparse HBTNN2e02.pdf?sequence=1.

Golding, Nace L., Nathan P. Staff, and Nelson Spruston. 2002. “Dendritic Spikes as a Mechanism for Cooperative Long-Term Potentiation.” Nature 418 (6895): 326–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature00854.

Govindarajan, Arvind, Inbal Israely, Shu-Ying Huang, and Susumu Tonegawa. 2011. “The Dendritic Branch Is the Preferred Integrative Unit for Protein Synthesis-Dependent LTP.” Neuron 69 (1): 132–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.12.008.

Govindarajan, Arvind, Raymond J. Kelleher, and Susumu Tonegawa. 2006. “A Clustered Plasticity Model of Long-Term Memory Engrams.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7 (7): 575–83. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1937.

Harvey, Christopher D., Ryohei Yasuda, Haining Zhong, and Karel Svoboda. 2008. “The Spread of Ras Activity Triggered by Activation of a Single Dendritic Spine.” Science (New York, N.Y.) 321 (5885): 136–40. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1159675.

Losonczy, Attila, Judit K. Makara, and Jeffrey C. Magee. 2008. “Compartmentalized Dendritic Plasticity and Input Feature Storage in Neurons.” Nature 452 (7186): 436–41. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06725.

Poirazi, Panayiota, Terrence Brannon, and Bartlett W. Mel. 2003. “Pyramidal Neuron as Two-Layer Neural Network.” Neuron 37 (6): 989–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00149-1.

Pulikkottil, Vinu Varghese, Bhanu Priya Somashekar, and Upinder S. Bhalla. 2021. “Computation, Wiring, and Plasticity in Synaptic Clusters.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, Computational Neuroscience, 70 (October):101–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2021.08.001.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1:

Reviewer #1 was very appreciative of our results and commented “This is a novel result in ferredoxin and a significant contribution to the field”. We are very honored and pleased.

Reviewer #2:

(1) Changing the nomenclature of the models investigated to include the oxidation state being discussed. As they are now (CM, CMNA, etc), multiple re-reads were required to ascertain which redox state was being discussed for a particular model in a given section of the text. Appending "Ox" or "Red" for oxidized or reduced would be sufficient. 

As you indicated there are several nomenclatures to distinguish the model systems in the text. On the other hand, the main issue discussed in the text is the ionization potential (IP), which is calculated by the difference in energies between oxidized and reduced states for each model. In other words, a discussion of the IP value on each model includes both the “Ox” and “Red” energies. In order to clarify the relationship between the nomenclature of models and redox states, we added sentences below.

“Note that the IP value is obtained for each model by calculating both the Ox and Red state energies of the model.” (lines 195-196).

On the other hand, we must specify the charge state when the geometry optimization is performed for CM and CMH models. Therefore, we revised the sentence as follows.

“The decrease in |IP| value indicates that the relative stability of the Red state is suppressed compared with the CMH but is significantly larger than the CM, suggesting the importance of the protonation of Asp64 (Fig. S2B). 

To consider the effect of the structural change caused by the redox on the IP, geometrical optimization of the 4Fe-4S core was performed for the CM (Red) and CMH (Red) models using the same level of theory to the single-point calculations. The optimized Cartesian coordinates are summarized in Table S3. As illustrated in Fig. S2A, the IP values of CM and CMH change from –3.27 to –2.38 eV (|DIP| = 0.89 eV), and from –1.06 to –0.19 eV (|DIP| = 0.87 eV), respectively, before and after the geometrical optimization.” (lines 224-232)

(2) In addition to the very thorough DFT investigation of the different spin and charge combinations, did the authors try a broken-symmetry calculation to obtain the ground state description of the FeS cluster? Given the ubiquity of this approach in other FeS cluster studies, it was surprising that this approach was not taken here. Granted, the DFT investigation of each possible combination is sufficiently thorough and need not be redone. 

Thank you for your comments. A term “spin-unrestricted method”, which is used in the manuscript in the text is synonym of “broken-symmetry method”. In order to emphasize this, we revised the manuscript as follows. 

“All calculations were performed by using the spin-unrestricted (broken-symmetry) hybrid DFT method with the B3LYP functional set. As the basis set, 6-31G* and 6-31+G* were used for [Fe, C, N, O, H] and [S] atoms, respectively, for the IP calculations.” (Line 451)

(3) Line 161 "an" to "a" 

We corrected the mistake. Thank you so much. (Line 161)

(4) Figure 4A seems a bit odd. Why do the traces eclipse the y-axis? And the traces between 330 and 370 nm are much noisier and appear thicker than the rest of the plot. Is this an issue with the monochromator grating used in wavelength selection? Reducing the thickness of the individual traces may help the data presentation in this figure. Also, the arrows on the plot have an opaque white background. Can this be removed so that the arrows do not eclipse the traces in the plot? 

The spectrum in the Fig.4A seemed to be odd. The spectral figure has been revised to improve its appearance. (We have also corrected E53A in Figure 5B.) This reviewer also pointed out that “the traces between 330 and 370 nm are much noisier”. We are struggling with the noise caused by the grating (or the motor malfunction) of the monochromator as you pointed out. Once the monochromator is repaired and a smooth spectrum is obtained, we will upload further revisions.

(5) Figure S9 is a very nice schematic illustrating the general findings of the study. Can this be moved to the main text?

Thank you for your helpful comment. Accordingly, the Fig.9S and its legend are moved to the main text. (Lines 675-680)

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript by Bai et al concerns the expression of Scleraxis (Scx) by muscle satellite cells (SCs) and the role of that gene in regenerative myogenesis. The authors report the expression of this gene associated with tendon development in satellite cells. Genetic deletion of Scx in SCs impairs muscle regeneration, and the authors provide evidence that SCs deficient in Scx are impaired in terms of population growth and cellular differentiation. Overall, this report provides evidence of the role of this gene, unexpectedly, in SC function and adult regenerative myogenesis.

We appreciate the comments and thank her/him for the support.

There are a few minor points of concern.

(1) From the data in Figure 1, it appears that all of the SCs, assessed both in vitro and in vivo, express Scx. The authors refer to a scRNA-seq dataset from their lab and one report from mdx mouse muscle that also reveals this unexpected gene expression pattern. Has this been observed in many other scRNA-seq datasets? If not, it would be important to discuss potential explanations as to why this has not been reported previously.

Thanks for this question regarding data in Fig.1. We did initially use immunofluorescence staining of Pax7 and GFP on muscle sections and primary myoblast cultures prepared from Tg-ScxGFP mice to conclude that Scx was expressed in satellite cells (SCs). In addition to the cited mdx RNA-seq data, we have included a re-analysis of a published scRNA-seq data set in Fig.2E (Dell'Orso et al., Development, 2019), and our own scRNA-seq data (Fig.S5D, F). We have now re-examined an additional scRNA-seq data set of TA muscles at various regeneration time points (De Micheli et al., Cell Rep. 2020), in which Scx expression was detected in MuSC progenitors and mature muscle cells. We have added the De Micheli et al. reference and the re-analysis of that scRNA-seq data set for Scx expression as an additional panel in Fig. 2E, with accompanying text (p. 7, ln. 4-6). Thus, our immunostaining results are consistent with scRNA-seq data from our and two other independent scRNA-seq data sets.

We think that Scx expression in the adult myogenic lineage was not previously reported mainly because its expression level was low, and might be dismissed as spurious detection. Additionally, detecting such low expression levels requires sophisticated detection methods with high capture efficiency. Previous studies have noted limitations in transcript capture or transcription factor dropout in 10x Genomics-based datasets (Lambert et al., Cell, 2018; Pokhilko et al., Genome Res., 2021). The most likely and straightforward reason is that Scx was simply not a focus in prior studies amid so many other genes of interest. We have now added this last explanation in the text (p.7, ln. 8-9), following the re-analyses of Scx expression in published scRNA-seq data sets.

(2) A major point of the paper, as illustrated in Fig. 3, is that Scx-neg SCs fail to produce normal myofibers and renewed SCs following injury/regeneration. They mention in the text that there was no increased PCD by Caspase staining at 5 DPI. A failure of cell survival during the process of SC activation, proliferation, and cell fate determination (differentiation versus self-renewal) would explain most of the in vivo data. As such, this conclusion would seem to warrant a more detailed analysis in terms of at least one or two other time points and an independent method for detecting dead/dying cells (the in vitro data in Fig. 4F is also based on an assessment of activated Caspase to assess cell death). The in vitro data presented later in Fig. S4G, H do suggest an increase in cell loss during proliferative expansion of Scx-neg SCs. To what extent does cell loss (by whatever mechanism of cell death) explain both the in vivo findings of impaired regeneration and even the in vitro studies showing slower population expansion in the absence of Scx?

We appreciate these constructive suggestions. Based on the number of available control and cKO animals, we were limited to one additional time point at 3 dpi to assess PCD by TUNEL in vivo. We were disappointed again to find no appreciable levels of PCD at 3 dpi by TUNEL (new Fig.S4I), thus no quantifications were included. We also re-did the in vitro experiment using purified SCs and monitored PCD by staining for cleaved Caspase-3 using a validated tube of antibodies (positive staining after 6 h of treatment by 1 mM staurosporine of control and ScxcKO cells; included as new Fig. S4J and legend). We were pleased to find an increase of cleaved Caspase3 stained cells, i.e. PCD, of Scx-cKO SCs at day 4 in culture, compared to that of the control. We have now replaced the old Fig. 4F with new Fig.4F and 4G to document PCD. We also provided new text/legend for these new data (p.10. ln. 2-10; new legend for Fig. 4F and 4G).

(3) I'm not sure I understand the description of the data or the conclusions in the section titled "Basement membrane-myofiber interaction in control and Scx cKO mice". Is there something specific to the regeneration from Scx-neg myogenic progenitors, or would these findings be expected in any experimental condition in which myogenesis was significantly delayed, with much smaller fibers in the experimental group at 5 DPI?

We very much appreciate this comment. We agree that there is unlikely anything specific about the regeneration from Scx-negative myogenic progenitors. Unfilled or empty ghost fibers (basement membrane remnant) are expected due to small fiber and poor regeneration in the ScxcKO mice at 5 dpi. We have removed the subtitle and changed the content to an expected consequence rather than something special (p. 8, ln. 19-22).

(4) The data presented in Fig. 4B showing differences in the purity of SC populations isolated by FACS depending on the reporter used are interesting and important for the field. The authors offer the explanation of exosomal transfer of Tdt from SCs to non-SCs. The data are consistent with this explanation, but no data are presented to support this. Are there any other explanations that the authors have considered and that could be readily tested?

Thanks for highlighting this phenomenon. We struggled with the SC purity issue for a long time. The project started with using the R26RtdT reporter for tdT’s paraformaldehyde  resistant strong fluorescence (fixation) to aid visualization in vivo. Later, when we used the tdT signal to purify SCs by FACS, we found that only 80% sorted tdT+ cells are Pax7+. We then switched to the R26RYFP reporter, from which we achieved much higher purity (95%) of SCs (Pax7+) by FACS. As such, we also repeated and confirmed many in vivo experimental results using the R26RYFP reporter (included in the manuscript). Due to the low purity of tdT+SCs by FACS, we discontinued that mouse colony after we confirmed the superior utility of the R26RYFP reporter for SC isolation.

We sincerely apologize for not being able to conduct further testable experiments on this intriguing phenomenon. However, this issue has since been addressed and published by Murach et al., iScience, (2021). Like our experience, they found non-satellite mononuclear cells with tdT fluorescence after TMX treatment when SCs were isolated via FACS. To determine this was not due to off-target recombination or a technical artifact from tissue processing, they conducted extensive analyses. They found that the tdT+ mononuclear cells included fibrogenic cells (fibroblasts and FAPs), immune cells/macrophages, and endothelial cells. Additionally, they confirmed the significant potential of extracellular vesicle (EV)-mediated cargo transfer, which facilitates the transfer of full-length tdT transcript from lineage-marked Pax7+ cells to those mononuclear cells. We have modified the text to emphasize and acknowledge their contribution to this important point, and explained the difference between YFP and tdT reporter alleles in more detail (p.9, ln. 11-17).

(5) The Cut&Run data of Fig. 6 certainly provide evidence of direct Scx targets, especially since the authors used a novel knock-in strain for analyses. The enrichment of E-box motifs provides support for the 207 intersecting genes (scRNA-seq and Cut&Run) being direct targets. However, the rationale elaborated in the final paragraph of the Results section proposing how 4 of these genes account for the phenotypes on the Scx-neg cells and tissues is just speculation, however reasonable. These are not data, and these considerations would be more appropriate in the Discussion in the absence of any validation studies.

We agree with this comment and have moved speculations into the Discussion (p. 15, ln. 4-15, and from p. 18, ln. 4 to p. 19, ln. 4).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Scx is a well-established marker for tenocytes, but the expression in myogenic-lineage cells was unexplored. In this study, the authors performed lineage-trace and scRNA-seq analyses and demonstrated that Scx is expressed in activated SCs. Further, the authors showed that Scx is essential for muscle regeneration using conditional KO mice and identified the target genes of Scx in myogenic cells, which differ from those of tendons.

Strengths:

Sometimes, lineage-trace experiments cause mis-expression and do not reflect the endogenous expression of the target gene. In this study, the authors carefully analyzed the unexpected expression of Scx in myogenic cells using some mouse lines and scRNA-seq data.

We appreciate the comments and thank her/him for noting the strengths of our manuscript.

Weaknesses:

Scx protein expression has not been verified.

We are aware of this weakness. We had previously used Western blotting (WB) using cultured SCs from control and ScxcKO mice, but did not detect endogenous Scx protein even in the control. In response to this comment, we have re-done several WB experiments using new lysates from control and ScxcKO SCs and two commercial antibodies: anti-Scx antibody 1 from Abcam (ab58655) and anti-Scx antibody 2 from Invitrogen (PA5-23943). These antibodies have been reported to detect endogenous Scx protein in tendon cells in Spang et al., BMC Musculoskelet Disord (2016) and  Bochon et al., Int J Stem Cells (2021). Despite our best efforts, we were not able to detect a reliable Scx band. We have also conducted immunofluorescence using these two antibodies. Still, we failed to detect a difference of staining signals between control and cKO SCs using these antibodies. Lastly, we conducted immunofluorescence using the ScxTy1 myoblasts and we did not find the staining signal coinciding with the Ty1 signal (by double staining). We have been very frustrated by not knowing what caused this technical difficulty in our hands. Given that these were negative data, we did not include them. However, we do hope that the combined data from scRNA-seq, ScxCreERT2 lineage-tracing, Tg-ScxGFP expression, and ScxTy1 knock-in together are deemed sufficient to make up for the deficiency of data for endogenous Scx protein in regenerative myogenic cells.

Response to Recommendations for the Authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

p. 8: The text refers to Fig. 3I, but this should be Fig. 3H.

We apologize for the confusion. Please note that by keeping all 14 dpi data in the same row, we placed Fig.3I at an unconventional/unexpected position, i.e., next to 3D &3E, and above 3F-H. We were aware that this unconventional placement could cause confusion, and it did. With that said, we have now re-arranged the subfigures (same data content) so that the updated Fig.3 contains subfigures in the expected and proper spatial order. We double-checked the figure referral in the text (p. 8, ln. 16-17) and the text is correct – just that the original Fig.3I should have been at the original Fig.3H position and that is now corrected.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) Given that Scx binds to the E-box and regulates gene expression, it is of interest to know the relevance between MyoD and Scx. If possible, the reviewer recommends to include some discussions.

Thanks for the comment. MyoD1 is a well-known transcript factor regulating myogenesis, whereas Scx is primarily studied in tenocytes and other connective tissues. We agree that our new findings deserve a discussion regarding the relevance between MyoD1 and Scx.  We have added a description of their differences in the discussion and two new references (p.19, ln. 7-17).

(2) Considering that Scx is a transcriptional factor, it is interesting that Scx-GFP was not detected in the nuclei of regenerated myofibers. Could the subcellular localization of Scx-GFP provide some insights into the function of Scx as a transcription factor during muscle regeneration?

Tg-ScxGFP is a transgenic line generated by random insertion into the genome (Pryce et al., 2007; cited). The plasmid used for transgenesis was constructed by replacing most of Scx’s first exon with GFP, and including ~ 9Kb flanking regulatory sequences. As such, the ScxGFP is not a fusion gene, but rather that the GFP expression is regulated by Scx promoter and enhancer(s). This GFP reporter lacks a nuclear localization signal (NLS), hence it is mainly detected in the cytoplasm; some nuclear signal is detected, presumably due to GFP’s small size permitting passive diffusion into the nucleus. Thus, the GFP signal is used as a reporter for Scx expression, but GFP subcellular localization does not provide insight into Scx function per se. Conversely, ScxTy1/Ty1 is a knock-in allele created by fusing a triple-Ty1 tag (3XTy1) to the C-terminus of Scx, and we observed that Ty1 is located in the nucleus by the immunofluorescent staining. We used the Ty1 epitope to carry out CUT&RUN experiments to gain insight to the function of Scx as a transcription factor.

(3) Fig1D The number of arrows in the Merge image is not matched with others. In addition, the star mark in the Pax7 image is likely an error.

Apologies. We have now corrected these errors in the revised Fig.1D.

(4) FigS1A Is there only one myofiber shown in the dashed line in this image? It is unclear why only this myofiber is surrounded by the dashed line.

The dashed line encircles a single fiber because it was not visible in the provided image. However, there are 3 fibers in this image. Because we did not immuno-stain for myofibers here, we circled one fiber for illustration. For clarity, we brightened the background (of the entire original images) so the background signals from myofiber boundaries are discernable without outlines.

(5) FigS1B There was no overlapped DAPI staining in the Myogenin+ cell. DAPI-staining should be present in Myogenin+ cells because myogenin is located in the nucleus.

Fig.S1B is immuno-staining for MyoD , and we marked one MyoD+DAPI+GFP+ cell/nucleus. Fig.S1C is immune-staining for Myogenin, and we also marked one (cell/nucleus) that is triple positive.

(6) The position of the asterisk for the ScxGFP in FigS1D is misaligned. In addition, the position is not matched with Fig1C. Because all myofibers are Scx-positive, it is strange that only one myofiber has an asterisk. The reviewer suggests removing the mark.

Thank you for pointing out these errors. We have now corrected the misalignment and removed the unnecessary asterisk.

Author response:

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

eLife Assessment 

This study presents valuable experimental and numerical results on the motility of a magnetotactic bacterium living in sedimentary environments, particularly in environments of varying magnetic field strengths. The evidence supporting the claims of the authors is solid, although the statistical significance comparing experiments with the numerical work is weak. The study will be of interest to biophysicists interested in bacterial motility. 

We thank the reviewers and editors for their careful reading and the constructive comments. With respect to the statement about weak statistical significance, we think that this statement mixes two separate issues, the significance of the difference between experiments at 0 and 50µT and the comparison of experiments with simulations. We have amended our manuscript to address both points as described below. The difference between the experiments at 0 and 50µT is indeed significant, and the discrepancy between experiments and simulations can be explained by unavoidable differences in the way we quantify bacterial throughput.

Public Reviews: 

Reviewer #1 (Public Review): 

Summary: 

The authors present experimental and numerical results on the motility Magnetospirillum gryphiswaldense MSR-1, a magnetotactic bacterium living in sedimentary environments. The authors manufactured microfluidic chips containing three-dimensional obstacles of irregular shape, that match the statistical features of the grains observed in the sediment via microcomputer tomography. The bacteria are furthermore subject to an external magnetic field, whose intensity can be varied. The key quantity measured in the experiments is the throughput ratio, defined as the ratio between the number of bacteria that reach the end of the microfluidic channel and the number of bacteria entering it. The main result is that the throughput ratio is non-monotonic and exhibits a maximum at magnetic field strength comparable with Earth's magnetic field. The authors rationalize the throughput suppression at large magnetic fields by quantifying the number of bacteria trapped in corners between grains. 

Strengths: 

While magnetotactic bacteria's general motility in bulk has been characterized, we know much less about their dynamics in a realistic setting, such as a disordered porous material. The micro-computer tomography of sediments and their artificial reconstruction in a microfluidic channel is a powerful method that establishes the rigorous methodology of this work. This technique can give access to further characterization of microbial motility. The coupling of experiments and computer simulations lends considerable strength to the claims of the authors, because the model parameters (with one exception) are directly measured in the experiments. 

Weaknesses: 

The main weakness of the manuscript pertains to the discussion of the statistical significance of the experimental throughput ratio. Especially when comparing results at zero and 50 micro Tesla. The simulations seem to predict a stronger effect than seen in the experiments. The authors do not address this discrepancy. 

We thank the reviewer for their positive assessment and the detailed constructive remarks. 

The increase in bacterial throughput between 0 and 50 µT is indeed more pronounced in the simulations than in the experiments, partly due to the fact that there is considerably more variability in the experimental data. We did two things to address this issue: (1) We performed additional statistical test addressing the difference between the experimental results at 0 and 50 µT. Indeed, the difference is only weakly significant (in contrast to the difference of either to 500µT). The increase is however consistent with the observation in the absence of obstacles in the channel, where we see a monotonous increase from 0 to 500 µT (Supp. Figure S5). We have added the test results in the caption of Fig. 3. (2) To address the difference between simulations and experiments, we added a section in Methods on how we determine the throughput and a short discussion in the Results section. The key points are that the initial condition is different in simulations and experiments and that the throughput is therefore quantified differently. This difference is due to experimental limitations: we cannot track bacteria through the whole channel and we wanted to avoid pushing them into the channel with fluid flow to avoid effects of flow on the results. As a consequence, bacteria continue to enter the IN region of the channel from the inlet during the experiment, while in the simulation, they all start at the beginning of the channel simultaneously. We expect this to mostly affect the case with diffusive transport (B=0).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review): 

Summary: 

simulation study of magnetotactic bacteria in microfluidic channels containing sediment-mimicking obstacles. The obstacles were produced based on micro-computer tomography reconstructions of bacteria-rich sediment samples. The swimming of bacteria through these channels is found experimentally to display the highest throughput for physiological magnetic fields. Computer simulations of active Brownian particles, parameterized based on experimental trajectories are used to quantify the swimming throughput in detail. Similar behavior as in experiments is obtained, but also considerable variability between different channel geometries. Swimming at strong field is impeded by the trapping of bacteria in corners, while at weak fields the direction of motion is almost random. The trapping effect is confirmed in the experiments, as well as the escape of bacteria with reducing field strength. 

Strengths: 

This is a very careful and detailed study, which draws its main strength from the fruitful combination of the construction of novel microfluidic devices, their use in motility experiments, and simulations of active Brownian particles adapted to the experiment. Based on their results, the authors hypothesize that magnetotactic bacteria may have evolved to produce magnetic properties that are adapted to the geomagnetic field in order to balance movement and orientation in such crowded environments. They provide strong arguments in favor of such a hypothesis. 

Weaknesses: 

Some of the issues touched upon here have been studied also in other articles. It would be good to extend the list of references accordingly and discuss the relation briefly in the text. 

We thank the reviewer for the constructive comments. We answer to the point concerning previous literature in the response to the recommendations below.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

Here follows a list of points the authors should address. 

(1) Are additional experiments feasible to decrease the statistical noise present in Fig. 3c? At the very least, the authors should discuss the statistical significance of the results at 50 muT vis-a-vis 0 T. 

See our response to Strengths/Weaknesses above

(2) The experimental setup is not immediately clear. I think that adding a panel from Fig. S1 (or a sketch thereof) would help clarify, especially in relation to the entry zone and end zone. 

We are not sure what you mean. Fig. 3A already contains exactly such a panel. We have however added another supplementary figure that shows an additional detailed view of the setup (Fig. S3). In addition, we revised several figures: We have replaced Fig. S1 with a better version and exchanged the schematic view of the obstacle channel in Fig 1, removing the additional inlets that were not used in this study (also in Fig 3A), Instead we added a comment in Methods explaining their presence. Hopefully this makes the setup clear.

(3) It should be also stated that there is no external flow imposed on the channel. 

We have added such a statement in the description of the experiment (in section 2.2 Swimming of magnetotactic bacteria through sediment-mimicking obstacle channels.  

(4) Fig. 3c and Fig. 6c are seemingly showing the same quantity (or closely related ones). The authors should use the same symbol and give an explicit mathematical definition. 

The two quantities are not exactly the same, as we cannot directly quantify the flux of bacteria through the channel in our experiments. On the one hand, we cannot track bacteria through the whole channel, on the other hand, the initial conditions are not exactly the same as in the simulations. In the simulations all bacteria start at the same time at the entrance to the channel. In the experiments, they enter from the inlet and do so at different times (pushing them in with fluid flow would be possible, but carries the risk of perturbing the results due to induced flow through the channel). We have added a new section in the Methods section that explains this difference and describes the procedure used to obtain the throughput from the experiments in detail. We have also added a corresponding comment in the Result section, where the simulations are compared with the experiments. 

Minor issues: 

- Figures have different styles that should be unified. For example, the panel labels sometimes have round brackets and sometimes they don't.

See above

- Page 6, (muCT) should have the Greek letter mu 

Thanks, corrected.

- Fig. 3a is not very clear; see my point 2 above. 

See above

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

I have only a few comments and questions, which the authors should address: 

(1) The observed exponential dependence of decay time on the "well" depth could be related to the exponential density distribution of active particles in a gravitational field, which has been derived previously. Might be interesting to discuss such a possible connection. 

Thank you for the suggestion, the two cases are indeed somewhat analogous with behaviors reminiscent of thermal processes with an effective temperature. Such a description is however not generally possible (even for sedimentation, only some features are described). We plan to address in future work whether it can be made more quantitative in our case of escape from the corner traps. We have included a short discussion of the analogy in the section on trapping and escape. 

(2) The authors should consider the following relevant references, and discuss them briefly in their manuscript:

- Sedimentation, trapping, and rectification of dilute bacteria J Tailleur, ME Cates EPL 86, 60002 (2009) 

- Human spermatozoa migration in microchannels reveals boundary-following navigation P Denissenko, V Kantsler, DJ Smith, J Kirkman-Brown Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8007-8010 (2012) 

- Wall accumulation of self-propelled spheres J Elgeti, G Gompper Europhysics Letters 101, 48003 (2013) 

- Wall entrapment of peritrichous bacteria: a mesoscale hydrodynamics simulation study SM Mousavi, G Gompper, RG Winkler Son Maber 16 (20), 4866-4875 (2020) 

- A Geometric Criterion for the Optimal Spreading of Active Polymers in Porous Media C Kurzthaler, S Mandal, T Bhabacharjee, H Löwen, SS Daba, HA Stone Nat. Commun. 12, 7088 (2021) 

- Run-to-Tumble Variability Controls the Surface Residence Times of E. coli Bacteria G Junot, T Darnige, A Lindner, VA Martinez, J Arlt, A Dawson, WCK Poon, H Auradou, E Clement Phys. Rev. Leb. 128, 248101 (2022) 

- Dynamics and phase separation of active Brownian particles on curved surfaces and in porous media P Iyer, RG Winkler, DA Fedosov, G Gompper Phys. Rev. Research 5, 033054 (2023) 

We agree that there is a lot of literature on these aspects, specifically interaction of self-propelled objects with walls and motion of swimmers through porous media. We have slightly extended our overview of previous literature in the introduction and included most of these references.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1: 

(1) Their results with human macrophages suggest that there are differences between murine and human macrophages in inflammasome-mediated restriction of STm growth. For example, Thurston et al. showed that in murine macrophages that inflammasome activation controls the replication of mutant STm that aberrantly invades the cytosol, but only slightly limits replication of WT STm. In contrast, here the authors found that primed human macrophages rely on caspase-1, gasdermin D and ninjurin-1 to restrict WT STm. I wonder if the priming of the human macrophages in this study could account for the differences in these studies. Along those lines, do the authors see the same results presented in this study in the absence of priming the macrophages with Pam3CSK4. I think that determining whether the control of intracellular STm replication is dependent on priming is very important.

We thank the Reviewer for their careful attention to our manuscript and for their thoughtful comments. We have addressed this question about the impact of priming by repeating the bacterial intracellular burden assays in unprimed WT and CASP1-/- THP-1 cells. We have added additional figures to the manuscript to address this: Figure 1 – Figure Supplement 3. Under unprimed conditions, CASP1-/- cells still harbored significantly higher bacterial burdens at 6 hpi and a significant fold-increase in bacterial CFUs compared to WT cells. These results suggest that the caspase-1-mediated restriction of intracellular Salmonella replication in human macrophages is independent of priming. 

(2) Another difference with the Thurston et al. paper is the way that the STm inoculum was prepared - stationary phase bacteria that were opsonized. Could this also account for differences between the two studies rather than differences between murine and human macrophages in inflammasome-dependent control of STm?

We thank the Reviewer for this excellent suggestion. To address this possibility, we repeated the bacterial intracellular burden assays in WT and CASP1-/- THP-1 cells using stationary phase bacteria. We infected WT and CASP1-/- THP-1 cells with stationary phase Salmonella, and we subsequently assayed for intracellular bacterial burdens. These data have now been added to the manuscript in Figure 1 – Figure Supplement 4. Interestingly, we did not observe any fold-change in the bacterial colony forming units in both the WT and CASP1-/- THP-1 cells for the stationary phase Salmonella. These data indicate that by 6 hours postinfection, Salmonella do not replicate efficiently in human macrophages unless grown under SPI-1-inducing conditions. Furthermore, these results suggest that differences in how the Salmonella inoculum is prepared may contribute to the discrepancies between our study and previous studies, as noted by the Reviewer. 

(3) The authors show that the pore-forming proteins GSDMD and Ninj1 contribute to control of STm replication in human macrophages. Is it possible that leakage of gentamicin from the media contributes to this control?

Response: We thank the Reviewer for their insightful comment. We have addressed this question on the impact of gentamicin by repeating the bacterial intracellular burden assays using a lower concentration of gentamicin in combination with extensively washing the cells with RPMI media to remove the gentamicin. WT and CASP1-/- THP-1 cells were infected with WT Salmonella. Then, at 30 minutes post-infection, cells were treated with 25 μg/ml of gentamicin to kill any extracellular bacteria. At 1 hour post-infection (hpi), the cells were washed for a total of five times with fresh RPMI to remove the gentamicin, and then the media was replaced with fresh media containing no gentamicin. In parallel, we also treated cells with 100 μg/ml of gentamicin at 30 minutes post-infection, washed the cells five times with fresh RPMI at 1 hpi to remove the gentamicin, and then replaced the media with fresh media containing 10 μg/ml of gentamicin. This data has now been included in the manuscript as Figure 1 – Figure Supplement 5. We observed similar levels in the intracellular bacterial burdens at 1 hpi and 6 hpi and a fold-increase in bacterial colony forming units in CASP1-/- cells compared to WT cells across both gentamicin conditions, suggesting that gentamicin appears to not contribute to the intracellular control of Salmonella replication in human macrophages. Of note, we also tried repeating the bacterial intracellular burden assays without gentamicin, using only washes to remove extracellular at 1 hpi; however, under these experimental conditions, we observed high levels of extracellular Salmonella. Therefore, we relied on using a lower concentration of gentamicin to kill extracellular Salmonella in conjunction with extensive washing to remove the gentamicin for the remainder of the infection. 

(4) One major question that remains to be answered is whether casp-1 plays a direct role in the intracellular localization of STm. If the authors quantify the percentage of vacuolar vs. cytosolic bacteria at early time points in WT and casp-1 KO macrophages, would that be the same in the presence and absence of casp-1? If so, then this would suggest that there is a basal level of bacterial-dependent lysis of the SCV and in WT macrophages the presence of cytosolic PAMPS trigger cell death and bacteria can't replicate in the cytosol. However, in the inflammasome KO macrophages, the host cell remains alive and bacteria can replicate in the cytosol.

We thank this Reviewer for raising this important point. We have addressed this experimentally by quantifying the percentage of vacuolar vs. cytosolic Salmonella at 2 hpi in WT, NAIP-/-, and CASP1-/- THP-1 cells using a chloroquine (CHQ) resistance assay. This data has now been included in the manuscript in the new Figure 5A. The original subfigures of Figure 5 have consequently been rearranged. We did not observe any significant differences in vacuolar and cytosolic bacterial burdens at this early time point in WT, NAIP-/-, and CASP1-/- THP-1 cells. As noted by the Reviewer, these results suggest that the basal level of bacterialdependent lysis of the SCV in human macrophages is not dependent on caspase-1 or NAIP. 

Reviewer #3: 

(1) The main weaknesses of the study are the inherent limitations of tissue culture models. For example, to study interaction of Salmonella with host cells in vitro, it is necessary to kill extracellular bacteria using gentamicin. However, since Salmonella-induced macrophage cell death damages the cytosolic membrane, gentamicin can reach intracellular bacteria and contribute to changes in CFU observed in tissue culture models (major point 1). This can result in tissue culture "artefacts" (i.e., observations/conclusions that cannot be recapitulated in vivo). For example, intracellular replication of Salmonella in murine macrophages requires T3SS-2 in vitro, but T3SS-2 is dispensable for replication in macrophages of the spleen in vivo (Grant et al., 2012).  

We thank the Reviewer for their helpful comments and insightful suggestions. We have addressed some of the concerns about gentamicin in our response to Reviewer #1 above. To address the Reviewer’s concerns further, we have included language to acknowledge the limitations of our study based on the artefacts of tissue culture models in our Discussion section: “In this study, we utilized tissue culture models to examine intracellular Salmonella replication in human macrophages. These in vitro systems allow for precise control of experimental conditions and, therefore, serve as powerful tools to interrogate the molecular mechanisms underlying inflammasome responses and Salmonella replication in both immortalized and primary human cells. Still, there are limitations of tissue culture models, as they lack the inherent complexity of tissues and organs in vivo. To assess whether our findings reflect Salmonella dynamics in the mammalian host, it will be important to complement our studies and extend the implications of our work using approaches that model more complex systems, such as organoids or organ explant models co-cultured with immune cells, and in vivo techniques, such as humanized mouse models.”

(2) In Figure 1: are increased CFU in WT vs CASP1-deficient THP-1 cells due to Caspase 1 restricting intracellular replication or due to Caspase-1 causing pore formation to allow gentamicin to enter the cytosol thereby restricting bacterial replication? The same question arises about Caspase-4 in Figure 2, where differences in CFU are observed only at 24h when differences in cell death also become apparent. The idea that gentamicin entering the cytosol through pores is responsible for controlling intracellular Salmonella replication is also consistent with the finding that GSDMD-mediated pore formation is required for restricting intracellular Salmonella replication (Figure 3). Similarly, the finding that inflammasome responses primarily control Salmonella replication in the cytosol could be explained by an intact SCV membrane protecting Salmonella from gentamicin (Figure 5). 

We thank the Reviewer for highlighting this important point regarding gentamicin.

We have addressed this question in our response above to Review #1 and in Figure 1 – Figure Supplement 5. We observed caspase-1-mediated restriction of Salmonella in human macrophages even when cells were treated with a lower concentration of gentamicin (25 μg/ml) for 30 minutes and then extensively washed with RPMI media to remove any gentamicin for the remainder of the infection. These data suggest that gentamicin is likely not responsible for controlling intracellular Salmonella in human macrophages.

Author response:

We thank all three reviewers and the editors for their detailed comments on our manuscript.  The two main themes of this feedback concern the paper’s generality and its presentation.  Reviewers #2 and #3 raise questions about how the discrepancies in fitness statistics we report will be realized across organisms, environments, and in models with interactions beyond resource competition (e.g., toxicity or cross-feeding).  All reviewers and the editors have also expressed the need for the presentation to be improved, including a broader introduction to the concept of fitness (Reviewer #1), a clearer explanation of our model (Reviewer #1), better explanations of how quantifying fitness answers key biological questions (Reviewer #3), and improvements to the most technical sections to ensure accessibility to experimentalists (Reviewer #3).

In light of these comments, we wish to clarify that the goal of this paper is to provide a proof-of-principle for how different choices in quantifying fitness can lead to different analysis outcomes.  Since the focus of this paper is on the theoretical concepts, we focus on a few example data sets and a simple model to demonstrate the existence of these discrepancies.  While other organisms and environments, especially with more complex growth dynamics and interactions, could certainly have additional or different discrepancies in fitness statistics, we believe the simplicity of our approach is valuable because it demonstrates that even basic features of microbial growth (common across systems) with realistic parameter values are sufficient to cause significant differences in fitness depending on these quantification choices.  We agree with the reviewers that a systematic documentation of how these fitness discrepancies are empirically realized is important, but we believe that question is best explored in separate future works that can focus fully on this empirical rather than theoretical question.

We plan to revise the manuscript in several ways, following the suggestions of the three reviewers and the editor.  First, we will better articulate the main goal and conclusions of this manuscript, especially its generality and limitations.  Second, we will work to streamline and clarify several points in the main text identified by the reviewers to make it more accessible and useful to a broader audience, especially experimentalists who routinely measure fitness in their work.  We are grateful to the reviewers and the editor for their time and effort in assessing the manuscript, and we look forward to providing an updated version that addresses these concerns.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Li et al. investigate Ca2+ signaling in T. gondii and argue that Ca2+ tunnels through the ER to other organelles to fuel multiple aspects of T. gondii biology. They focus in particular on TgSERCA as the presumed primary mechanism for ER Ca2+ filling. Although, when TgSERCA was knocked out there was still a Ca2+ release in response to TG present.

Note that we did not knockout SERCA as it is an essential gene so it would not be possible to isolate parasites that do not express SERCA. We created conditional mutants that downregulate the expression of SERCA and some activity is present in the mutant after 24 h of ATc treatment.

Overall the Ca2+ signaling data do not support the conclusion of Ca2+ tunneling through the ER to other organelles in fact they argue for direct Ca2+ uptake from the cytosol.

The authors show EM membrane contact sites between the ER and other organelles, so Ca2+ released by the ER could presumably be taken up by other organelles but that is not ER Ca2+ tunneling.

They clearly show that SERCA is required for T. gondii function.

Overall, the data presented to not fully support the conclusions reached

We agree that the data does not support Ca2+ tunneling as defined and characterized in mammalian cells. In response to this comment, we modified the title and the text accordingly.

However, we think that the study shows far more than just the role of SERCA in T. gondii functions. We argue that the study shows that the ER (through the activity of the SERCA pump) sequesters and re-distributes calcium to other organelles following influx through the PM. The experiments show that the ER is able to take calcium from the cytosol as it enters the parasite through SERCA activity, and this activity is important for the transition of the parasite between various extracellular calcium exposures. We believe that the role of the ER in redistributing calcium following exposure to physiological levels of extracellular calcium is demonstrated in the experiments shown in Figs 1H-I, 4G-H and 5G,H, I, J, K . There are no previous T. gondii studies that address the question of how intracellular stores are filled with calcium, which are essential for the continuation of the lytic cycle, meaning they are essential for the parasitism of T. gondii.

Data argue for direct Ca2+ uptake from the cytosol

The ER most likely takes up calcium from the cytosol following its entry through the PM and redistributes it to the other organelles. We will delete the word “tunneling” and replace it with transfer and re-distribution as they represent our results.

What we think is re-distribution is shown in Figure 1H and I in which the calcium released after GPN and nigericin are enhanced after TG addition. Of note is that there is no experimental evidence that supports the regulation of calcium entry by store depletion (PMID: 24867952), and we do not think that the enhanced response is due to calcium entry.

Figure 4G and H show that knocking down SERCA reduces significantly the response to GPN. Fig 5I shows that the mitochondrial calcium uptake is reduced after the addition of GPN in the knockdown mutant. Fig 2B shows that SERCA can take up calcium at 55 nM calcium while mitochondrial uptake needs higher concentrations (Fig 5B-C). However, higher calcium concentrations could be reached at the microdomains formed around MCS between the ER and mitochondrion. Figure 5E shows that the mitochondrion is not responsive to an increase of cytosolic calcium. This is also shown for the apicoplast in Fig. 7 E and F of the Li et al, Nat Commun 2021 paper.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The role of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) calcium pump TgSERCA in sequestering and redistributing calcium to other intracellular organelles following influx at the plasma membrane.

T. gondii transitions through life cycle stages within and exterior to the host cells, with very different exposures to calcium, adds significance to the current investigation of the role of the ER in redistributing calcium following exposure to physiological levels of extracellular calcium.

They also use a conditional knockout of TgSERCA to investigate its role in ER calcium store-filling and the ability of other subcellular organelles to sequester and release calcium. These knockout experiments provide important evidence that ER calcium uptake plays a significant role in maintaining the filling state of other intracellular compartments.

We thank the reviewer.

While it is clearly demonstrated, and not surprising, that the addition of 1.8 mM extracellular CaCl2 to intact T. gondii parasites preincubated with EGTA leads to an increase in cytosolic calcium and subsequent enhanced loading of the ER and other intracellular compartments, there is a caveat to the quantitation of these increases in calcium loading. The authors rely on the amplitude of cytosolic free calcium increases in response to thapsigargin, GPN, nigericin, and CCCP, all measured with fura2. This likely overestimates the changes in calcium pool sizes because the buffering of free calcium in the cytosol is nonlinear, and fura2 (with a Kd of 100-200 nM) is a substantial, if not predominant, cytosolic calcium buffer. Indeed, the increases in signal noise at higher cytosolic calcium levels (e.g. peak calcium in Figure 1C) are indicative of fura2 ratio calculations approaching saturation of the indicator dye.

We agree about the limitations of using Fura2 but according to the literature (PMID:3838314, fig. 3) Fura2 is suitable for measurements between 100 nM and 1 mM calcium.  The responses in our experiments were within its linear range and the experiments with the SERCA mutant and mitochondrial GCaMPs supports the conclusions of our work.

We agree that the experiment shown in Fig 1C shows a response close to the limit of the linear range of Fura2 and we can provide a more representative trace in the final article. We can include new quantifications and comparisons.

Another caveat, not addressed, is that loading of fura2/AM can result in compartmentalized fura2, which might modify free calcium levels and calcium storage capacity in intracellular organelles.

We are aware of this issue and because of that we have modified our protocol to minimize compartmentalization. We load cells for 26 min at room temperature and keep cells in ice and do not use them for longer that 2-3 hours because we do see evidence of compartmentalization. One evidence of compartmentalization is the increase in the resting calcium concentration.

The finding that the SERCA inhibitor cyclopiazonic acid (CPA) only mobilizes a fraction of the thapsigargin-sensitive calcium stores in T. gondii coincides with previously published work in another apicomplexan parasite, P. falciparum, showing that thapsigargin mobilizes calcium from both CPA-sensitive and CPA-insensitive calcium pools (Borges-Pereira et al., 2020, DOI: 10.1074/jbc.RA120.014906). It would be valuable to determine whether this reflects the off-target effects of thapsigargin or the differential sensitivity of TgSERCA to the two inhibitors.

This is an interesting observation, and we will discuss the result considering the Plasmodium study and include the citation. We will add inhibition curves using the MagFluo protocol and compare CPA and TG.

Figure S1 suggests differential sensitivity, and it shows that thapsigargin mobilizes calcium from both CPA-sensitive and CPA-insensitive calcium pools in T. gondii. Also important is that we used 1 µM TG as we are aware that TG has shown off-target effects at higher concentrations. 

The authors interpret the residual calcium mobilization response to Zaprinast observed after ATc knockdown of TgSERCA (Figures 4E, 4F) as indicative of a target calcium pool in addition to the ER. While this may well be correct, it appears from the description of this experiment that it was carried out using the same conditions as Figure 4A where TgSERCA activity was only reduced by about 50%.

We partially agree as pointed by the reviewer knock down of TgSERCA by only 50% means that the ER still could be targeted by zaprinast and no evidence of another target calcium pool. From the MagFLuo4 experiment (although we are aware that the fluorescence of mag Fluo4 is not linear to calcium), there is SERCA activity after 24 hr of ATc treatment.  However, when adding Zaprinast after TG we see a significant release of calcium which is true for both wild type and conditional knockdowns. Because of this result we proposed that there could be another large neutral calcium pool than the one mobilized by TG. We will address these possibilities in the discussion and interpretation of the result.

The data in Figures 4A vs 4G and Figures 4B vs 4H indicate that the size of the response to GPN is similar to that with thapsigargin in both the presence and absence of extracellular calcium. This raises the question of whether GPN is only releasing calcium from acidic compartments or whether it acts on the ER calcium stores, as previously suggested by Atakpa et al. 2019 DOI: 10.1242/jcs.223883. Nonetheless, Figure 1H shows that there is a robust calcium response to GPN after the addition of thapsigargin.

The results of the experiments did not exclude the possibility that GPN can also mobilize some calcium from the ER besides acidic organelles. We don’t have any evidence to support that GPN can mobilize calcium from the ER either. Based on our unpublished work, we think GPN mainly release calcium from the PLVAC. We will include the mentioned citation and discuss the result considering the possibility that GPN may be acting on the ER.

An important advance in the current work is the use of state-of-the-art approaches with targeted genetically encoded calcium indicators (GECIs) to monitor calcium in important subcellular compartments. The authors have previously done this with the apicoplast, but now add the mitochondria to their repertoire. Despite the absence of a canonical mitochondrial calcium uniporter (MCU) in the Toxoplasma genome, the authors demonstrate the ability of T. gondii mitochondrial to accumulate calcium, albeit at high calcium concentrations. Although the calcium concentrations here are higher than needed for mammalian mitochondrial calcium uptake, there too calcium uptake requires calcium levels higher than those typically attained in the bulk cytosolic compartment. And just like in mammalian mitochondria, the current work shows that ER calcium release can elicit mitochondrial calcium loading even when other sources of elevated cytosolic calcium are ineffective, suggesting a role for ER-mitochondrial membrane contact sites. With these new tools in hand, it will be of great value to elucidate the bioenergetics and transport pathways associated with mitochondrial calcium accumulation in T. gondii.

We thank this reviewer for his/her positive comment. Studies of bioenergetics and transport pathways associated with mitochondrial calcium accumulation is part of our future plans.

The current studies of calcium pools and their interactions with the ER and dependence on SERCA activity in T. gondi are complemented by super-resolution microscopy and electron microscopy that do indeed demonstrate the presence of close appositions between the ER and other organelles (see also videos). Thus, the work presented provides good evidence for the ER acting as the orchestrating organelle delivering calcium to other subcellular compartments through contact sites in T. gondi, as has become increasingly clear from work in other organisms.

Thank you

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This manuscript describes an investigation of how intracellular calcium stores are regulated and provides evidence that is in line with the role of the SERCA-Ca2+-ATPase in this important homeostasis pathway. Calcium uptake by mitochondria is further investigated and the authors suggest that ER-mitochondria membrane contact sites may be involved in mediating this, as demonstrated in other organisms.

The significance of the findings is in shedding light on key elements within the mechanism of calcium storage and regulation/homeostasis in the medically important parasite Toxoplasma gondii whose ability to infect and cause disease critically relies on calcium signalling. An important strength is that despite its importance, calcium homeostasis in Toxoplasma is understudied and not well understood.

We agree with the reviewer. Thank you

A difficulty in the field, and a weakness of the work, is that following calcium in the cell is technically challenging and thus requires reliance on artificial conditions. In this context, the main weakness of the manuscript is the extrapolation of data. The language used could be more careful, especially considering that the way to measure the ER calcium is highly artificial - for example utilising permeabilization and over-loading the experiment with calcium. Measures are also indirect - for example, when the response to ionomycin treatment was not fully in line with the suggested model the authors hypothesise that the result is likely affected by other storage, but there is no direct support for that.

The MagFluo protocol has been amply used in mammalian cells, DT40 cells and other cells for the characterization of the IP3 receptor response to IP3. We will include and discuss more citations in the revised article. The scheme at the top of the figure shows the protocol used. There is no overloading with calcium because the cells are permeabilized and the concentrations of calcium used are physiological and all experiments were performed at 220 nm calcium which is within the cytosolic levels tolerated by cells. The experiment was done with permeabilized cells because permeabilization allows the indicator to become diluted, the substrate MgATP to reach the membrane of the ER and in addition allows for the exposure to precise concentrations of calcium. MagFluo4 loading is intended for its compartmentalization to all intracellular compartments and the uptake stimulated by MgATP exclusively occurs in the compartment occupied by SERCA. IO is an ionophore that causes calcium release from other stores in addition to the ER and it is expected that will result in a larger release. We must clarify that the experiment shown in Fig. 2 was done to characterize the activity of SERCA and was not aimed at the characterization of the role of SERCA in the parasite. We will explain this result better in the revised version of the article.

Below we provide some suggestions to improve controls, however, even with those included, we would still be in favour of revising the language and trying to avoid making strong and definitive conclusions. For example, in the discussion perhaps replace "showed" with "provide evidence that are consistent with..."; replace or remove words like "efficiently" and "impressive"; revise the definitive language used in the last few lines of the abstract (lines 13-17); etc. Importantly we recommend reconsidering whether the data is sufficiently direct and unambiguous to justify the model proposed in Figure 7 (we are in favour of removing this figure at this early point of our understanding of the calcium dynamic between organelles in Toxoplasma).

We thank the reviewer for the suggestions and will modify the language as suggested.

Fig 7 is only a model and as all models could be incorrect. However, considering this reviewer’s criticism we will replace the model for a simpler one that is less speculative.

Another important weakness is poor referencing of previous work in the field. Lines 248-250 read almost as if the authors originally hypothesised the idea that calcium is shuttled between ER and mitochondria via membrane contact sites (MCS) - but there is extensive literature on other eukaryotes which should be first cited and discussed in this context. Likewise, the discussion of MCS in Toxoplasma does not include the body of work already published on this parasite by several groups. It is informative to discuss observations in light of what is already known.

We added a citation following the sentence mentioned by the reviewer in lines 248-250 (corrected preprint) and will include more in the revised article. We cite several pertinent articles that describe MCS in Toxoplasma (lines 378-380, very few actually). We will make sure not to miss any new articles that could have been recently published. Note that our work is not about describing the presence of MCSs. We are showing transfer of calcium between the ER and mitochondria and we present evidence that supports that it happens through MCSs.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1:

- Summary: 

Recordings were made from the dentate nucleus of two monkeys during a decision-making task. Correlates of stimulus position and stimulus information were found to varying degrees in the neuronal activities. 

We agree with this summary.

- Strengths: 

A difficult decision-making task was examined in two monkeys.

We agree with this statement.

- Weaknesses: 

One of the monkeys did not fully learn the task. The manuscript lacked a coherent hypothesis to be tested, and no attempt was made to consider the possibility that this part of the brain may have little to do with the task that was being studied. 

We understand the reviewers concern. It is correct that one of the monkeys (Mi) did not perform at a high level, but it should be noted that both monkeys learned significantly above chance level. Therefore, we would argue that both monkeys in fact did learn the task but Mi’s performance was suboptimal. This difference in the performance levels gave us a rare opportunity to dive deeper into the reasons why some animals perform better than the others and we show that Mi (the lower performing monkey) paid more attention to the outcome of the previous trial – this is evident from our behavioural and decoding models.

We tested the overall hypothesis that neurons of the nucleus dentate can dynamically modulate their activity during a visual attention task, comprising not only sensorimotor but also cognitive attentional components. Many neurons in the dentate are multimodal (Figure 3C-D) which was something that was theorized. One of the specific hypotheses that we tested is that the dentate cells can be direction-selective for both the sensorimotor and cognitive component. Given that many of the recorded cells showed direction-selectivity in their firing rate modulation for gap directions and/or stimulus directions, we provide strong evidence that this hypothesis is correct. We have now spelled out this hypothesis more explicitly in the introduction of the revised version. We now also explain better why we tested this specific hypothesis. Indeed, earlier studies in primates such as those by Herzfeld and colleagues (2018, Nat. Neuro.) and van Es and colleagues (2019, Current Biol) have indicated that direction-selectivity of cerebellar activity may occur in various sensorimotor domains.

We also appreciate the comment of this Reviewer that in our original submission we did not show our attempt to consider the possibility that this part of the brain may have little to do with the task that was being studied. We in fact did consider this possibility in that we successfully injected 3 ml of muscimol (5 μg/ml, Sigma Aldrich) into the dentate nucleus in vivo in one of the monkeys (Mo). This application resulted in a reduction of more than 10% in correct responses of the covert attention task after 45 minutes, whereas the performance remained the same following saline injections. Unfortunately, due to the timing of the experiments and Covid19-related laboratory restrictions we were unable to perform these experiments in the other monkey or repeat them in Mo. We aim to replicate this in future experiments and publish it when we have full datasets of at least two monkeys available. For this paper we have prioritized our tracing experiments, highlighting the connections of the dentate nucleus with attention related areas in brainstem and cortex in both monkeys, following perfusion.

- Perhaps the large differences in performance between the two subjects can be used as a way to interpret the neural data's relationship to behavior, as it provided a source of variance. This is what we would hypothesize if we believed that this area of the brain is playing a significant role in the task. If one animal learns much more poorly, and this region of the brain is important for that behavior, then shouldn't there be clear, interpretable differences in the neural data? 

We thank the Reviewer for this comment. We have added a new Supplementary Figure 2, in which we present the data for both monkeys separately in the revised manuscript. Comparing the two datasets however, we see more commonalities related to the significant learning in both monkeys than differences that might be related to their different levels of learning. We have therefore decided to show the different datasets transparently in the new Supplementary Figure 2, but to stay on the conservative side in our interpretations.

- How should we look for these differences? A number of recent papers in mice have uncovered a large body of data showing that during the deliberation period, when the animal is interpreting a sensory stimulus (often using the whisker system), there is ramping activity in a principal component space among neurons that contribute to the decision. This ramping activity is present (in the PCA space) in the motor areas of the cortex, as well as in the medial and lateral cerebellar nuclei. Perhaps a similar computational approach would benefit the current manuscript. 

We also appreciate this point. We have done the principal component analysis accordingly, and we indeed do find the ramping activity in several components of the dentate activity of both monkeys (Mi and Mo). We have now added a new Supplementary Figure 3 with the first three components of both correct and incorrect trials for Mi and Mo, highlighting their potential contribution.

- What is the hypothesis that is being tested? That is, what do you think might be the function of this region of the cerebellum in this task? It seems to me that we are not entirely in the dark, as previous literature on mice decision-making tasks has produced a reasonable framework: the deliberation period coincides with ramping activity in many regions of the frontal lobe and the cerebellum. Indeed, the ramp in the cerebellum appears to be a necessary condition for the ramp to be present in the frontal lobe. Thus, we should see such ramping activity in this task in the dentate. When the monkey makes the wrong choice, the ramp should predict it. If you don't see the ramping activity, then it is possible that the hypothesis is wrong, or that you are not recording from the right place. 

It is indeed one of our specific hypotheses that the dentate cells can be direction-selective for the preparing cognitive component and/or sensorimotor response. We provide evidence that this hypothesis may be correct when we analyze the regular time response curves (see Figure 2 and the new Supplementary Figure 2 where the data of both monkeys are now presented separately). Moreover, we have now verified this by analysing the ramping curves of PCA space (new Supplementary Figure 3) and firing frequency of DN neurons that modulated upon presentation of the C-stimulus (new Supplementary Figure 4). These figures and findings are now referred to in the main text.

- As this is a difficult task that depends on the ability of the animals to understand the meaning of the cues, it is quite concerning that one of the monkeys performed poorly, particularly in the early sessions. Notably, the disparity between the two subjects is rather large: one monkey at the start of the recordings achieved a performance that was much better than the second monkey did at the end of the recording sessions. You highlighted the differences in performance in Figure 1D and mentioned that you started recording once the animals reached 60% performance. However, this did not make sense to me as the performance of Mi even after the final day of recording did not reach the performance of Mo on the first day of recording. Thus, in contrast to Mo, Mi appeared to be not ready for the task when the recording began.

We understand this point. However, please note that the learning performance of the monkeys concerned retraining sessions after they had had several weeks of vacation. So, even though it is correct that one of the two monkeys had a very good consolidation and started already at a relatively high level on the first retraining session, the other one also started and ended at a level above chance level (the y-axis starts at 0.5). We now highlight this point better in the Results section.

- One objective of having two monkeys is to illustrate that what is true in one animal is also true in the other. In some figures, you show that the neural data are significantly different, while in others you combine them into one. Thus, are you confident that the neural data across the animals should be combined, as you have done in Figure 2? Perhaps you can use the large differences in performance as a source of variance to find meaning in the neural data. 

This is a valid question; as highlighted above, we have now addressed this point in the new Supplementary Figure 2, where the data for both monkeys are presented separately. Given the sample sizes and level of variances, it is in general difficult to draw conclusions about the potential differences and contributions, but the data are sufficiently transparent to observe common trends. With regard to linking differences in the neural data to the differences in performance level, please also consider Figure 4, the new Supplementary Figure 3 (with the ramping PCA component) and new Supplementary Figure 4 (with the additional analysis of the ramping activity of DN neurons that modulated upon presentation of the C-stimulus), which suggests that the ramping stage of Mo starts before that of Mi. This difference highlights the possibility that injecting accelerations of the simple spike modulations of Purkinje cells in the cerebellar hemispheres into the complex of cerebellar nuclei may be instrumental in improving the performance of responses to covert attention, akin to what has been shown for the impact of Purkinje cells of the vestibulocerebellum on eye movement responses to vestibular stimulation (De Zeeuw et al. 1995, J Neurophysiol). This possibility is now also raised in the Discussion.

- How do we know that these neurons, or even this region of the brain, contribute to this task? When a new task is introduced, the contributions of the region of the brain that is being studied are usually established via some form of manipulation. This question is particularly relevant here because the two subjects differed markedly in their performance, yet in Figure 3 you find that a similar percentage of neurons are responding to the various elements of the task.

We appreciate this question. As highlighted above, we are refraining from showing our muscimol manipulation (3 ml of 5 μg/ml muscimol, Sigma Aldrich), as it only concerns 1 successful dataset and 1 control experiment. We hope to replicate this reversible lesion experiment in the future and publish it when we have full new datasets of at least two monkeys available. As explained above, for this paper we have sacrificed both monkeys following a timed perfusion, so as to have similar survival times for the transport of the neuro-anatomical tracer involved.  

- Behavior in both animals was better when the gap direction was up/down vs. left/right. Is this difference in behavior encoded during the time that the animal is making a decision? Are the dentate neurons better at differentiating the direction of the cue when the gap direction is up/right vs. left/right? 

These data have now been included in the new Supplementary Figure 2; we did not observe any significant differences in this respect.

Reviewer #2:

- The authors trained monkeys to discriminate peripheral visual cues and associate them with planning future saccades of an indicated direction. At the same time, the authors recorded single-unit neural activity in the cerebellar dentate nucleus. They demonstrated that substantial fractions of DN cells exhibited sustained modulation of spike rates spanning task epochs and carrying information about stimulus, response, and trial outcome. Finally, tracer injections demonstrated this region of the DN projects to a large number of targets including several known to interconnect the visual attention network. The data compellingly demonstrate the authors' central claims, and the analyses are well-suited to support the conclusions. Importantly, the study demonstrates that DN cells convey many motor and nonmotor variables related to task execution, event sequencing, visual attention, and arguably decision-making/working memory. 

We thank the Reviewer for this positive and constructive feedback.

- The study is solid and I do not have major concerns, but only points for possible improvement. 

We thank the Reviewer for this positive feedback.

- A key feature of this data is the extended changes/ramps in DN output across epochs (Figure 2). Crudely, this presents a challenge for the view that DN output mainly drives motor effectors, as the saccade itself lasts only a tiny fraction of the overall task. Some discussion of this dichotomy in thinking about the function(s) of the cerebellum, vis a vis the multifarious DN targets the authors demonstrate here, etc., would be helpful. 

We agree with the Reviewer and we have expanded our Discussion on this point, also now highlighting the outcome of the new PCA analysis recommended by Reviewer 1 (see the new Supplementary figure Figure 3).

- A high-level suggestion on the data: the presentation of the data focuses (sensibly) on the representation of the stimulus and response epochs (Figures 2-3). Yet, the authors then show that from decoding, it is, in fact, a trial outcome that is best represented in the population (Figure 4). While there is nothing 'wrong' with this, it reads slightly incongruously, and the reader does a bit of a "double take" back to the previous figures to see if they missed examples of the trial-outcome signals, but the previous presentations only show correct trials. Consider adding somewhere in the first 3 main figures some neural data showing comparisons with incorrect trials. This way, the reader develops prior expectations for the outcome decoding result and frame of reference for interpreting it. On a related note, the text contains an earlier introduction of this issue (p24 last sentence) and p25 paragraph 1 cites Figure 3D and 3E for signals "related to the absence of reward" - but the caption says this includes only correct trials? 

We thank the Reviewer for bringing up these points. We have addressed the textual suggestions. Moreover, we have done the PCA analysis suggested by Reviewer 1 for both the correct and incorrect trials (see Supplementary material).

- P29: The discrepancy in retrograde labeling between monkeys (2 orders of magnitude): I realize the authors can't really do anything about this, but the difference is large enough to warrant concerns in the interpretation (how did the tracer spread over the drastically larger area? Isotropically? Could it cross more "hard boundaries" and incorporate qualitatively different inputs/outputs?). A small discussion of possible caveats in interpreting the outcomes would be helpful. 

We fully agree with this comment. As highlighted in the text, in both monkeys we first identified the optimal points for injection in the dentate nucleus electrophysiologically and we used the same pump with the same settings to carry out the injections, but even so the differences are substantial. We suspect that the larger injection might have been caused by an air bubble trapped in the syringe or a deviation in the stock solution, but we can never be sure of that. We have added a potential explanation for the caveat that might have played a role.

- And a list of quick points: 

We have addressed all points listed below; we want to thank the Reviewer for bringing them up.

P3 paragraph 2 needs comma "in daily life,". 

P4 paragraph 2 "C-gap" terminology not previously defined. 

P4 paragraph 2 "animals employed different behavioral strategies". Grammatically, you should probably say "each animal employed a different behavioral strategy," but also scientifically the paragraph doesn't connect this claim to anything about the DN (whereas, e.g., the abstract does make this connection clear). 

P5 paragraph 1 "theca" should be "the". 

P6 paragraph 1 problem with ignashenkova citation insert. 

P10 paragraph 1 I think the spike rate "difference between highest and lowest" is not exactly the same as "variance," you might want to change the terminology. 

P10 paragraph 1 should probably say "To determine if a cell preferentially modulated". 

P10 paragraph 1 last sentence the last clause could be clearer. 

P17 paragraph 2 should be something like "as well as those by Carpenter and..."? 

P20 caption: consider "...directionality in the task: only one C-stim...". 

P20 caption: consider "to the left and right in the [L/R] task...to the top/bottom in the [U/D] task". 

Fig1E and S1 - is there a physical meaning of the "weight" unit, and if none, can this be transformed into a more meaningful unit? 

P21 paragraph 1 consider "activity was recorded for 304 DN neurons...". 

P21 paragraph 1 "correlations with the temporal windows" it's not clear how activity can "correlate" with a time window, consider rephrasing (activity levels changed during these time epochs, depending on stimulus identity). 

P21 paragraph 1 should be "by comparing the number of spikes in a bin...". 

P22 paragraph 2 "when we aligned the neurons to the time of maximum change" needs clarification. The maximum change of what? And per neuron? Across the population? 

P22 paragraph 2 "than that of the facilitating" should be "than did the facilitating units". 

P24 paragraph 1 needs a comma and rewording "Within each direction, trials are sorted by the time of saccade onset". 

P24 paragraph 1 should probably say "Same as in G, but for suppressed cells". 

P24 paragraph 2 should say "more than one task event" not "events". 

P24 paragraph 2 needs a comma "To fully characterize the neural responses, we fitted". 

P25 paragraph 1 should probably say "we sampled from similar populations of DN". 

P34 paragraph 3 consider rephrasing the sentence that contains both "dissociation" and "dissociate". 

P37 last line: consider "coordination of cerebellum and cerebral cortex *in* higher order mental..."? 

P38 paragraph 1 citation needed for "kinematics of goal-directed hand actions of others"? 

P38 paragraph 1 commas probably not needed "map visual input, from high-level visual regions, onto..." 

References

- Herzfeld D.J., Kojima Y, Soetedjo R, Shadmehr R (2018) Encoding of error and learning to correct that error by the Purkinje cells of the cerebellum. Nat Neurosci 21:736–743.

- van Es, D.M., van der Zwaag W., and Knapen T. (2019) Topographic Maps of Visual Space in the Human Cerebellum. Current Biol Volume 29, Issue 10p1689-1694.e3May 20.

- De Zeeuw CI, Wylie DR, Stahl JS, Simpson JI. (1995) Phase relations of Purkinje cells in the rabbit flocculus during compensatory eye movements. J Neurophysiol. Nov;74(5):2051-64. doi: 10.1152/jn.1995.74.5.2051.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The pituitary gonadotropins, FSH and LH, are critical regulators of reproduction. In mammals, synthesis and secretion of FSH and LH by gonadotrope cells are controlled by the hypothalamic peptide, GnRH. As FSH and LH are made in the same cells in mammals, variation in the nature of GnRH secretion is thought to contribute to the differential regulation of the two hormones. In contrast, in fish, FSH and LH are produced in distinct gonadotrope populations and may be less (or differently) dependent on GnRH than in mammals. In the present manuscript, the authors endeavored to determine whether FSH may be independently controlled by a distinct peptide, cholecystokinin (CCK), in zebrafish.

Strengths:

The authors demonstrated that the CCK receptor is enriched in FSH-producing relative to LH-producing gonadotropes, and that genetic deletion of the receptor leads to dramatic decreases in gonadotropin production and gonadal development in zebrafish. Also, using innovative in vivo and ex vivo calcium imaging approaches, they show that LH- and FSH-producing gonadotropes preferentially respond to GnRH and CCK, respectively. Exogenous CCK also preferentially stimulated FSH secretion ex vivo and in vivo.

Weaknesses:

The concept that there may be a distinct FSH-releasing hormone (FSHRH) has been debated for decades. As the authors suggest that CCK is the long-sought FSHRH (at least in fish), they must provide data that convincingly leads to such a conclusion. In my estimation, they have not yet met this burden. In particular, they show that CCK is sufficient to activate FSH-producing cells, but have not yet demonstrated its necessity. Their one attempt to do so was using fish in which they inactivated the CCK receptor using CRISPR-Cas9. While this manipulation led to a reduction in FSH, LH was affected to a similar extent. As a result, they have not shown that CCK is a selective regulator of FSH.

Our conclusion regarding the necessity of CCK signaling for FSH secretion is based on the following evidence:

(1) CCK-like receptors are expressed in the pituitary gland predominantly on FSH cells.

(2) Application of CCK to pituitaries elicits FSH cell activation and to a much lesser degree activation of LH cells.  (calcium imaging assays)

(3) Application of CCK to pituitaries and by injections in-vivo significantly increased only FSH release.

(4) Mutating the FSH-specific CCK receptor in a different species of fish (medaka) also causes a complete shutdown of FSH production and phenocopies a fsh-mutant phenotype (Uehara, Nishiike et al. 2023).

Taken together, we believe that this data strongly supports the conclusion that CCK is necessary for FSH production and release from the fish pituitary. Admittedly, the overlapping effects of CCK on both FSH and LH cells in zebrafish (evident in both our calcium imaging experiments and especially in the KO phenotype) complicates the interpretation of the phenotype. We speculate that the effect of CCK on LH cells in zebrafish can be caused either by paracrine signaling within the gland or by the effects of CCK on GnRH neurons that were shown to express CCK receptors .

In the current version, we emphasize that CCK also induces LH secretion. Although it does not affect LH to the same extent as FSH, an overlap does exist. This is mentioned in the abstract and discussion.

Moreover, they do not yet demonstrate that the effects observed reflect the loss of the receptor's function in gonadotropes, as opposed to other cell types.

Although there is evidence for the expression of CCK receptor in other tissues, we do show a direct decrease of FSH and LH expression in the gonadotrophs of the pituitary of the mutant fish; taken together with its significant expression in FSH cells compared to the rest of the cells of the pituitary in the cell specific transcriptomic, it is the most reasonable explanation for the mutant phenotype.

Unfortunately, unlike in mice, technologies for conditional knockout of genes in specific cell types are not yet available for our model and cell types. Additional tissue distribution of the three receptors types of CCK was added in supplementary figure 1, from this tissue distribution it can be appreciated how in the pituitary only CCKBRA (our identified CCK receptor) is expressed, while in other tissues it is either not expressed or expressed with the additional CCK receptors that can compensate its activity.

It also is not clear whether the phenotypes of the fish reflect perturbations in pituitary development vs. a loss of CCK receptor function in the pituitary later in life. Ideally, the authors would attempt to block CCK signaling in adult fish that develop normally. For example, if CCK receptor antagonists are available, they could be used to treat fish and see whether and how this affects FSH vs. LH secretion.

While the observed gonadal phenotype of the KO (sex inversed fish) should have a developmental origin since it requires a long time to manifest, the effect of the KO on FSH and LH cells is probably more acute. Unfortunately a specific antagonist that affect only CCKRBA and not the other CCK receptors wasn’t identified yet.

In the Discussion, the authors suggest that CCK, as a satiety factor, may provide a link between metabolism and reproduction. This is an interesting idea, but it is not supported by the data presented. That is, none of the results shown link metabolic state to CCK regulation of FSH and fertility. Absent such data, the lengthy Discussion of the link is speculative and not fully merited.

In the revised manuscript, we provided data to link cck with metabolic status in supplementary figure 1 and modified the discussion to tone down the link between metabolic status to and reproductive state.

Also in the Discussion, the authors argue that "CCK directly controls FSH cells by innervating the pituitary gland and binding to specific receptors that are particularly abundant in FSH gonadotrophs." However, their imaging does not demonstrate innervation of FSH cells by CCK terminals (e.g., at the EM level).

Innervation of the fish pituitary does not imply a synaptic-like connection between axon terminals and endocrine cells. In fact, such connections are extremely rare, and their functionality is unclear. Instead, the mode of regulation between hypothalamic terminals and endocrine cells in the fish pituitary is more similar to "volume transmission" in the CNS, i.e. peptides are released into the tissue and carried to their endocrine cell targets by the circulation or via diffusion. A short explanation was added in lines 395-398 in the discussion

Moreover, they have not demonstrated the binding of CCK to these cells. Indeed, no CCK receptor protein data are shown.

Our revised manuscript  includes detailed experiments showing the activation of the receptor by its homologous ligand, supplementary Figure 1 includes a transactivation  assay of CCK to its receptor and the effect of the different mutants on the activation of the receptor. Unfortunately, no antibody is available against this fish specific receptor (one of the caveats of working with fish models); therefore, we cannot present receptor protein data.

The calcium responses of FSH cells to exogenous CCK certainly suggest the presence of functional CCK receptors therein; but, the nature of the preparations (with all pituitary cell types present) does not demonstrate that CCK is acting directly in these cells.

We agree with the reviewer that there are some disadvantages in choosing to work with a whole-tissue preparation. However, we believe that the advantages of working in a more physiological context far outweigh the drawbacks as it reflects the natural dynamics more precisely. Since our transcriptome data, as well as our ISH staining, show that the CCK receptor is exclusively expressed in FSH cells, it is improbable that the observed calcium response is mediated via a different pituitary cell type.

Indeed, the asynchrony in responses of individual FSH cells to CCK (Figure 4) suggests that not all cells may be activated in the same way. Contrast the response of LH cells to GnRH, where the onset of calcium signaling is similar across cells (Figure 3).

The difference between the synchronization levels of LH and FSH cells activity stems from the gap-junction mediated coupling between LH cells that does not exist between FSH cells(Golan, Martin et al. 2016). Therefore, the onset of calcium response in FSH cells is dependent on the irregular diffusion rate of the peptide within the preparation, whereas the tight homotypic coupling between LH cells generates a strong and synchronized calcium rise that propagates quickly throughout the entire population

The differences in connectivity between LH and FSH cells is mentioned in lines 194-195

Finally, as the authors note in the Discussion, the data presented do not enable them to conclude that the endogenous CCK regulating FSH (assuming it does) is from the brain as opposed to other sources (e.g., the gut).

We agree with the reviewer that, for now, we are unable to determine whether hypothalamic or peripheral CCK are the main drivers of FSH cells. While the strong innervation of the gland by CCK-secreting hypothalamic neurons strengthens the notion of a hypothalamic-releasing hormone and also fits with the dogma of the neural control of the pituitary gland in fish (Ball 1981), more experiments are required to resolve this question.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript builds on previous work suggesting that the CCK peptide is the releasing hormone for FSH in fishes, which is different than that observed in mammals where both LH and FSH release are under the control of GnRH. Based on data using calcium imaging as a readout for stimulation of the gonadotrophs, the researchers present data supporting the hypothesis that CCK stimulates FSH-containing cells in the pituitary. In contrast, LH-containing cells show a weak and variable response to CCK but are highly responsive to GnRH. Data are presented that support the role of CCK in the release of FSH. Researchers also state that functional overlap exists in the potency of GnRH to activate FSH cells, thus the two signalling pathways are not separate. The results are of interest to the field because for many years the assumption has been that fishes use the same signalling mechanism. These data present an intriguing variation where a hormone involved in satiation acts in the control of reproduction.

Strengths:

The strengths of the manuscript are that researchers have shed light on different pathways controlling reproduction in fishes.

Weaknesses:

Weaknesses are that it is not clear if multiple ligand/receptors are involved (more than one CCK and more than one receptor?). The imaging of the CCK terminals and CCK receptors needs to be reinforced.

Reviewer consultation summary: 

The data presented establish sufficiency, but not necessity of CCK in FSH regulation. The paper did not show that CCK endogenously regulates FSH in fish. This has not been established yet.

This is a very important comment, also raised by reviewer 1. To avoid repetition, please see our detailed response to the comment above.

The paper presents the pharmacological effects of CCK on ex vivo preparations but does not establish the in vivo physiological function of the peptide. The current evidence for a novel physiological regulatory mechanism is incomplete and would require further physiological experiments. These could include the use of a CCK receptor antagonist in adult fish to see the effects on FSH and LH release, the generation of a CCK knockout, or cell-specific genetic manipulations.

As detailed in the responses to the first reviewer, we cannot conduct conditional, cellspecific gene knockout in our model. However we did conducted KO and show the direct effect on FSH and LH secretion together with physiological characterisation of the mutant.

Zebrafish have two CCK ligands: ccka, cckb and also multiple receptors: cckar, cckbra and cckbrb. There is ambiguity about which CCK receptor and ligand are expressed and which gene was knocked out.

In the revised manuscript, we clarified which of the receptors are expressed (CCKRBA) and which receptor is targeted. We also provided data showing the specificity of the receptors (both WT and mutant) to the ligands. Supplementary 1 shows receptor cross-activation. The method also specifies the exact NCBI ID numbers of the targeted receptor and the antibody used for the immunostaining.

Blocking CCK action in fish (with receptor KO) affects FSH and LH. Therefore, the work did not demonstrate a selective role for CCK in FSH regulation in vivo and any claims to have discovered FSHRH need to be more conservative.

We agree with the reviewer that the overlap in the effect of CCK measured in the calcium activation of cells and in the KO model does not allow us to conclude selectivity. In this context, it is crucial to highlight that CCKRBA exhibits high expression on FSH cells but not on LH cells. Therefore, the effect of CCK on LH cells is likely paracrine or through GnRH neurons that were shown to express CCK receptors. In the current version, we emphasize that CCK also induces LH secretion. Although it does not affect LH to the same extent as FSH, an overlap does exist. This is mentioned in the abstract and discussion.

The labelling of the terminals with anti-CCK looks a lot like the background and the authors did not show a specificity control (e.g. anti-CCK antibody pre-absorbed with the peptide or anti-CCK in morphant/KO animals).

Figures colours had been updated to better visualise the specific staining of the antibody. Also, The same antibody had been previously used to mark CCK-positive cells in the gut of the red drum fish(Webb, Khan et al. 2010) , where a control (pre-absorbed with the peptide) experiment had been conducted.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Abstract:

The authors have not yet established that CCK is the primary regulator of FSH in vivo.

In the new version, we highlight the leading effect of CCK on the reproductive axis, which includes FSH and LH.

Introduction:

The authors need to make clear earlier in the Introduction that fish have two types of gonadotropes. This information comes too late (last paragraph) currently.

Added in line 42

They should discuss relevant data on the differential regulation of FSH and LH in fish, as a rationale for looking for different releasing factors.

This has been discussed in the first paragraph of the introduction

In the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph, the authors assume that it must be a hypothalamic factor that regulates FSH. Why is this necessarily the case? Are there data indicating that a hypothalamic factor is required for FSH production in fish?

This has been mentioned in the discussion, we do not deny that circulating CCK or CCK from other brain areas might affect FSH secretion in the pituitary (line 402-404). However, as the hypothalamus serves as the main gateway from the brain to the pituitary and contains hypophysiotropic CCK neurons it is the most reasonable assumption.

Results:

In the first paragraph, the authors reference three types of CCK receptors, only one of which is expressed in the pituitary. The specific receptor should be named here.

The receptor name and NCBI id had been added in this paragraph.

Figure 1: What specificity controls were used for the ISH in Figure 1?

HCR- The method used to identify RNA expression and developed by Molecular Instruments (https://www.molecularinstruments.com/hcr-rnafish-protocols), do not require specific control as had been previously done with older ISH methods. The use of multiple short probes assure the specificity to the RNA.More over the expression is specific to the targeted cells.

In Figure 1D, the red square is missing in the KO fish (at low magnification).

This was fixed in the updated version.

In Figure 1G, the number of dots does not correspond to the number of animals described in the figure legend. Does each point represent an animal?

Each dot represent a fish. The order of the numbers in the legend didn’t match the order in the graph, this had been fixed in the last version

Figure 2A: It is not clear that all FSH (GFP) cells are double-labeled. Should all double-labeled cells appear white? Many appear as green. Some quantification of the proportion of co-labeling is needed. Also, the scale bars are too small to read. Perhaps add the size of the scale bars to the legend.

They are all double-labeled, as can be seen by the single-color images, since GFP fluorescence is stronger than RCaMP fluorescence, the double-labelling might be seen a green cells; a scale bar was added.

Figure 2C: Is the synchronous activity of LH cells here dependent on endogenous GnRH? Can these events be blocked with a GnRH receptor antagonist?

We currently do not have enough data to support this hypothesis and the in vivo 2 photon system is not optimal to answer these questions since these are spontaneous events which are difficult to predict. This is the main reason we moved to an ex vivo system. The similar response we receive when applying GnRH in the ex vivo system support it is GnRH activation.

Figure 4C: As some LH cells respond to CCK, can the authors really claim that CCK is a selective regulator of FSH? What explains the heterogeneity in the response of LH cells to CCK?

In this version, we highlight that CCK directly activates FSH but it is also affecting LH to some extent. However it is clear that the effect on FSH cells is more significant.

Figures 5A and B: With larger Ns, some of the trends might be significant (e.g., GnRH stimulated FSH release and CCK stimulated LH release).

Though there is a trend, the values in the Y axis reveal that the trend of response of FSH to GnRH and LH to CCK is lower then the distribution of the basal response (the before) in all of the graphs. Hence we do not believe a larger N will affect those results. We added the range of the secreted hormones concentrations in the result description to emphasize the difference in values,

Figures 5C and D: What explains the lack of an increase in LH secretion following GnRH treatment?

We did not measure LH Secretion in the plasma as we didn’t have enough blood, we do see an increase in LH transcription (see supplementary figure 5 – figure supplement 1)

Also, as mRNA levels were measured (in C), reference should be made to expression rather than transcription. Not all changes in mRNA levels reflect changes in transcription.Also, remove transcription from the legend. Reference to supplementary Figure 4 in the legend should be supplementary Figure 6. Finally, in C and D, distinguish males from females (as in 5A and B).

Modifications had been done according to the reviewer suggestions.

Figure legends:

The figure legends are very long. One way to shorten them is to remove descriptions of the results. The legends should indicate what is in each figure, not the results of the experiments.

Modifications had been done according to the reviewer suggestions.

Sample sizes should be spelled out in the legends, as they are not in the M&M.

We made sure all sample sizes are mentioned in the legend

Materials and Methods:

Section 1.1 can be removed as it repeats content presented elsewhere.

This section was removed

Section 1.5: It is unclear what this means: "blinding was not applied to ensure tractability" Please clarify.

This section was removed

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

It appears that zebrafish have two ligands: ccka, cckb. Also multiple receptors: cckar, cckbra and cckbrb. Authors need to discuss this and clearly state which ligand and which receptor they are referring to in the manuscript.

We discussed the receptor type in the first paragraph of the results, the exact synthetic peptide used is described in the methods. The 8 amino acids of the mature CCK peptide are the same between CCKa and CCKb. A sentence regarding the specificity of the antibody to the mature CCK peptide was added in line 101.

"to GnRH puff application (300 μl of 30 μg/μl)"; (250 μl of 30 μg/ml CCK)

Please give the final concentration to make it easy on the readers of the data.

The molarity of the final concentration was added.

(2.4) Differential calcium response underlies differential hormone. This section is a bit confusing to read, for example:

"For that, we collected the medium perfused through our ex vivo system (Fig. 2a) and measured LH and FSH levels using a specific ELISA validated for zebrafish [31] while monitoring the calcium activity of the cells."

So the authors did the ELISA while monitoring the activity (?). This sentence does not make sense: please rewrite it.

We modified this sentence  in line 308-311

To functionally validate the importance of CCK signalling we used CRISPR-cas9 to generate loss-of-function (LOF) mutations in the pituitary- CCK receptor gene.

The authors need to clearly state WHICH gene they inactivated: Zebrafish have three CCK-receptors, so "the pituitary receptor gene" needs to be defined.

Was added again in line 107, and is mentioned in the methods

Figure 3 is a crucial figure!

Figure 3B: The data are not very convincing. Please state how thick the sections are in the figure legend (assuming these are adult pituitaries),

Added in the legend (figure 1C in the new version), slice thickness and adult fish.

Please show at least the merged image a high magnification view of the co-localization of the receptor with the cells.

This is figure 1 in the new revision, a magnified figure was added

Please give the scale bar size for 3B.

Scales for all images were added

Figure 3C: the co-localization of the terminals of the CCK and FSH cells shows very few cells expressing close to terminals.

Important: Because the labelling of the terminals with anti-CCK looks a lot like the background, it is very important to show the control (anti-CCK antibody pre-absorbed with the peptide). The authors should have these data. The photo needs to have been taken at the same gain (contrast) and the photo showing the terminals.

This is  a commercial antibody that had been previously validated for CCK in fish. The co-localization pattern resembles GnRH innervation in the pituitary. In fish when hypothalamic neurons innervate the pituitary they do not innervate all the cells, as this is an endocrine system, the peptide can travel to neighbouring cells via diffusion or aided blood flow (Golan, Zelinger et al. 2015) ).  The images reveal the direct innervation of CCK in the pituitary and its proximity to FSH cells.

Figure 4c, on right. The text seems to be stretched as if the photo was adjusted without locking the aspect ratio. Please check the original images.

This has been fixed

Can the authors use different pseudo colours? Differentiating a double label of white versus yellow is very difficult, and thus the photo is not very convincing.

This had been changed to green and magenta

What is meant by "CCK-AB" antibody? Perhaps anti-CCK would be a better label

This has been fixed

Figure 5A: increase the magnification of the insets; the structure of the gonads is very difficult to see with clarity in these low mag images. The most obvious way to improve this figure is to reduce or eliminate the pie graph (not really necessary) and show a high magnification (and larger) image of the gonadal structure.

This is figure 1 in the new version, with magnification of the gonad next to each body section.

Discussion:

" Moreover, in the zebrafish, as well as in other species, the functional overlap in gonadotropin signalling pathways is not limited to the pituitary but is also present in the gonad, through the promiscuity of the two gonadotropin receptors"<br /> The reasoning of this sentence is not clear: zebrafish do not use GnRH to control reproduction: they lack GnRH1 through genomic rearrangement (see Whitlock, Postlethwait and Ewer 2019) and KO of GnRH2/GnRH3 does not affect reproduction.

While GnRH KO model indicate a redundancy of GnRH in this axis in zebrafish, there is also ample evidence for its importance in regulating reproduction such as its effect on gonadotropin (Golan, Martin et al. 2016) and its use in spawning inductions in fish (Mizrahi and Levavi-Sivan 2023). We believe it is currently too soon to conclude that GnRH signalling is completely non relevant to reproduction in cyprinids.  

Reviewing Editor (Recommendations For The Authors):

It would be interesting to see calcium imaging experiments in the CCKR receptor mutants to establish a more direct connection between peptide action and activity.

We added a receptor assay that reflect the non-activation of the mutated receptors by CCK (supplementary figure 1) , and compared it to the wild type that is activated. This show that: 1) CCK directly activate our identified receptor in FSH cells. 2) the mutated receptors are non-active.

"all homozygous fish (CCKR+12/+7/-1/ CCKR+12/+7/-1, n=12)"

It may be better to write the genotype of fish separately as CCKR+12/+12, CCKR+7/+7 and CCKR-1/-1, n=12) otherwise it seems as if all alleles occurred together in the same fish.

Modified according to the reviewer request

In Figure 1 scale bar legends are very small. 

Description of the scale bars were added to the all the legends

Figure 1 legend "On the top right of each panel is the gender distribution" - fish have no gender but sex.

Modified according to the reviewer request

The authors should endeavour to improve the presentation of the figures. They should use a sans-serif font and check that text is not cut at the edge of figure panels, that scale bars are uniform and clearly labelled and fonts are of similar size and clearly legible. E.g. labels of the fish brain of Fig3A are very small.

We modified all the figures to adapt the font and the scales, we increased the size of the image in Figure 3a to make the labels clearer.

Please use the elife format to name supplementary figures, as Figure X - Figure Supplement Y (each supplement associated with one of the main figures).

Fixed

Peptide concentrations in the ex vivo experiments should also be given as molar concentrations not only as '250 μl of 30 μg/ml CCK'.

Fixed

"In contrast, FSH cells responded with a very low calcium rise in hormonal secretion in response to GnRH" - a very low rise in hormonal secretion

Fixed

Please clarify why you used a GnRH synthetic agonist and not the native peptide.

It is commonly used for spawning induction in fish (line 245); it has also been shown to directly affect the secretion of LH and FSH (Biran, Golan et al. 2014, Biran, Golan et al. 2014, Mizrahi, Gilon et al. 2019) , added to line 245.

References

Ball, J. (1981). "Hypothalamic control of the pars distalis in fishes, amphibians, and reptiles." General and comparative endocrinology 44(2): 135-170.

Biran, J., M. Golan, N. Mizrahi, S. Ogawa, I. S. Parhar and B. Levavi-Sivan (2014). "Direct regulation of gonadotropin release by neurokinin B in tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)." Endocrinology 155(12): 4831-4842.

Biran, J., M. Golan, N. Mizrahi, S. Ogawa, I. S. Parhar and B. Levavi-Sivan (2014). "LPXRFa, the Piscine Ortholog of GnIH, and LPXRF Receptor Positively Regulate Gonadotropin Secretion in Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)." Endocrinology 155(11): 4391-4401.

Golan, M., A. O. Martin, P. Mollard and B. Levavi-Sivan (2016). "Anatomical and functional gonadotrope networks in the teleost pituitary." Scientific Reports 6: 23777.

Golan, M., E. Zelinger, Y. Zohar and B. Levavi-Sivan (2015). "Architecture of GnRH-Gonadotrope-Vasculature Reveals a Dual Mode of Gonadotropin Regulation in Fish." Endocrinology 156(11): 4163-4173.

Mizrahi, N., C. Gilon, I. Atre, S. Ogawa, I. S. Parhar and B. Levavi-Sivan (2019). "Deciphering Direct and Indirect Effects of Neurokinin B and GnRH in the Brain-Pituitary Axis of Tilapia." Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 10: 469.

Mizrahi, N. and B. Levavi-Sivan (2023). "A novel agent for induced spawning using a combination of GnRH analog and an FDA-approved dopamine receptor antagonist." Aquaculture 565: 739095.

Uehara, S. K., Y. Nishiike, K. Maeda, T. Karigo, S. Kuraku, K. Okubo and S. Kanda (2023). "Cholecystokinin is the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH)-releasing hormone." bioRxiv: 2023.2005.2026.542428.

Webb, K. A., Jr., I. A. Khan, B. S. Nunez, I. Rønnestad and G. J. Holt (2010). "Cholecystokinin: molecular cloning and immunohistochemical localization in the gastrointestinal tract of larval red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus (L.)." Gen Comp Endocrinol 166(1): 152-159.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews: 

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors introduce a computational model that simulates the dendrites of developing neurons in a 2D plane, subject to constraints inspired by known biological mechanisms such as diffusing trophic factors, trafficked resources, and an activity-dependent pruning rule. The resulting arbors are analyzed in terms of their structure, dynamics, and responses to certain manipulations. The authors conclude that 1) their model recapitulates a stereotyped timecourse of neuronal development: outgrowth, overshoot, and pruning 2) Neurons achieve near-optimal wiring lengths, and Such models can be useful to test proposed biological mechanisms- for example, to ask whether a given set of growth rules can explain a given observed phenomenon - as developmental neuroscientists are working to understand the factors that give rise to the intricate structures and functions of the many cell types of our nervous system. 

Overall, my reaction to this work is that this is just one instantiation of many models that the author could have built, given their stated goals. Would other models behave similarly? This question is not well explored, and as a result, claims about interpreting these models and using them to make experimental predictions should be taken warily. I give more detailed and specific comments below.  

We thank the reviewer for the summary of the work. But the criticism “that this is one instantiation of many models [we] could have built” is unfair as it can apply to any model. We chose one of the most minimalistic models which implements known biological mechanisms including activity-independent and -dependent phases of dendritic growth, and constrained parameters based on experimental data. We compare the proposed model to other alternatives in the Discussion section. In the revised manuscript, we additionally investigate the sensitivity of model output to variations of specific parameters, as explained below.

Point 1.1. Line 109. After reading the rest of the manuscript, I worry about the conclusion voiced here, which implies that the model will extrapolate well to manipulations of all the model components. How were the values of model parameters selected? The text implies that these were selected to be biologically plausible, but many seem far off. The density of potential synapses, for example, seems very low in the simulations compared to the density of axons/boutons in the cortex; what constitutes a potential synapse? The perfect correlations between synapses in the activity groups is flawed, even for synapses belonging to the same presynaptic cell. The density of postsynaptic cells is also orders of magnitude of, etc. Ideally, every claim made about the model's output should be supported by a parameter sensitivity study. The authors performed few explorations of parameter sensitivity and many of the choices made seem ad hoc.  

We have performed detailed sensitivity analysis on the model parameters mentioned by the reviewer, including (I) the density of postsynaptic cells (somatas), (II) the density of potential synapses, and (III) the level of correlations between synapses. 

(I) While the density of postsynaptic cells in our baseline model seems a bit low, at least when compared to densities observed in adulthood (Keller et al., 2018), we explored how altering this value affects the model dynamics. We found that the postsynaptic cell density does not affect the timing of dendritic outgrowth, overshoot and synaptic pruning. It only changes the final size of the dendritic arbor and the resulting number of connected synapses. This analysis is now included in Supplementary Figure 3-2.

(II) The density of potential synapses and the density of connected synapses that we used in the manuscript are already in the range of densities that can be found in the literature (Leighton et al., 2024; Ultanir et al., 2007; Glynn et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2014), some of which we already cited in the original submission.

A potential concern might be that the rapid slowing down of growth in the model could be due to a depletion of potential synapses. To illustrate that this is not the case, we showed that the number of available potential synapses over the time course of the simulations remains high (Figure 3, new panel e). Therefore, the initial density of potential synapses is sufficient and does not affect the final density of connected synapses.

To further illustrate the robustness of our model dynamics to longer simulation times, we added a new supplementary figure (Supplementary Figure 3-1).

These new figure additions (Figure 3e, Supplementary Figure 3-1, and Supplementary Figure 3-2) and their implications for the model dynamics are discussed in the Results section of the revised paper:

p.9 line 198, “After the initial overshoot and pruning, dendritic branches in the model stay stable, with mainly small subbranches continuing to be refined (Figure 3-Figure Supplement 1). This stability in the model is achieved despite the number of potential synaptic partners remaining high (Figure 3e), indicating a balance between activity-independent and activitydependent mechanisms. The dendritic growth and synaptic refinement dynamics are independent of the postsynaptic somata densities used in our simulations (Figure 3-Figure Supplement 2). Only the final arbor size and the number of connected synapses decrease with an increase in the density of the somata, while the timing of synaptic growth, overshoot and pruning remains the same (Figure 3-Figure Supplement 2).”

We also added more details to the description of our model in the Methods section:

p.24 line 615, “For all simulations in this study, we distributed nine postsynaptic somata at regular distances in a grid formation on a 2-dimensional 185 × 185 pixel area, representing a cortical sheet (where 1 pixel = 1 micron, Figure 4). This yields a density of around 300 neurons per 𝑚𝑚2 (translating to around 5,000 per 𝑚𝑚3, where for 25 neurons in Figure 3Figure Supplement 2 this would be around 750 neurons per 𝑚𝑚2 or 20,000 per 𝑚𝑚3). The explored densities are a bit lower than compared to neuron densities observed in adulthood (Keller et al., 2018). In the same grid, we randomly distributed 1,500 potential synapses, yielding an initial density of 0.044 potential synapses per 𝜇𝑚2 (Figure 3e). At the end of the simulation time, around 1,000 potential synapses remain, showing that the density of potential synapses is sufficient and does not significantly affect the final density of connected synapses. Thus, the rapid slowing down of growth in our model is not due to a depletion of potential synaptic partners. The resulting density of stably connected synapses is approximately 0.015 synapses per 𝜇𝑚2 (around 60 synapses stabilized per dendritic tree, Figure 3b). This density compares well to experimental findings, where, especially during early development, synaptic densities are described to be within a range similar to the one observed in our model (Leighton et al., 2024; Ultanir et al., 2007; Glynn et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2014; Koshimizu et al., 2009; Tyler and Pozzo-Miller, 2001).”

(III) Lastly, we investigated how the correlation between synapses of the same activity group might affect our conclusions. As correlations in our model mainly arise from patterns of spontaneous activity which are abundant in early postnatal development (retinal waves (Ackman et al., 2012) or endogenous activity in the form of highly synchronized events involving a large fraction of the cells (Siegel et al., 2012), we explored varying the correlations within each activity group, across activity groups and combinations of both. While this analysis supported our previously described intuition on how competition between synaptic activities should drive activity-dependent refinement, recently a study found direct evidence for such subcellular refinement of synaptic inputs specifically dependent on spontaneous activity between retinal ganglion cell axons and retinal waves in the superior colliculus (Matsumoto et al., 2024). The new analysis confirmed our earlier results that the competition between activity groups leads to activity-dependent refinement and yielded further insight into how the studied activity correlations can affect the competition. Those results are presented in a completely new figure (new Figure 5, supported by the Supplementary Figure 5-1 and 5-2) and discussed in the Results section:

p.11 line 249, “Group activity correlations shape synaptic overshoot and selectivity competition across synaptic groups.

Since correlations between synapses emerge from correlated patterns of spontaneous activity abundant during postnatal development (Ackman et al., 2012; Siegel et al., 2012), we explored a wide range of within-group correlations in our model (Figure 5a). Although a change in correlations within the group has only a minor effect on the resulting dendritic lengths (Figure 5b) and overall dynamics, it can change the density of connected synapses and thus also affect the number of connected synapses to which each dendrite converges throughout the simulations (Figure 5c,e). This is due to the change in specific selectivity of each dendrite which is a result of the change in within-group correlations (Figure 5d). While it is easier for perfectly correlated activity groups to coexist within one dendrite (Figure 5-Figure Supplement 1a, 100%), decreasing within-group correlations increases the competition between groups, producing dendrites that are selective for one specific activity group (60%, Figure 5d, Figure 5-Figure Supplement 1a). This selectivity for a particular activity group is maximized at intermediate (approximately 60%) within-group correlations, while the contribution of the second most abundant group generally remains just above random chance levels (Figure 5-Figure Supplement 1a). Further reducing within-group correlations (20%, Figure 5a) causes dendrites to lose their selectivity for specific activity groups due to the increased noise in the activity patterns (20%, Figure 5a). Overall, reducing within-group correlations increases synapse pruning (Figure 5f, bottom), also found experimentally (Matsumoto et al., 2024) as dendrites require an extended period to fine-tune connections aligned with their selectivity biases. This phenomenon accounts for the observed reduction in both the density and number of synapses connected to each dendrite.

In addition to the within-group correlations, developmental spontaneous activity patterns can also change correlations between groups as for example retinal waves propagated in different domains (Feller et al., 1997) (Figure 5-Figure Supplement 2). An increase in between-group correlations in our model intuitively decreases competition between the groups since fully correlated global events synchronize the activity of all groups (Figure 5-Figure Supplement 2). The reduction in competition reduces pruning in the model, which can be recovered by combining cross-group correlations with decreased within-group correlations (Figure 5-Figure Supplement 2). Our simulations show that altering the correlations within activity groups increases competition (by lowering the within-group correlations) or decreases competition (by raising the across-group correlations). Hence, in our model, competition between activity groups due to non-trivially structured correlations is necessary to generate realistic dynamics between activity-independent growth and activity-dependent refinement or pruning.

In sum, our simulations demonstrate that our model can operate under various correlations in the spike trains. We find that the level of competition between synaptic groups is crucial for the activity-dependent mechanisms to either potentiate or depress synapses and is fully consistent with recent experimental evidence showing that the correlation between spontaneous activity in retinal ganglion cells axons and retinal waves in the superior colliculus governs branch addition vs. elimination (Matsumoto et al., 2024)."

Precise details on the implementation of the changed activity correlations were added to the Methods section:

p. 25 line 638, “Within-group and across-group activity correlations. For the decreased withingroup correlations, we generated parent spike trains for each individual group with the firing rate 𝑟𝑖𝑛 = 𝑟𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 ∗ 𝑃𝑖𝑛 (e.g., 𝑃𝑖𝑛 = 100%; 60%; 20%, Figure 5). All the synapses of the same group share the same parent spike train and the remaining spikes for each synapse are uniquely generated with the firing rate 𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡 = 𝑟𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 ∗ (1 − 𝑃𝑖𝑛) (e.g., (1 − 𝑃𝑖𝑛) = 0%; 40%; 80%), resulting in the desired firing rate 𝑟𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 (see Table 1). For the increase in across-group correlations, we generated one master spike train with the firing rate 𝑟𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 = 𝑟𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 ∗ 𝑃𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 for all the synapses of all groups (e.g., 𝑃𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 = 5%; 10%; 20%, Figure 5-Figure Supplement 2). This master spike train is shared across all groups and then filled up according to the within-group correlation (if not specified differently 𝑃𝑖𝑛 = 1 − 𝑃𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 to maintain the rate 𝑟𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙). In all the cases, also in those where the change in across-group correlations is combined with the change in within-group correlations, the remaining spikes for each synapse are generated with a firing rate 𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡 = 𝑟𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 ∗ (1 − 𝑃𝑖𝑛 − 𝑃𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠) to obtain an overall desired firing rate of 𝑟𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙.”

Point 1.2. Many potentially important phenomena seem to be excluded. I realize that no model can be complete, but the choice of which phenomena to include or exclude from this model could bias studies that make use of it and is worth serious discussion. The development of axons is concurrent with dendrite outgrowth, is highly dynamic, and perhaps better understood mechanistically. In this model, the inputs are essentially static. Growing dendrites acquire and lose growth cones that are associated with rapid extension, but these do not seem to be modeled. Postsynaptic firing does not appear to be modeled, which may be critical to activity-dependent plasticity. For example, changes in firing are a potential explanation for the global changes in dendritic pruning that occur following the outgrowth phase.  

Thanks to the reviewer for bringing up these important considerations. We do indeed write in the Introduction (e.g. lines 36-76) which phenomena we include in the model and why. The Discussion also compares our model to others (lines 433-490), pointing out that most models either focus on activity-independent or activity-dependent phases. We include both, combining the influence of both molecular gradients and growth factors as well as activity-dependent connectivity refinements instructed by spontaneous activity. We consider our model a tractable, minimalist mechanistic model which includes both activity-independent and activity-dependent aspects. 

Regarding postsynaptic firing, this is indeed super relevant and an important point to consider. In one of our recent publications (Kirchner and Gjorgjieva, 2021), we studied only an activity-dependent model for the organization of synaptic inputs on non-growing dendrites which have a fixed length. There, we considered the effect of postsynaptic firing (via a back-propagating action potential) and demonstrated that it plays an important role in establishing a global organization of synapses on the entire dendritic tree of the neuron. For example, we showed that it could lead to the emergence of retinotopic maps on the dendritic tree which have been found experimentally (Iacaruso et al., 2017). Since we use the same activity-dependent plasticity model in this paper, we expect that the somatic firing will have the same effect on establishing synaptic distributions on the entire dendritic tree. This is now also discussed in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript:

p. 21 line 491, “Although we did not explicitly model postsynaptic firing, our previous work with static dendrites has shown that it can play an important role in establishing a global organization of synapses on the entire dendritic tree of the neuron (Kirchner and Gjorgjieva, 2021). For example, we showed that it could lead to the emergence of retinotopic maps on the dendritic tree which have been found experimentally (Iacaruso et al., 2017). Since we use the same activity-dependent plasticity model in this paper, we expect that the somatic firing will have the same effect on establishing synaptic distributions on the entire dendritic tree.”

Including the concurrent development of axons in the model is indeed very interesting. In fact, a recent tour-de-force techniques paper found similar to what we assume. Hebbian activity-dependent dynamics of axonal branches of retinal ganglion cells experiencing spontaneous activity in relation to retinal waves in the superior colliculus (Matsumoto et al., 2024). New branches tend to be added at the locations where spontaneous activity of individual branches is more correlated with retinal waves, whereas asynchronous activity is associated with branch elimination. We suspect the same Hebbian activity-dependent dynamics to apply also to dendritic growth. 

To address simultaneous dynamic axons to our growing dendrites, in the revised version of the manuscript, we included a simplified form of axonal dynamics by allowing changes in the lifetime and location of potential synapses, which come from axons of presynaptic partners. We explored different median lifetimes of synapses in combination with several distances with which a synapse can move in the simulated space (new Supplementary Figure 3-3). Our results show that dynamically moving synapses only affect the dynamics and stability of our model when the rate of moving synapses combined with the distance of moving synapses is faster than the dendritic growth. In scenarios in which synapses can move across large distances, dendrites get further destabilized due to synapses transferring from one dendrite to another, perturbing the attractor fields of the potential synapses even in late phases of the simulations. Besides such non-biological scenarios, dynamically moving synapses do not affect the model dynamics too much. Thus, they mostly add additional noise and variability to the growth and pruning without changing the timing and amplitude of the dynamics. These results are discussed in the results section of the revised manuscript:

p.9 line 207, “The development of axons is concurrent with dendritic growth and highly dynamic Matsumoto et al. (2024). To address the impact of simultaneously growing axons, we implemented a simple form of axonal dynamics by allowing changes in the lifetime and location of potential synapses, originating from the axons of presynaptic partners (Figure 3-Figure Supplement 3). When potential synapses can move rapidly (median lifetime of 1.8 hours), the model dynamics are perturbed quite substantially, making it difficult for the dendrites to stabilize completely (Figure 3–Figure Supplement 3c). However, slowly moving potential synapses (median lifetime of 18 hours) still yield comparable results (Figure 3-Figure Supplement 3). The distance of movement significantly influenced results only when potential synaptic lifetimes were short. For extended lifetimes, the moving distance had a minor impact on the dynamics, predominantly affecting the time required for dendrites to stabilize. This was the result of synapses being able to transfer from one dendrite to another, potentially forming new long-lasting connections even at advanced stages of synaptic refinement. In sum, our results show that potential axonal dynamics only affect the stability of our model when these dynamics are much faster than dendritic growth.”

Precise details on the implementation of the dynamically moving synapses and their synaptic lifetimes are now in the Methods section:

p. 25 line 650, “Dynamically moving synapses. For the moving synapses we introduced lifetimes for each synapse, randomly sampled from a log-normal distribution with median 1.8h (for when they move frequently), 4.5h or 18h (for when they move rarely) and variance equal to 1 (Figure 3-Figure Supplement 3b). The lifetime of a synapse decreases only when the synapse is not connected to any of the dendrites (i.e., is a potential synapse). When the lifetime of a synapse expires, the synapse moves to a new location with a new lifetime sampled from the same log-normal distribution. This enables synapses to move multiple times throughout a simulation. The exact locations and distances to which each synapse can move are determined by a binary matrix (dimensions: 𝑝𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 × 𝑝𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒) representing a ring (annulus) with the inner radius 𝑑/4 and outer radius 𝑑/2 , where the synapse location is at the center of the matrix. All the locations of the matrix within the ring boundaries (between the inner radius and outer radius) are potential locations to which the synapse can move. The synapse then moves randomly to one of the possible locations where no other synapse or dendrite is located. For the movement distances, we chose the ring dimensions 3 × 3, 25 × 25 and 101 × 101, yielding the moving distances (radii) of 1 pixel per movement, 12 pixels per movement and 50 pixels per movement (𝑟 = (𝑑−1)/2). These pixel distances represent small movements, as much as a dendrite can grow in one step (1 micron), and larger movements which are far enough so that the synapse will not attract the same branches again (12 microns) or far enough so that it might attract a completely different dendrite (50 microns, Figure 3-Figure Supplement 3a).”

Point 1.3. Line 167. There are many ways to include activity -independent and -dependent components into a model and not every such model shows stability. A key feature seems to be that larger arbors result in reduced growth and/or increased retraction, but this could be achieved in many ways (whether activity dependent or not). It's not clear that this result is due to the combination of activity-dependent and independent components in the model, or conceptually why that should be the case.

We never argued for model uniqueness. There are always going to be many different models (at different spatial and temporal scales, at different levels of abstraction). We can never study all of them and like any modeling study in systems neuroscience we have chosen one model approach and investigated this approach. We do compare the current model to others in the Discussion. If the reviewers have a specific implementation that we should compare our model to as an alternative, we could try, but not if this means doing a completely separate project.

Point 1.4. Line 183. The explanation of overshoot in terms of the different timescales of synaptic additions versus activity-dependent retractions was not something I had previously encountered and is an interesting proposal. Have these timescales been measured experimentally? To what extent is this a result of fine-tuning of simulation parameters?  

We found that varying the amount of BDNF controls the timescale of the activity-dependent plasticity (see our Figure 6c). Hence, changing the balance between synaptic additions vs. retractions is already explored in Figure 6e and f. Here we show that the overshoot and retraction does not have to be fine-tuned but may be abolished if there is too much activity-dependent plasticity. 

Regarding the relative timescales of synaptic additions vs. retractions: since the first is mainly due to activity-independent factors, and the second due to activity-dependent plasticity, the questions is really about the timescales of the latter two. As we write in the Introduction (lines 61-63), manipulating activity-dependent synaptic transmission has been found to not affect morphology but rather the density and specificity of synaptic connections (Ultanir et al. 2007), supporting the sequential model we have (although we do not impose the sequence, as both activity-independent and activitydependent mechanisms are always “on”; but note that activity-dependent plasticity can only operate on synapses that have already formed).

The described results are robust to parameter variations (performed on the postsynaptic density, potential synapse density, and within- and across-group correlations) as described in the reply to reviewer #1 point 1.1.

Point 1.5. Line 203. This result seems at odds with results that show only a very weak bias in the tuning distribution of inputs to strongly tuned cortical neurons (e.g. work by Arthur Konnerth's group). This discrepancy should be discussed.  

First, we note that the correlated activity experienced by our modeled synapses (and resulting synaptic organization) does not necessarily correspond to visual orientation, or any stimulus feature, for that matter, but is rather a property of correlated spontaneous activity. 

Nonetheless, there is some variability in what the experimental data show. Many studies have shown that synapses on dendrites are organized into functional synaptic clusters: across brain regions, developmental ages and diverse species from rodent to primate (Kleindienst et al., 2011; Takahashi et al., 2012; Winnubst et al., 2015; Gökçe et al., 2016; Wilson et al., 2016; Iacaruso et al., 2017; Scholl et al., 2017; Niculescu et al., 2018; Kerlin et al., 2019; Ju et al., 2020, Hedrick et al., 2022, Hedrick et al., 2024). Interestingly, some in vivo studies have reported lack of fine-scale synaptic organization (Varga et al., 2011; X. Chen et al., 2011; T.-W. Chen et al., 2013; Jia et al., 2010; Jia et al., 2014), while others reported clustering for different stimulus features in different species. For example, dendritic branches in the ferret visual cortex exhibit local clustering of orientation selectivity but do not exhibit global organization of inputs according to spatial location and receptive field properties (Wilson et al. 2016; Scholl et al., 2017). In contrast, synaptic inputs in mouse visual cortex do not cluster locally by orientation, but only by receptive field overlap, and exhibit a global retinotopic organization along the proximal-distal axis (Iacaruso et al., 2017). We proposed a theoretical framework to reconcile these data: combining activity-dependent plasticity similar to the BDNF-proBDNF model that we used in the current work, and a receptive field model for the different species (Kirchner and Gjorgjieva, 2021). This is now also discussed in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript:

p. 20 line 471, “The correlated activity experienced by our modeled synapses (and resulting synaptic organization) does not necessarily correspond to visual orientation, or any stimulus feature, for that matter, but is rather a property of spontaneous activity. Nonetheless, there is some variability in what the experimental data show. Many have shown that synapses on dendrites are organized into functional synaptic clusters: across brain regions, developmental ages and diverse species from rodent to primate (Kleindienst et al., 2011; Winnubst et al., 2015; Iacaruso et al., 2017; Scholl et al., 2017; Niculescu et al., 2018; Takahashi et al., 2012; Gökçe et al., 2016; Wilson et al., 2016; Kerlin et al., 2019; Ju et al., 2020; Hedrick et al., 2022, 2024). Other studies have reported lack of fine-scale synaptic organization (Chen et al., 2013; Varga et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2011; Jia et al., 2010, 2014). Interestingly, some of these discrepancies might be explained by different species showing clustering with respect to different stimulus features (orientation or receptive field overlap) (Scholl et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2016; Iacaruso et al., 2017). Our prior work proposed a theoretical framework to reconcile these data: combining activity-dependent plasticity as we used in the current work, and a receptive field model for the different species (Kirchner and Gjorgjieva, 2021).”

Point 1.6. Line 268. How does the large variability in the size of the simulated arbors relate to the relatively consistent size of arbors of cortical cells of a given cell type? This variability suggests to me that these simulations could be sensitive to small changes in parameters (e.g. to the density or layout of presynapses).  

We again thank the reviewer for the detailed explanation and feedback on parameters that should be tested in more detail. We have explored several of the suggested model parameters and believe that we have managed to explain and illustrate their effects on the model's dynamics clearly. The precise changes are explained in the reply to point 1.1 and are now available in the revised version of the manuscript.

Point 1.7. The modeling of dendrites as two-dimensional will likely limit the usefulness of this model. Many phenomena- such as diffusion, random walks, topological properties, etc - fundamentally differ between two and three dimensions.  

Indeed, there are many differences between two and three dimensions. We have ongoing work that extends the current model to 3D but is beyond the scope of the current paper. In systems neuroscience, people have found very interesting results making such simplified geometric assumptions about networks, for instance the one-dimensional ring model has been used to uncover fundamental insights about computations even though highly simplified and abstracted. We are convinced that our model, especially with the new sensitivity analysis, makes interesting and novel contributions and predictions.

Point 1.8. The description of wiring lengths as 'approximately optimal' in this text is problematic. The plotted data show that the wiring lengths are several deviations away from optimal, and the random model is not a valid instantiation of the 2D non-overlapping constraints the authors imposed. A more appropriate null should be considered.  

We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback regarding the use of the term “approximately optimal” in describing wiring lengths. We acknowledge that our initial terminology was imprecise and could be misleading. We had previously referred to the minimal wiring length as the optimal wiring length, which does not fully capture the nuances of neuronal wiring optimization. As noted in prior literature, such as the work by Hermann Cuntz (Cuntz et al., 2010 & 2012), neurons can optimize their wiring beyond simply minimizing dendritic length.

To address this issue, to better capture the balance between wiring minimization and functional constraints, such as conduction delays, we have developed a new modeling approach based on minimum spanning trees with a balancing factor (Cuntz et al., 2010 & 2012). This factor modulates the trade-off between minimizing wiring length and accounting for conduction delays from synapses to the soma. Specifically, the model assumes a balance between minimizing the total dendritic length and minimizing the tree distance between synapses and the site of input integration, typically the soma. This balance is illustrated in Figure 8 (Figure 7 in the original manuscript), where we demonstrate that the deviation from the theoretical minimum length arises because direct paths to synapses often require longer dendrites in our models.

Together with the new result, which we added as the new panels f, g and h to Figure 8 (originally Figure 7), we also adjusted panel a of Figure 8, to now illustrate the difference between random wiring, minimal wiring and minimal conductance delay. The updated Figure 8 and its new findings are discussed in the results section of the revised manuscript:

p.17 line 387, “This deviation is expected given that real dendrites need to balance their growth processes between minimizing wire while reducing conduction delays. The interplay between these two factors emerges from the need to reduce conduction delays, which requires a direct path length from a given synapse to the soma, consequently increasing the total length of the dendritic cable. (Cuntz et al., 2010, 2012; Ferreira Castro et al., 2020).

To investigate this further, we compared the scaling relations of the final morphologies of our models with other synthetic dendritic morphologies generated using a previously described minimum spanning tree (MST) based model. The MST model balances the minimization of total dendritic length and the minimization of conduction delays between synapses and the soma. This balance results in deviations from the theoretical minimum length because direct paths to synapses often require longer dendrites (Cuntz et al., 2008, 2010). The balance in the model is modulated by a balancing factor (𝑏𝑓 ). If 𝑏𝑓 is zero, dendritic trees minimize the cable only, and if 𝑏𝑓 is one, they will try to minimize the conduction delays as much as possible. It is important to note that the MST model does not simulate the developmental process of dendritic growth; it is a phenomenological model designed to generate static morphologies that resemble real cells.

To facilitate the comparison of total lengths between our simulated and MST morphologies, we generated MST models under the same initial conditions (synaptic spatial distribution) as our models and simulated them to match several morphometrics (total length, number of terminals, and surface area) of our grown morphologies. This allowed us to create a corresponding MST tree for each of our synthetic trees. Consequently, we could evaluate whether the branching structures of our models were accurately predicted by minimum spanning trees based on optimal wiring constraints. We found that the best match occurred with a trade-off parameter 𝑏𝑓 = 0.9250 (Figure 8f). Using the morphologies generated by the MST model with the specified trade-off parameter (𝑏𝑓 ), we showed that the square root of the synapse count and the total length (𝐿) in both our model generated trees and the MST trees exhibit a linear scaling relationship (Figure 8g; 𝑅2 = 0.65). The same linear relationship can be observed for the square root of the surface area and the total length 𝐿 of our model trees and the MST trees (Figure 8h; 𝑅2 = 0.73). Overall, these results indicate that our model generate trees are wellfitted by the MST model and follow wire optimization constraints.

We acknowledge that the value of the balancing factor 𝑏𝑓 in our model is higher than the range of balancing factors that is typically observed in the biological dendritic counterparts, which generally ranges between 0.2 and 0.4 (Cuntz et al., 2012; Ferreira Castro et al., 2020; Baltruschat et al., 2020). However, it is still remarkable that our model, which does not explicitly address these two conservation laws, achieves approximately optimal wiring. Why do we observe such a high 𝑏𝑓 value? We reason that two factors may contribute to this. First, in our models, local branches grow directly to the nearest potential synapse, potentially taking longer routes instead of optimally branching to minimize wiring length (Wen and Chklovskii, 2008). Second, the growth process in our models does not explicitly address the tortuosity of the branches, which can increase the total length of the branches used to connect synapses. In the future, it will be interesting to add constraints that take these factors into account. Taken together, combining activity-independent and -dependent dendrite growth produces morphologies that approximate optimal wiring.”

Further details on the fitted MST model and the corresponding analysis were added to the methods section:

p.26 line 669, “Comparison with wiring optimization MST models. To evaluate the wire minimization properties of our model morphologies (n=288), we examined whether the number of connected synapses (N), total length (L), and surface area of the spanning field (S) conformed to the scaling law 𝐿 ≈ 𝜋−1/2 ⋅ 𝑆1/2 ⋅ 𝑁1/2 (Cuntz et al., 2012). Furthermore, to validate that our model dendritic morphologies scale according to optimal wiring principles, we created simplified models of dendritic trees using the MST algorithm with a balancing factor (bf). This balancing factor adjusts between minimizing the total dendritic length and minimizing the tree distance between synapses and the soma (Cost = 𝐿 + 𝑏𝑓 ⋅ 𝑃 𝐿) (MST_tree; best bf = 0.925) (Cuntz et al., 2010); TREES Toolbox http://www.treestoolbox.org).

Initially, we generated MSTs to connect the same distributed synapses as our models. We performed MST simulations that vary the balancing factor between 𝑏𝑓 = 0 and 𝑏𝑓 = 1 in steps of 0.025 while calculating the morphometric agreement by computing the error (Euclidean distance) between the morphologies of our models and those generated by the MST models. The morphometrics used were total length, number of terminals, and surface area occupied by the synthetic morphologies.”

Point 1.9. It's not clear to me what the authors are trying to convey by repeatedly labeling this model as 'mechanistic'. The mechanisms implemented in the model are inspired by biological phenomena, but the implementations have little resemblance to the underlying biophysical mechanisms. Overall my impression is that this is a phenomenological model intended to show under what conditions particular patterns are possible. Line 363, describing another model as computational but not mechanistic, was especially unclear to me in this context.  

What we mean by mechanistic is that we implement equations that model specific mechanisms i.e. we have a set of equations that implement the activity-independent attraction to potential synapses (with parameters such as the density of synapses, their spatial influence, etc) and the activitydependent refinement of synapses (with parameters such as the ratio of BDNF and proBDNF to induce potentiation vs depression, the activity-dependent conversion of one factor to the other, etc). This is a bottom-up approach where we combine multiple elements together to get to neuronal growth and synaptic organization. This approach is in stark contrast to the so-called top-down or normative approaches where the method would involve defining an objective function (e.g. minimal dendritic length) which depends on a set of parameters and then applying a gradient descent or other mathematical optimization technique to get at the parameters that optimize the objective function. This latter approach we would not call mechanistic because it involves an abstract objective function (who could say what a neuron or a circuit should be trying to optimize?) and a mathematical technique for how to optimize the function (we don’t know if neurons can compute gradients of abstract objective functions). 

Hence our model is mechanistic, but it does operate at a particular level of abstraction/simplification. We don’t model individual ion channels, or biophysics of synaptic plasticity (opening and closing of NMDA channels, accumulation of proteins at synapses, protein synthesis). We do, however, provide a biophysical implementation of the plasticity mechanism through the BDNF/proBDNF model which is more than most models of plasticity achieve, because they typically model a phenomenological STDP or Hebbian rule that just uses activity patterns to potentiate or depress synaptic weights, disregarding how it could be implemented. To the best of our understanding, this is what is normally considered mechanistic in the field (in contrast to, for example, biophysical).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review): 

This work combines a model of two-dimensional dendritic growth with attraction and stabilisation by synaptic activity. The authors find that constraining growth models with competition for synaptic inputs produces artificial dendrites that match some key features of real neurons both over development and in terms of final structure. In particular, incorporating distance-dependent competition between synapses of the same dendrite naturally produces distinct phases of dendritic growth (overshoot, pruning, and stabilisation) that are observed biologically and leads to local synaptic organisation with functional relevance. The approach is elegant and well-explained, but makes some significant modelling assumptions that might impact the biological relevance of the results. 

Strengths: 

The main strength of the work is the general concept of combining morphological models of growth with synaptic plasticity and stabilisation. This is an interesting way to bridge two distinct areas of neuroscience in a manner that leads to findings that could be significant for both. The modelling of both dendritic growth and distance-dependent synaptic competition is carefully done, constrained by reasonable biological mechanisms, and well-described in the text. The paper also links its findings, for example in terms of phases of dendritic growth or final morphological structure, to known data well. 

Weaknesses: 

The major weaknesses of the paper are the simplifying modelling assumptions that are likely to have an impact on the results. These assumptions are not discussed in enough detail in the current version of the paper. 

(1) Axonal dynamics. 

A major, and lightly acknowledged, assumption of this paper is that potential synapses, which must come from axons, are fixed in space. This is not realistic for many neural systems, as multiple undifferentiated neurites typically grow from the soma before an axon is specified (Polleux & Snider, 2010). Further, axons are also dynamic structures in early development and, at least in some systems, undergo activity-dependent morphological changes too (O'Leary, 1987; Hall 2000). This paper does not consider the implications of joint pre- and post-synaptic growth and stabilisation.  

We thank the reviewer for the summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the work. While we feel that including a full model of axonal dynamics is beyond the scope of the current manuscript, some aspects of axonal dynamics can be included and are now implemented and tested in the revised manuscript. Since this feedback covers similar aspects of the model that were also pointed out by reviewer #1, we refer here to our detailed reply to their comments 1.1 and 1.2, where we list and discuss all the analyses performed to address the raised issues.

(2) Activity correlations 

On a related note, the synapses in the manuscript display correlated activity, but there is no relationship between the distance between synapses and their correlation. In reality, nearby synapses are far more likely to share the same axon and so display correlated activity. If the input activity is spatially correlated and synaptic plasticity displays distance-dependent competition in the dendrites, there is likely to be a non-trivial interaction between these two features with a major impact on the organisation of synaptic contacts onto each neuron.  

We have explored the amount of correlation (between and within correlated groups) in the revised manuscript (see also our reply to reviewer comment 1.1).

However, previous experimental work, (e.g. Kleindienst et al., 2011) has provided anatomical and functional analyses that it is unlikely that the functional synaptic clustering on dendritic branches is the result of individual axons making more than one synapse (see pg. 1019).

(3) BDNF dynamics 

The models are quite sensitive to the ratio of BDNF to proBDNF (eg Figure 5c). This ratio is also activity-dependent as synaptic activation converts proBDNF into BDNF. The models assume a fixed ratio that is not affected by synaptic activity. There should at least be more justification for this assumption, as there is likely to be a positive feedback relationship between levels of BDNF and synaptic activation.  

The reviewer is correct. We used the BDNF-proBDNF model for synaptic plasticity based on our previous work (Kirchner and Gjorgjieva, 2021).  

There, we explored only the emergence of functionally clustered synapses on static dendrites which do not grow. In the Methods section (Parameters and data fitting) we justify the choice of the ratio of BDNF to proBDNF from published experimental work. We also performed sensitivity analysis (Supplementary Fig. 1) and perturbation simulations (Supplementary Fig. 3), which showed that the ratio is crucial in regulating the overall amount of potentiation and depression of synaptic efficacy, and therefore has a strong impact on the emergence and maintenance of synaptic organization. Since we already performed all this analysis, we expect that the same results will also apply to the current model which includes dendritic growth, as it involves the same activity-dependent mechanism.

A further weakness is in the discussion of how the final morphologies conform to principles of optimal wiring, which is quite imprecise. 'Optimal wiring' in the sense of dendrites and axons (Cajal, 1895; Chklovskii, 2004; Cuntz et al, 2007, Budd et al, 2010) is not usually synonymous with 'shortest wiring' as implied here. Instead, there is assumed to be a balance between minimising total dendritic length and minimising the tree distance (ie Figure 4c here) between synapses and the site of input integration, typically the soma. The level of this balance gives the deviation from the theoretical minimum length as direct paths to synapses typically require longer dendrites. In the model this is generated by the guidance of dendritic growth directly towards the synaptic targets. The interpretation of the deviation in this results section discussing optimal wiring, with hampered diffusion of signalling molecules, does not seem to be correct. 

We agree with this comment. We had wrongly used the term “optimal wiring” as neurons can optimize their wiring not only by minimizing their dendritic length but other factors as noted by the reviewer. In the revised manuscript we replaced the term “optimal wiring” with “minimal wiring” wherever it was incorrectly used. On top of that, we performed further analysis and discussed these differences, as pointed out in the reply to reviewer #1 point 1.8.

To summarize, we want to again thank the reviewer for their in-depth review and all the suggestions that helped us improve the analysis and implementation of our model.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review): 

The authors propose a mechanistic model of how the interplay between activity-independent growth and an activity-dependent synaptic strengthening/weaken model influences the dendrite shape, complexity and distribution of synapses. The authors focus on a model for stellate cells, which have multiple dendrites emerging from a soma. The activity independent component is provided by a random pool of presynaptic sites that represent potential synapses and that release a diffusible signal that promotes dendritic growth. Then a spontaneous activity pattern with some correlation structure is imposed at those presynaptic sites. The strength of these synapses follow a learning rule previously proposed by the lab: synapses strengthen when there is correlated firing across multiple sites, and synapses weaken if there is uncorrelated firing with the relative strength of these processes controlled by available levels of BDNF/proBDNF. Once a synapse is weakened below a threshold, the dendrite branch at that site retracts and loses its sensitivity to the growth signal 

The authors run the simulation and map out how dendrites and synapses evolve and stabilize. They show that dendritic trees growing rapidly and then stabilize by balancing growth and retraction (Figure 2). They also that there is an initial bout of synaptogenesis followed by loss of synapses, reflecting the longer amount of time it takes to weaken a synapse (Figure 3). They analyze how this evolution of dendrites and synapses depends on the correlated firing of synapses (i.e. defined as being in the same "activity group"). They show that in the stabilized phase, synapses that remain connected to a given dendritic branch are likely to be from same activity group (Figure 4). The authors systemically alter the learning rule by changing the available concentration of BDNF, which alters the relative amount of synaptic strengthening, which in turn affects stabilization, density of synapses and interestingly how selective for an activity group one dendrite is (Figure 5). In addition the authors look at how altering the activity-independent factors influences outgrowth (Figure 6). Finally, one of the interesting outcomes is that the resulting dendritic trees represent "optimal wiring" solutions in the sense that dendrites use the shortest distance given the distribution of synapses. They compare this distribute to one published data to see how the model compared to what has been observed experimentally.  

There are many strengths to this study. The consequence of adding the activity-dependent contribution to models of synapto- and dendritogenesis is novel. There is some exploration of parameters space with the motivation of keeping the parameters as well as the generated outcomes close to anatomical data of real dendrites. The paper is also scholarly in its comparison of this approach to previous generative models. This work represented an important advance to our understanding of how learning rules can contribute to dendrite morphogenesis.

We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of the work and the suggestions below.

To improve the clarity of the manuscript, we adjusted and fixed some figures and corresponding paragraphs as follows:

(1) We increased the number of ticks and their corresponding numbers in all the figures to make them easier to read and interpret.

(2) In Figure 3 panel d, showing the evolution of synaptic weight, we corrected the upper limit at the yaxis to 1 (from previously 2).

(3) Due to a typo in the implementation of the BDNF concentration, we had to correct the used BDNF concentrations from 49%, 45% and 40%, to 49%, 46.5% and 43% respectively.

(4) The y-axis labels of Figure 6 (old Figure 5) panel e and f were changed to make the plots clearer (e: “morphology change explained (%)” to "effect on morphology (%)", and f: “synapse connection explained (%)” to "effect on connected synapses (%)").

(5) The values for the eta and tau-w in the supplementary Table were corrected. Previously tau-w was falsely 6000 time steps which was corrected to 3000 time steps, and eta was 45% and is now 46.5%.

We believe that all the changes to the manuscript will address the reviewer’s concerns and enhance the clarity and accuracy of the findings described in the manuscript.

Author response:

We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments. We are working to revise our manuscript and address each of the reviewers comments. A summary of our planned revisions and responses to some of the reviewers’ major concerns are included below.

Cultivation Density: Reviewers #1 and #2 suggested that additional studies testing the effects of varying bacterial density during animal development (cultivation) would strengthen our findings. While we agree with the reviewers that this is a very interesting experiment, it is not feasible. Indeed, we attempted this experiment but found it nontrivial to maintain stable bacterial density conditions over long timescales as this requires matching the rate of bacterial growth with the rate of bacterial consumption. Despite our best efforts, we have not been able to identify conditions that satisfy these requirements. We will focus our revised manuscript to include only assertions about the effects of recent experiences.

Transfer Method: Reviewers #1 and #2 expressed concern that the stress of transferring animals to a new plate may have resulted in an increased arousal state and thus a greater probability of rejecting patches. We thank the reviewers for this thoughtful remark and plan to conduct additional analyses to address this hypothesis. We did, however, anticipate this possibility and, to mitigate the stress of moving, we used an agar plug method where animals were transferred using the flat surface of small cylinders of agar. Importantly, the use of agar as a medium to transfer animals provides minimal disruption to their environment as all physical properties (e.g. temperature, humidity, surface tension) are maintained. Qualitatively, we observe no marked change in behavior from before to after transfer with the agar plug method, especially as compared to the often drastic changes observed when using a metal or eyelash pick.

Time Parameter: Related to the transfer method, Reviewer #1 expressed concern that the simplest time parameter (time since start of the assay) might better predict animal behavior. We thank the reviewer for pointing out the need to specifically test whether the time-dependent change in explore-exploit decision-making corresponds better with satiety (time off patch) or arousal (time since transfer/start of assay) state. We will conduct additional analyses to address these alternative hypotheses.

Parameter Initialization: Reviewer #1 pointed out an oversight in our methods section regarding the model parameter values used for the first encounter. We plan to clarify the initialization of parameters in the manuscript. In short, for the first patch encounter where k = 1:

● ρk is the relative density of the first patch.

● τs is the duration of time spent off food since the beginning of the recorded experiment. For the first patch, this is equivalent to the total time elapsed.

● ρh is the approximated relative density of the bacterial patch on the acclimation plates (see Assay preparation and recording in Methods). Acclimation plates contained one large 200 µL patch seeded with OD600 = 1 and grown for a total of ~48 hours. As with all patches, the relative density was estimated from experiments using fluorescent bacteria OP50-GFP as described in Bacterial patch density estimation in Methods.

● ρe is equivalent to ρh.

Sensing vs. non-sensing: Reviewer #3 suggested that the term “non-sensing” may not be ethologically accurate. We thank the reviewer for their comment and agree that we do not know for certain whether the animals sensed these patches or were merely non-responsive to them. We are, however, confident that these encounters lack evidence of sensing. Specifically, we note that our analyses used to classify events as sensing or non-sensing examined whether an animal’s slow-down upon patch entry could be distinguished from either that of events where animals exploited or that of encounters with patches lacking bacteria. We found that  “non-sensing” encounters are indeed indistinguishable from encounters with bacteria-free patches where there are no bacteria to be sensed (see Figure 2 - Supplement 7C-D and Patch encounter classification as sensing or non-sensing in Methods). Regardless, we agree with the reviewer that all that can be asserted for certain about these events is that animals do not respond to the bacterial patch in any way that we measured. Therefore, we will replace the term “non-sensing” with “non-responding” to better indicate the ethological interpretation of these events.

Time-dependent changes in sensing vs. non-sensing: Reviewer #1 remarked that the sensation of dilute patches increases with time. We agree with the reviewer that we observe increased responsiveness to dilute patches with time. Although this is interesting, our primary focus was on what decision an animal made given that they clearly sensed the presence of the bacterial patch. Nonetheless, we will add this observation to the discussion as an area of future work to investigate the sensory mechanisms behind this effect.

Classification of sensing vs. non-sensing: Reviewers #2 and #3 expressed concerns about the validity of the two clusters identified using the semi-supervised QDA approach described. We are grateful to the reviewers for pointing out the difficulty in visualizing the clusters and the need for additional clarity in explaining the supervised labeling. We will use additional visualizations and methods to validate the clusters we have discovered. Specifically, we aim to provide additional evidence that the sensing vs. nonsensing data is bi-modal (i.e. a two-cluster classification method fits best). Further, it seems that there may be some confusion as to how we arrived at 3 encounter types (i.e. search, sample, exploit) that we plan to clarify in the manuscript. Specifically, it’s important to note that two methods were used on two different (albeit related) sets of parameters. We first used a two-cluster GMM to classify encounters as explore or exploit. We then used a two-cluster semi-supervised QDA to classify encounters as sensing or non-sensing (to be changed to “non-responding”, see above response) using a different set of parameters. We thus separated the explore cluster into two (sensing and non-sensing exploratory events) resulting in three total encounter types: exploit, sample (explore/sensing), and search (explore/non-sensing). We will clarify this in the text. Additionally, we will clarify the labelling used for “supervising” QDA. Specifically, we made two simple assumptions: 1) animals must have sensed the patch if they exploited it and 2) animals must not have sensed the patch if there were no bacteria to sense. Thus, we labeled encounters as sensing if they were found to be exploitatory as we assume that sensation is prerequisite to exploitation; and we labeled encounters as non-sensing for events where animals encountered patches lacking bacteria (OD600 = 0). All other points were non-labeled prior to learning the model. In this way, our labels were based on the experimental design and results of the GMM, an unsupervised method; rather than any expectations we had about what sensing should look like. The semi-supervised QDA method then used these initial labels to iteratively fit a paraboloid that best separated these clusters, by minimizing the posterior variance of classification.

Accept-reject vs. stay-switch: Reviewers #1 and #2 ask for additional discussion on how the accept-reject decision-making framework differs from the stay-switch framework. We thank the reviewers for alerting us to this gap in our discussion. We intend to clarify that these frameworks ask two different types of questions (i.e. “Do you want to eat it?” versus “If so, how long do you want to eat it for?”). These concepts are well described in canonical foraging theory literature (see Pyke, Pulliam & Charnov 1977 for a review on the subject) and are easily distinguishable for animals that forage using the following framework: 1) search for prey, 2) encounter prey from a distance, 3) identify prey type, 4) decide to pursue (accept-reject decision), 5) pursue and capture the prey, 6) exploit prey, and 7) decide to stop exploiting and start searching again (stay-switch decision). In this case, it is easy to see the distinction between accept-reject and stay-switch decisions. However, in some scenarios, animals must physically encounter prey prior to identification and then must make an accept-reject decision. In these cases where pursuit and capture are not visualized, it is harder to distinguish between accept-reject and stay-switch decisions. In our experiments, we find significant bimodality in encounter duration (see Figure 2H) where short duration (exploratory) encounters appear to represent a lower bound where animals spend the minimum amount of time possible on a patch (less than 2 minutes), which we interpret as a rejection of the patch. On the other hand, exploitatory encounters span a large range of durations from 2 to 60+ minutes which we interpret as an initial acceptance of the patch followed by a series of stay-switch decisions which determine the overall duration of the encounter. While one could certainly model our data using only stay-switch decision-making, we ascertain that an encounter of minimal duration is better interpreted ethologically as a rejection than as an immediate switch decision. We will revise the text to further extrapolate upon our point of view on this somewhat philosophical distinction and what it predicts about C. elegans behavior.

Sensory mutant behavior: Reviewers #1 and #3 ask for further speculation on the observed behavior of osm-6 and mec-4 animals. We will further elaborate on our findings, how they relate to previous studies, and what they suggest about the mechanisms behind these foraging decisions.

Model design: Reviewer #3 suggested several alterations to the behavioral model. While the proposed model seems entirely reasonable and could aid in elucidating the time component of how prior experience affects decision-making, we chose the present model based on our experience with model selection using these data. Indeed, as the reviewer suggested, we did a great number of analyses involving model selection including model selection criteria (AIC, BIC) and optimization with regularization techniques (LASSO and elastic nets). We found that the problem of model selection was compounded by the enormous array of highly correlated variables we had to choose from. Additionally, we found that both interaction terms and non-linear terms of our task variables could be predictive of accept-reject decisions but that the precise set of terms selected depended sensitively on which model selection technique was used and generally made rather small contributions to prediction. The diverse array of results and combinatorial number of predictors to possibly include failed to add anything of interpretable value. We therefore chose to take a different approach to this problem. Rather than trying to determine what the “best” model was we instead asked whether a minimal model could be used to answer a set of core questions. Indeed, our goal was not maximal predictive performance but rather to distinguish between the effects of different influences enough to determine if encounter history had a significant, independent effect on decision making. We thus chose to only include task variables that spanned the most basic components of behavioral mechanisms to ask very specific questions. For example, we selected a time variable that we thought best encapsulated satiety. While we could have included many additional terms, or made different choices about which terms to include, based on our analyses these choices would not have qualitatively changed our results. Further, we sought to validate the parameters we chose with additional studies (i.e. food-deprived and sensory mutant animals). We regard our study as an initial foray into demonstrating accept-reject decision-making in nematodes. The exact mechanisms and, consequently, the best model design is therefore beyond the scope of this study. Lastly, Reviewer #3 criticized the use of only sensed patches in the model. While we acknowledge that we are not certain as to whether the “non-sensing” encounters are truly not sensed, we find qualitatively similar results when including all exploratory patches in our analyses. In fact, when all encounters are used, we find stronger correlations between our task variables and the accept-reject decision. However, we take the position that sensation is necessary for decision-making and thus believe that while our model’s predictive performance may be better using all encounters, the interpretation of our findings is stronger when we only include sensing events.

Author response:

First of all, I'd like to express my heartfelt thanks to you for your meticulous and professional review comments. Your feedback is very important to our work. It not only helps us identify the shortcomings in the paper, but also provides valuable guidance for improving the quality of the paper.

We carefully read every suggestion you made and were deeply inspired. Please rest assured that we will carefully consider and revise each opinion to ensure that our research work is more rigorous and clear. We promise to revise the manuscript accordingly to meet the standards of the journal and enhance the credibility and influence of the research.

The main modifications include the experiment of A Mid1 supplementation experiment in Mid1 knockout micesupplementing Mid1 in Mid1 knockout mice; Detection of kinases such as CaMKII, PKA and ERK1/2; Supplementary references; Supplement the behavioral experiment of new object recognition; Electrophysiological measurement experiment of supplementing LTP; Supplementary neuron-specific immunohistochemical staining experiment; Supplementing the information of knockout mice used in the study; Modify the language expression of the article and the problem of too few pictures.

Thank you again for your valuable time and professional advice. We look forward to submitting the revised manuscript to you for further review.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Cesar, Santos & Cogni use a meta-analysis to report on the direction and magnitude of three fundamental fitness components in defensive symbioses. Specifically, the work focuses on interactions between three arthropod host families (Aphididae, Culicidae, Drosophilidae, and others) and common bacterial endosymbionts (Wolbachia, Serratia, Hamiltonella, Spiroplasma, Rickettsia, Regiella X-type and Arsenophonus). The results of the overall analysis confirm common assumptions and previous work on such fitness components, showing that defensive symbionts provide strong protection to hosts and cause detectable costs to both hosts and the enemy. The analysis provides insight into the extent of the cost/benefit tradeoff for hosts, reporting that the cost is six times lower than the protective effect. The confirmation that natural enemies attacking hosts infected with symbionts have a reduction in their fitness is also an interesting one, as this shows that the majority of defensive symbionts provide protection by resisting enemy infection, as opposed to tolerating it. This finding has important consequences for evolutionary counter-responses in the enemy species. Of course, this result has less relevance for certain types of enemies (such as parasitoids) where successful infection is dependent upon host killing.

Interesting results also emerge from the subgroup analysis. For the full dataset, both natural and introduced symbionts were similarly effective in positively influencing the fitness of hosts. However, in the Wolbachia-specific analysis, the artificially introduced symbionts caused costs to the hosts where the natural strain did not. These findings have potentially important ramifications for schemes that use endosymbionts for biocontrol or vector competence, suggesting that (in some cases) natural strains may be the more stable choice for deploying (as they are associated with lower costs).

The analysis draws from an impressively large dataset, but the interpretation of the full impact of the results would be helped by greater detail on the species/strain level systems included, the data extraction approach, and inclusion criteria. Accounting for phylogenetic nonindependence and alternative coding of one of the moderator variables could also strengthen the biological relevance of the models. Suggestions and thoughts are outlined below.

We sincerely thank Reviewer #1 for the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. The suggestions provided are highly constructive and will greatly assist us in improving both our analyses and the manuscript overall.

Strengths & Potential Improvements:

An impressively large number of effect sizes (3000) from only 226 studies is collected, robustly confirming common assumptions on the magnitude of fundamental fitness components. However the paper would benefit from a clear breakdown in the main text of the specificities of each system included (e.g. a table at the host species/symbiont strain level, where it is possible). Currently, there is not enough detail for those who want a deep dive to understand what data was extracted for the analysis from these 226 studies, or those who want to understand the underlying diversity in the dataset.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion, and we will add this information to our revised manuscript.

Currently, when the 'natural enemy group' is tested as a moderator it is coded broadly by type of organism (e.g. virus, bacterium, fungi, parasitoid). But this doesn't adequately capture the mode of killing/fitness reduction by the enemy, which would be the much more biologically relevant categorisation for your questions. For example, parasitoid infection is dependent upon host death (thus host fecundity is not relevant, because the host either survived or did not). Among bacterial and viral pathogens antagonists there is scope for both fecundity and survival to be affected. This in turn may be a very influential factor for the outcome. You could consider recoding this enemy moderator.

We agree, and we will implement this in the analysis to our revised manuscript.

The analysis is restricted to arthropod hosts and defensive symbionts that are also classed as endosymbionts. This focus should be made clear early on in the paper, as there are many systems (that are classed by many as defensive symbioses) that are not part of the analysis.

We agree, and we will implement this to our revised manuscript.

There is fairly minimalistic testing of moderators/sub-groups (which probably has its statistical strengths) but perhaps there are also some missed opportunities for testing other ecological contributors to variance, including coinfection (although perhaps limited by power) and other approaches to coding enemy group (as detail above).

We agree, and we will implement this in the analysis to our revised manuscript.

Looking at the overview of systems included, there's likely a high degree of phylogenetic non-independence in the dataset. Where it is possible, using phylogenetically controlled models could strengthen this analysis.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We will explore the possibility of using phylogenetically controlled models in our analyses, although we recognize the challenges associated with their implementation, particularly in the case of the natural enemies, given the great diversity of distant related groups included in our study - viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoans, nematodes and parasitoids wasps.

Looking at your included systems (Table S5), you might be able to test the effect of coinfection on the 3 variables of interest. For example, it would be particularly important to see if the effects of two symbionts are additive or not.

We agree, and we will implement this in the analysis to our revised manuscript.

No code for the analysis is provided for review at this stage and full details of the dataset are also not available. This slightly limits the ability to assess the full scope and robustness of the study. It would be helpful to have an extensive table in the supplementary detailing (minimum) the reference, study, experiment, host species, symbiont strain, and a description of the exact data extraction source (e.g.table/figure/in text), and method of extraction.

The code for the analysis and the full raw data with the suggested information are available at https://github.com/cassiasqr/MetaSymbiont (The link is available at the end of the manuscript).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this exciting study, Cesar and co-authors perform a meta-analysis on the influence of arthropod symbionts on the fitness of their hosts when they are exposed or not to natural enemies. These so-called defensive symbionts are increasingly recognized as key elements in arthropod survival against natural enemies, with effects that ripple through entire terrestrial ecosystems. The topic is timely, the approach is sound, and the manuscript is well-written. I believe this manuscript will attract the attention of entomologists and of microbiologists interested in symbiosis. This study builds on a previous meta-analysis that I was involved in, which was based on phloem-feeding insects. This novel data set is much larger and includes flies (including the model system Drosophila) and mosquitoes (a group of high medical interest). While the previous metaanalysis considered only parasitoids as natural enemies, this study also includes fungi, bacteria, and viruses.

Strengths:

The authors compile a very large dataset and provide a broad quantitative overview of the effects of defensive symbionts in insects. By measuring symbiont effects in the presence and absence of natural enemies, the authors are able to infer whether a trade-off between defense and the costs of mutualism in the absence of enemy pressure exists. Defensive symbioses are an important research topic that had its initial "momentum" a decade ago, so the timing for such a systematic review is very appropriate.

We sincerely thank Reviewer #2 for dedicating their time and effort to reviewing our manuscript. The suggestions are very insightful and will significantly contribute to improving our manuscript.

Weaknesses:

I think the manuscript could be improved by clarifying several sections, particularly the introduction and methods. The introduction section is too specific and heavily reliant on particular examples. In my view, the theoretical background of the study could be made clearer, and the knowledge gap identified more explicitly. A focus on how widespread defensive symbioses are, along with a brief, up-to-date review of the groups possessing such symbionts, would help. This lack of focus is also observed in the methods section, where more details are needed in many instances to better understand how data was collected and analyzed. Regarding the analyses, the multi-level analysis contains many moderators, but it's unclear why these moderators were included. While this may seem a minor issue, it highlights a disconnection between the analyses, the conceptual background, and the hypotheses tested. 

We thank the reviewer for the suggestions, and we will try to make the introduction and the methods section clearer. 

Another important weakness is that the analyses are too general, and much-hidden information is not immediately apparent. For instance, readers cannot easily identify which species of symbionts are studied (and the effects they have), or which natural enemies are involved. Although this information is found in the supplementary material, including it in the main body would significantly improve the manuscript.

We agree, and we will implement this to our   revised manuscript.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

(1) The technology requires a halo-tagged derivation of the active compound, and the linked position will have a huge impact on the potential "target hits" of the molecules. Given the fact that most of the active molecules lack of structure-activity relationship information, it is very challenging to identify the optimal position of the halo tag linkage.

We appreciate your insightful comment. While finding the optimal position to attach a chemical linker to a small molecule of interest is indeed a challenging but necessary step, this is a common difficulty across all target-ID methods, except for those that are modification-free, as we described in Discussion. However, modification-free approaches such as DARTS, CETSA, and TPP have their own limitations, such as low sensitivity and a high false-positive rate. Additionally, DARTS and SPROX are limited to use with cell lysates. Please refer to the introduction in our manuscript for more details on these approaches. On the other hand, synthesizing HTL derivatives is relatively straightforward compared to other modifications, and we provide helpful guidelines for chemical linker design, provided the optimal chemical moiety has been identified, which is crucial for target identification. We selected dasatinib and HCQ/CQ as model compounds because previous studies offered insights into their derivative synthesis. Our data also show that DH5 retains strong kinase inhibitory activity (Figure 4—figure supplement 2), and DC661-H1 demonstrates potent inhibition of autophagy (Figure 6—figure supplement 1). For novel compounds, conducting a thorough structure-activity relationship (SAR) study is essential to determine the optimal position for HTL derivative synthesis.

(2) Although POST-IT works in zebrafish embryos, there is still a long way to go for the broad application of the technology in other animal models.

Thank you for your constructive comment. Yes, there is still a long way to go in developing the POST-IT system for broader applications in other animal models, especially in mice. However, we hope that our study provides valuable insights and inspiration to scientists and experts for applying the POST-IT system in various models. We are also committed to further improving its applicability.

(3) The authors identified SEPHS2 as a new potential target of dasatinib and further validated the direct binding of dasatinib with this protein. However, considering the super strong activity of dasatinib against c-Src (sub nanomolar IC50 value), it is hard to conclude the contribution of SEPHS2 binding (micromolar potency) to its antitumor activity.

Thank you for your insightful comment. We agree that the anticancer activity of dasatinib primarily results from inhibiting tyrosine kinases such as SRC and ABL. However, SEPHS2 contains an “opal" termination codon, UGA, at the 60th amino acid residue, which codes for selenocysteine. Due to the technical challenge of expressing selenoproteins in E. coli, we mutated it to cysteine for expression in E. coli to avoid premature translation termination, as described in the Materials and Methods section. Although the purified recombinant SEPHS2 shows a Kd of about 10 µM for dasatinib, the binding affinity to endogenous SEPHS2 may be higher since selenocysteine is larger and more electronegative than cysteine. This presents an interesting area for future investigation. Furthermore, our study of dasatinib’s binding to SEPHS2 could help facilitate the development of new SEPHS2 inhibitors, potentially targeting the active site of SEPHS2.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

(1) Target Specificity: It is crucial for the authors to differentiate between the primary targets of the POST-IT system and those identified as side effects. This distinction is essential for assessing the specificity and utility of the technology.

Thank you for your insightful comment. Drugs inevitably bind to various proteins with differing affinities, which can contribute to both side effects and beneficial outcomes. Typically, the primary targets exhibit high affinities. In this manuscript, we ranked the identified protein targets of DH5 based on affinity from mass spectrometry and p-values (Fig. 5A), and for DC661-H1, we used the SILAC ratio (Fig. 6A). We also individually assessed many drug-protein binding affinities using the MST assay, as well as in vitro and in cellulo assays, demonstrating their specificity. Moreover, we believe it is essential to identify as many protein targets as possible at physiological drug concentrations to better understand the drug’s side effects. Of course, further investigation is required to assess the roles and effects of these target proteins.

(2) In Vivo Target Identification: The manuscript lacks detailed clarity on which specific targets were successfully identified in the in vivo experiments. Expanding on this information would provide a clearer view of the system's effectiveness and scope in complex biological settings.

Thank you for your insightful comment regarding in vivo target identification. In this manuscript, we utilized a cell line as the primary method for in vivo target identification and validation after optimizing our system in test tubes. We successfully validated many of the targets identified using our POST-IT system (Figure 6—figure supplement 3). To demonstrate the proof of principle for in vivo application, we employed zebrafish embryos as an in vivo model, showing that endogenous SRC can be effectively pulled down by DH5 treatment (Fig. 7). While we could have explored the entire proteome to identify endogenous target proteins in zebrafish that bind to DH5 or dasatinib, we felt this would extend beyond our original scope, given that we have already demonstrated POST-IT’s ability to identify target proteins for dasatinib. Specific target identification and validation are crucial when using zebrafish for drug discovery. Additionally, we acknowledge that drugs likely interact with a range of protein targets in living organisms and may undergo metabolism and interactions within the circulatory system, which we address in our discussion.

(3) Reproducibility and Scalability: Discussion on the reproducibility of the POST-IT system across various experimental setups and biological models, as well as its scalability for larger-scale drug discovery programs, would be beneficial.

Thank you for the suggestion. While our system has shown  high reproducibility in our experiments, further improving both reproducibility and scalability would be advantageous. One potential approach to address this is through the generation of stable-expressing cell lines and transgenic zebrafish lines, which we have discussed in the revised manuscript. Establishing stable cell lines with robust POST-IT expression could enhance scalability for drug discovery applications.

(4) Quantitative Analysis: A more detailed quantitative analysis of the protein interactions identified by POST-IT, including statistical significance and comparative data against other technologies, would enhance the manuscript.

Thank you for your suggestion. In our assessment of drug-protein affinity, we included Kd values as quantitative measures using MST assays. The protein targets of dasatinib identified through mass spectrometry are also accompanied by p-values for quantitative analysis (Fig. 5A), and the detailed procedures are described in the Material and methods section. While it is challenging to provide direct comparative data against other technologies, our system successfully identified many known target proteins for dasatinib, as well as SEPHS2 and VPS37C as new targets for dasatinib and for HCQ/CQ, respectively, which were not detected by other methods.

(5) Technological Limitations: The authors should discuss any limitations or potential pitfalls of the POST-IT system, which would be crucial for future users and for guiding subsequent improvements.

Thank you for your insightful suggestion We agree that clearly defining the technological limitations is important. Therefore, we have expanded our original discussion on the limitations of our POST-IT system (Discussion section, paragraph 6).

(6) Long-Term Stability and Activity: Information on the long-term stability and activity of the POST-IT components in different biological environments would ensure the reliability of the system in prolonged experiments.

Yes, this is an important question. We did not notice any stability or toxicity issues with Halo-PafA and Pup substrates in HEK293T cells or zebrafish, which is an important factor for stable cell lines and transgenic zebrafish lines. However, HTL derivatives of the drug could be toxic or unstable due to the nature of the drug or its metabolism, which needs to be taken into account when designing experiments, and we have included this in the Discussion.

(7) Comparison with Existing Technologies: A detailed comparison with existing proximity tagging and target identification technologies would help position POST-IT within the current landscape, highlighting its unique advantages and potential drawbacks.

We appreciate your valuable feedback and agree that such comparisons are crucial. We have included a detailed overview and comparison of existing proximity-tagging systems and their related target identification technologies in the Introduction (lines 78-100) and Discussion (lines 391-412), highlighting their respective pros and cons. Additionally, we have expanded the discussion to further compare these technologies with our POST-IT system, addressing its advantages and limitations (lines 378-390, lines 448-467). We hope this provides sufficient context and information to effectively position POST-IT among the landscape of proximity-tagging target identification technologies.

(8) Concerns Regarding Overexposed Bands: Several figures in the manuscript, specifically Figure 3A, 3B, 3C, 3F, 3G, Figure 4D, and the second panels in Figure 7C as well as some figures in the supplementary file, exhibit overexposed bands.

We appreciate your astute observation regarding the overexposed bands and apologize for any confusion. The “overexposed” bands represent the unpupylated proteins, while the bands above them correspond to the pupylated proteins. We intended to clearly show both pupylated and unpupylated bands, although the latter are generally much weaker. We are currently working on further improving our POST-IT system to enhance pupylation efficiency.

(9) Innovation Concern: There is a previous paper describing a similar approach: Liu Q, Zheng J, Sun W, Huo Y, Zhang L, Hao P, Wang H, Zhuang M. A proximity-tagging system to identify membrane protein-protein interactions. Nat Methods. 2018 Sep;15(9):715-722. doi: 10.1038/s41592-018-0100-5. Epub 2018 Aug 13. PMID: 30104635. It is crucial to explicitly address the novel aspects of POST-IT in contrast to this earlier work.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Proximity-tagging systems like BioID, TurboID, NEDDylator, and PafA (Lui Q et al., Nat Methods 2018) were initially developed to study protein-protein interactions or identify protein interactomes, as these applications are of broader interest and generally easier to implement. However, applying proximity-tagging systems for small molecule target identification requires significant optimization. As described in the introduction (lines 78-100), target protein identification systems have since been developed using TurboID and NEDDylator (Tao AJ et al., Nat Commun 2023; Hill ZB et al., J Am Chem Soc 2016). It is conceivable that a PafA-based proximity-tagging system could also be adapted for target-ID, and other groups may pursue this approach in the future. Although the PafA-Pup system shows great promise for target-ID applications, extensive optimization was needed to enable its use for this purpose. Finally, we demonstrate that POST-IT offers distinct advantages over other proximity-tagging-based target-ID systems. For more details, please refer to the introduction and discussion sections.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Figure 1- Figure Supplement 1A: The Pup substrate "HB-Pup" is mentioned, but the main text or figure legend provides no introduction or description.

We appreciate your astute observation. We have added a description in the main text and figure legend as follows: “…and used HB-Pup as a control, which contains 6´His and BCCP at the N terminus of Pup” in the main text (line 142) and “HB, TS, and SBP refer to 6´His and BCCP, twin-STII (Strep-tag II), and streptavidin binding peptide, respectively.” in the Figure 1-figure supplement 1A.

(2) Figure 1 - Figure Supplement 3B: The authors used TS-sPupK61R as a substrate but did not explain why. The main text mentions that mutating sPup alone did not affect polypupylation, raising the question of why TS-sPupK61R was used in this figure. Furthermore, while the authors state that polypupylation becomes evident after 1 hour of incubation (more pronounced after 2 or 3 hours), the reactions here were conducted for only 30 minutes.

Thank you for your question. Figure 1 - Figure Supplement 3B was conducted to test self-pupylation levels in the different Halo-PafA derivatives. For this purpose, we could use any Pup substrate such as SBP-sPup and SBPK4R-sPupK61R, instead of Ts-sPup and TS-sPupK61R, as they do not show any differences in pupylation activity. We chose Ts-sPup and TS-sPupK61R simply because any Pup substrates could be used for this purpose. Similarly, we did not need to incubate the reaction for a longer time to detect polypupylation, as our intention was to test “self-pupylation”. We demonstrated in Figure 1 – figure supplement 2 that polypupylation is dependent on the number or position of lysine residues in Pup substrate or tags. The results clearly showed that self-pupylation was almost completely abolished by the Halo8KR mutation. To clarify this, we added the following description in lines 168-169: “Ts-sPup and TS-sPupK61R were chosen as sPup substrates for this experiment, although any Pup substrates could have been used. The levels of self-pupylation were assessed.”

(3) Line 156: The statement that "the TS-tag completely abolished polypupylation in TS-sPup" is inaccurate. Using TSK8R-sPupK61R as the substrate, several bands appear, which likely represent Halo-PafA with varying degrees of polypupylation. Some bands also appear to correspond to those seen when using TS-sPup as a substrate. The authors should clarify how they distinguish between multipupylation and polypupylation in this case.

We sincerely appreciate your insight into clarifying the distinction between multipupylation and polypupylation. Polypupylation refers to the addition of a new Pup onto a previously linked Pup on the target protein, akin to polyubiquitination. In contrast, multipupylation involves multiple single pupylations at different positions on the target proteins. Since pupylation occurs exclusively at lysine residues in tag-Pup substrates, mutating all lysine residues to arginine, as in TSK48R-sPupK61R, prevents the mutant tag-Pup from linking to another Pup. This means that only single pupylation can proceed with this type of mutant Pup substrate. If multiple pupylated bands are observed with this mutant substrate, it indicates “multipupylation” rather than “polypupylation”, as shown in Figure 1-figure supplement 2D. The same applies to the pupylation bands in Figure 1-figure supplement 2E and F, as sSBP-sPupK61R and SBPK4R-sPupK61R lack lysine residues. By comparing these multipupylation bands, it is also possible to distinguish them from polypupylation bands, which are marked by yellow arrows. However, after 2-3 pupylation bands, higher-order bands become increasingly difficult to distinguish.

To clarify the mutation in the TS-tag, we revised the sentence in line 156 from “However, further mutations within the TS-tag completely abolished polypupylation in TS-sPup” to “However, further mutations of two lysine residues within the TS-tag, creating TSK8R-sPupK61R, completely abolished polypupylation in TS-sPup”. Additionally, we have inserted sentences in line 152 to define polypupylation and multipupylation, as described here.

(4) Line 160: Similar to the above concern about line 156, the claim that SBPK4R and sSBP completely prevented polypupylation is unconvincing and requires more supporting evidence.

Thank you for raising this concern. As mentioned above, both SBPK4R and sSBP lack lysine residues required for pupylation. As a result, these mutants can only undergo multiple single pupylations on the lysine residues of the target protein, which leads to “multipupylation”. In Figure 1-figure supplement 2E and F, pupylation bands by sSBP-sPupK61R or SBPK4R-sPupK61R do not display doublet bands (one from multipupylation and the other from polypupylation), as seen with SBP-sPup, marked by yellow arrows. Notably, Halo-PafA containing polypupylated branches migrates more slowly than one with an equal number of multipupylation events. To clarify this point, we have added the phrase “as shown in sSBP-sPupK61R and SBP4KR-sPupK61R” at the end of the sentence in line 160.

(5) Lines 176-177: The authors claim that PafAS126A exhibited reduced polypupylation compared to PafA, but given that PafAS126A may reduce depupylase activity, how could it reduce polypupylation levels? Moreover, it is hard to find any data supporting this conclusion in Figure 1 - Figure Supplement 3B.

We appreciate your insightful comment. At this point, we do not fully understand how the mutation that reduces depupylase activity also decreases polypupylation. It is possible that PafAS126A has a lower preference for pupylated Pup as a prey, which is required for polypupylation, since depupylase activity depends on recognizing pupylated Pup as a prey to remove it. Nonetheless, Halo-PafAS126A shows reduced levels of higher molecular weight bands compared to Halo-PafA, as shown in Figure 1-figure supplement 3B, while exhibiting increased pupylation in lower molecular weight bands, which represent either multipupylation or low-degree polypupylation. Since higher molecular weight bands (> 150 kD) are likely due to polypupylation, this result suggests reduced polypupylation and increased multipupylation in Halo-PafAS126A. To clarify this in the main text, we have added the following description in line 177: “as evidenced by the decreased levels of high molecular weight bands and an increase in low molecular weight bands”

(6) POST-IT system in cellulo validation: The system was developed using the Halo-tag, yet the in-cell validation uses FRB and FKBP instead, without explaining this switch. This inconsistency makes the logic of the experiment unclear.

We appreciate your insightful comment. The interaction between rapamycin and FRB or FKBP is known to be highly specific and robust, making this system useful in various biological contexts. Due to this property, rapamycin can induce interaction between two proteins when one is fused with FRB and the other with FKBP. Before testing or optimizing the POST-IT system in cells, we hypothesized that using the rapamycin-induced interaction between FRB and FKBP could introduce pupylation of the target protein, provided that PafA is fused with FRB or FKBP and the target protein is fused with the other. The results demonstrate that PafA can introduce pupylation of the target protein in a proximity-dependent manner via this chemically induced interaction. To further clarify this in the main text, we modified the original sentence in lines 214-216 as follows: “To mimic drug-target interaction-induced pupylation in live cells and assess the potential of PafA as a proximity-tagging system for target-ID, we incorporated the rapamycin-induced interaction between FRB and FKBP into our PL system, as this interaction between a small molecule and a protein is known to be highly specific and robust (Figure 3—figure supplement 1A).”

(7) Line 209: The authors decided to use the SBP-tag for further studies due to better performance, but in Figure 3 - Figure supplement 1, they still used the unintroduced HB-Pup as the substrate, which is confusing and lacks explanation.

Thank you for raising your question. The SBP-tag is not superior to the TS-tag in terms of pupylation activity. However, the TSK8R mutant cannot bind to Strep-Tactin beads, while the SBP mutants, SBPK4R and sSBP, can bind to streptavidin. Therefore, we chose the SBP-tag instead of the TS-tag for further studies as a Pup substrate in POST-IT system, as we needed to pull down the target proteins. HB-Pup is consistently used as a control throughout various experiments, as it is the original Pup substrate. In Figure 3-figure supplement 1B and C, HB-Pup was used to test chemically induced pupylation by PafA. In these cases, it was not so critical which Pup substrate was chosen. Furthermore, we compared HB-Pup and different SBP-sPup substrates in Figure 3-figure supplement 1D, where HB-Pup was used as a control or for comparison. Although pupylation bands with HB-Pup appear more robust, this substrate contains multiple lysine residues, leading to high levels of polypupylation. To make it clear, we modified the sentence in line 209 to “Therefore, we decided to use the SBP-tag as a Pup substrate in the POST-IT system for further studies.”.

(8) Line 220: Both SBP-sPup and SBPK4R-sPupK61R are described as exhibiting efficient pupylation, but the data show mostly self-pupylation and little to no pupylation of the target protein.

Thank you for your concern. However, pupylation of the target protein is actually quite substantial, as the intensities of the free form and pupylated proteins are relatively similar, as shown in the upper panel of Figure 3-figure supplement 1D. Self-pupylation is always much higher than target pupylation, because PafA constantly pupylates itself, whereas pupylation of the target protein occurs only through interaction. Furthermore, V5-FRB-mKate2-PafA contains many lysine residues, which increases the levels of self-pupylation.

(9) Lines 222-224: The authors chose SBPK4R-sPupK61R to avoid polypupylation, although SBP-sPup did not cause detectable polypupylation. Neither substrate caused pupylation of the target protein, so the rationale behind this choice is unclear.

Thank you for raising your question. Similar to the above comment (#8), please refer to the pupylation bands of the target protein, as shown in the upper panel of Figure 3-figure supplement 1D. The pupylation band of the target protein is quite remarkable, as the intensities of the free form and pupylated proteins are comparable. Additionally, there are no multiple pupylation bands in either case, except for one additional weak multipupylation band, indicating no polypupylation by SBP-sPup, which does not have K-to-R mutations. Of course, SBPK4R-sPupK61R can only undergo single pupylation, as it does not contain lysine residues. Although we did not observe polypupylation by SBP-sPup in this experimental condition, it is possible that SBP-sPup may cause polypupylation under different experimental conditions or with other target proteins. Since SBPK4R-sPupK61R exhibits comparable pupylation of the target protein at least in this experiment setting as SBP-sPup, we selected SBPK4R-sPupK61R as the Pup substrate for POST-IT system to avoid any potential polypupylation that could be caused by SBP-sPup in other cases. We believe that polypupylation can introduce bias into the analysis and hinder the comprehensive discovery of additional target proteins for small molecules.

(10) Line 224: The authors conclude that rapamycin greatly reduced self-pupylation, but the supporting data are unclear.

Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript. Please refer to the lower panel of Figure 3-figure supplement 1D. When using either SBPK4R-sPupK61R or SBP-sPup, rapamycin treatment results in reduced levels of self-pupylation compared to the no-treatment control. However, we did not observe this reduction with HB-Pup and do not know the reason. To clarify this in the main text, we added the following description to the end of the sentence: “when using either SBPK4R-sPupK61R or SBP-sPup, as shown in the lower panel of Figure 3—figure supplement 1D”

(11) Line 234: The authors selected an 18-amino acid linker, but given that linkers longer than 10 amino acids enhance labeling, this choice should be explained.

Thank you for raising your question. In fact, a linker of 10 amino acids (aa) or longer is likely to behave similarly. We chose an 18 aa linker instead of a 40 aa linker primarily for the convenience of cloning and to reduce the potential for DNA sequence recombination associated with longer repeats. Additionally, a longer, flexible linker may behave like an intrinsically disordered protein (Harmon et al., 2017), which can lead to unwanted protein-protein interactions or phase separation. To elaborate on this, we added the following sentences after the sentence in line 233-235: “We chose the 18-amino acid linker instead of the 40-amino acid linker for easier cloning and to lower the risk of DNA recombination from longer repeats. Additionally, a longer, flexible linker may behave like an intrinsically disordered protein (Harmon et al., 2017), an unwanted feature for target-ID.”

(12) S126A and K172R mutations: The authors claim that these mutations additively enhanced pupylation under cellular conditions, but in Figure 3B, the band intensities appear similar for the wild-type and mutant versions.

Thank you for raising your concern. Although a single pupylation band appears similar among the three different Halo-PafA proteins, multipupylation bands are slightly but noticeably increased by the S126A and K172R mutations compared to Halo8KR-PafA. Since we used SBPK4R-sPupK61R as a Pup substrate, all higher molecular weight bands result from multipupylation rather than polypupylation. This illustrates why it is preferable to use SBPK4R-sPupK61R over SBP-sPup, as the pupylation bands with SBP-sPup are mixtures of poly- and multipupylation, making it difficult to assess levels of target labeling. To clarify this in the main text, we added the following description after the sentence in line 236: “as the higher molecular weight multipupylation bands are slightly but noticeably increased with these mutations compared to Halo8KR-PafA”

(13) Line 263: The authors selected DH5 for further experiments due to its efficiency, but the data suggest that the performance of DH1 to DH5 is similar.

We appreciate your question about the different dasatinib HTL derivatives. However, our data clearly show that DH2-5 derivatives bind significantly more effectively to Halo-PafA in vitro and in live cells compared to DH1 (Figure 4A and B). Additionally, the DH2-5 derivatives result in dramatically increased pupylation of the target protein in vitro and noticeable enhancement in live cells (Figure 4C and D). Among DH2 to DH5, there is no obvious difference in binding to Halo-PafA or pupylation of the target protein. Therefore, we chose DH5, as we believe that the longer linker in DH5 may facilitate the binding of a more diverse range of target proteins to dasatinib, enabling the discovery of additional target proteins.

(14) Line 309: The authors introduce HCQ and CQ as important drugs but then investigate the mechanism using DC661 without introducing or justifying the choice of this compound.

Thank you for your point. We explained the reason to choose DC661, a dimer form of CQ, instead of CQ for the synthesis of an HTL derivative in line 310. “assuming that a dimer would enhance binding affinity as previously described.” As the dimer forms of a drug or a small molecule such as testosterone dimers, estrogen dimers, and numerous anticancer drug dimers have been often developed to enhance drug effects (Paquin A et., Molecules 2021). Similarly, dimer forms of HCQ/CQ have been introduced and shown to be more potent (Hrycyna CA et al., ACS Chem Biol 2014; Rebecca VW et al., Cancer Discovery 2019). We expected that using a dimer form might offer higher probability to identify target proteins for HCQ/CQ.

(15) The authors suggest that multipupylation levels were enhanced but do not explain whether this might benefit the system or introduce other issues. Clarifying this point would provide valuable insight for potential users of this system.

Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. Polypupylation likely leads to biased enrichment of a limited set of target proteins, and its levels may not correlate with the binding affinity of target proteins to the small molecule of interest, features that can negatively impact target-ID. In contrast, multipupylation may be correlated with binding affinity or interaction frequency, as we observed increased levels of multipupylation with higher Pup concentrations and longer incubation times. This suggests that target proteins with multiple lysines in proximity to PafA can be sequentially pupylated, starting with the most accessible lysine. However, if a target protein has only one accessible lysine, pupylation will occur only once, regardless of the protein’s affinity to the small molecule. In summary, while polypupylation may be a drawback for target-ID, multipupylation could be useful for both target-ID and understanding binding mode. To elaborate on this, we added the following additional explanation after the sentence in line 152: “, whereas multipupylation is more likely correlated with binding affinity or interaction frequency.”

(16) The author should address whether the Halotag ligand modification of the drug alters the binding properties between the drug and targets. That may be causing artifact binding of the drug and other proteins.

Thank you for your insightful comment. Yes, it is true that chemical modifications of the small molecule of interest, such as linker derivatization (e.g., HTL) or photo-affinity labeling, generally lead to reduced activity or affinity compared to the original molecule. Synthesizing a derivative is a common challenge across all target-ID methods, except for modification-free approaches, as we mentioned in the Discussion. However, modification-free methods like DARTS, CETSA, and TPP have their own limitations, including low sensitivity or high false positive rates. Identifying the optimal position for chemical modification on the small molecule of interest is critical. We chose dasatinib and HCQ/CQ as model compounds, because previous studies provided insights into their derivative synthesis. In addition, our data show that DH5 retains robust kinase inhibitory activity (Figure 4-figure supplement 2), and DC661-H1 exhibits potent autophagy inhibition (Figure 6-figure supplement 1). For novel compounds, a thorough structure-activity relationship study is essential to identify the optimal position for HTL derivative synthesis.

(17) The author stated there is no observable toxicity in zebrafish without providing a detailed analysis or enough data. Further analysis of the expression of Halo-PafA and its substrate sPup influence on toxicity or side effects to the living cells or animals would be needed. It is important for in vivo applications.

Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We have now included additional experimental data in Figure 7-figure supplement 1, showing no toxicity in zebrafish embryos expressing the POST-IT system. We assessed toxicity in two ways: by injecting the POST-IT DNA plasmid into one-cell-stage embryos for acute expression, and by using embryos from transgenic zebrafish expressing POST-IT under a heat-shock inducible promoter. Neither the injection nor the heat-shock activation of POST-IT expression resulted in any noticeable toxicity.

Author response:

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

eLife Assessment

This important work presents two studies on predictive processes in subjects with and without tinnitus. The evidence supporting the authors' claims is compelling, as their second study serves as an independent replication of the first. Rigorous matching between study groups was performed, especially in the second study, increasing the probability that the identified differences in predictive processing can truly be attributed to the presence of tinnitus. This work will be of interest to researchers, especially neuroscientists, in the tinnitus field.

We thank the editors at elife very much for their favorable assessment of our manuscript. Based upon the comments of the reviewer, we aimed to further improve our manuscript to be a valuable addition to the tinnitus research field.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study aimed to test experimentally a theoretical framework that aims to explain the perception of tinnitus, i.e., the perception of a phantom sound in the absence of external stimuli, through differences in auditory predictive coding patterns. To this aim, the researchers compared the neural activity preceding and following the perception of a sound using MEG in two different studies. The sounds could be highly predictable or random, depending on the experimental condition. They revealed that individuals with tinnitus and controls had different anticipatory predictions. This finding is a major step in characterizing the top-down mechanisms underlying sound perception in individuals with tinnitus.

Strengths:

This article uses an elegant, well-constructed paradigm to assess the neural dynamics underlying auditory prediction. The findings presented in the first experiment were partially replicated in the second experiment, which included 80 participants. This large number of participants for an MEG study ensures very good statistical power and a strong level of evidence. The authors used advanced analysis techniques - Multivariate Pattern Analysis (MVPA) and classifier weights projection - to determine the neural patterns underlying the anticipation and perception of a sound for individuals with or without tinnitus. The authors evidenced different auditory prediction patterns associated with tinnitus. Overall, the conclusions of this paper are well supported, and the limitations of the study are clearly addressed and discussed.

Weaknesses:

Even though the authors took care of matching the participants in age and sex, the control could be more precise. Tinnitus is associated with various comorbidities, such as hearing loss, anxiety, depression, or sleep disorders. The authors assessed individuals' hearing thresholds with a pure tone audiogram, but they did not take into account the high frequencies (6 kHz to 16 kHz) in the patient/control matching. Moreover, other hearing dysfunctions, such as speech-in-noise deficits or hyperacusis, could have been taken into account to reinforce their claim that the observed predictive pattern was not linked to hearing deficits. Mental health and sleep disorders could also have been considered more precisely, as they were accounted for only indirectly with the score of the 10-item mini-TQ questionnaire evaluating tinnitus distress. Lastly, testing the links between the individuals' scores in auditory prediction and tinnitus characteristics, such as pitch, loudness, duration, and occurrence (how often it is perceived during the day), would have been highly informative.

Thank you very much for your careful evaluation of our manuscript. We agree with you that our study design has some limitations such as the assessment of higher frequencies, comorbidities, and tinnitus characteristics. In our discussion, we aimed to acknowledge these issues for future research to improve this study design and gain more insights into neural tinnitus processes.

See e.g.:

Line 946-949:

“Additionally, we rigorously controlled for hearing loss in Study 2, however, pure-tone audiometric testing was solely performed up to 8kHz and we were therefore not able to draw conclusions regarding hearing impairments in higher frequencies and their influence on the effects.”

Line 949-954:

“Moreover, we did not screen our participants for hyperacusis. This hypersensitivity to mild sounds is widely correlated with the sensation of tinnitus and underlying neural mechanisms are potentially intertwined with tinnitus processes (Schilling et al., 2023; Yukhnovich et al., 2023; Zheng, 2020). Screening for hyperacusis in future work can therefore reveal more details on participant characteristics influencing predictive processing.”

Line 955-958:

“In both studies, tinnitus distress was not correlated with the reported prediction effects. Nevertheless, tinnitus can also be characterized by other features such as its loudness, pitch or duration which were not included in the experimental assessment.”

Line 958-963:

“Additionally, we solely used a short version of the Mini-TQ (Goebel and Hiller, 1992) in Study 2, which did not allow us to relate prediction scores to subscales like sleep disturbances which potentially influence cognitive functioning and thus predictive processing. Next to sleeping disorders and distress, tinnitus is often also accompanied by psychological comorbidities such as depression or anxiety (Langguth, 2011) which are potential confounds of the results.”

Comments on revisions:

Thank you for your responses. There are a few remaining points that, if addressed, could further enhance the manuscript:

- While the manuscript acknowledges the limitation of not matching groups on hearing thresholds in Study 1, a deeper analysis of participants' hearing abilities and their impact on MEG results, similar to that conducted in Study 2, would be valuable. Specifically, including a linear model that considers all frequencies, group membership, and their interactions could highlight differences across groups. Additionally, examining the effect of high-frequency hearing loss on prediction scores, as performed in Study 2, would strengthen the analysis, particularly given the trend noted (line 719). Such an addition could make a significant contribution to the literature by exploring how hearing abilities may influence prediction patterns.

We appreciate your feedback and agree with you that it is a crucial question how hearing abilities influence prediction patterns in tinnitus. However, as hearing status was not assessed in the control group in study 1, we are unfortunately not able to include linear models to investigate differences across groups in this sample. This led us to the implementation of study 2 with a comprehensive hearing assessment to investigate group differences. We highlighted this issue in our methods section.

Line 170-172:

“As pure-tone audiometric testing was not included for the control subjects, group comparisons between hearing thresholds were not feasible.”

- The connection with the hippocampal regions (line 864) remains somewhat unclear. While the inclusion of the Paquette reference appropriately links temporal region activity with tinnitus, it does not fully support the statement: "An increased focus on hippocampal regions, e.g., in fMRI, patient, or animal studies, could be a worthwhile complement to our MEG work, given the outstanding relevance of medial temporal areas in the formation of associations in statistical learning paradigms"

Thank you for your constructive input. This section is purely speculative, and we do not aim to provide strong claims or expected results but solely point out potential future research directions.

- Authors should add a comparison of participants mini-TQ scores on both studies

We appreciate your input and added a comparison of mini TQ-scores between samples. For study 1, all subscales were included, however, we computed the comparison solely based on the items of the mini-TQ to increase comparability. The results were not significant, i.e., tinnitus distress values did not differ between studies.

Line 629-632:

“We additionally compared tinnitus distress values assessed by the mini-TQ (Goebel and Hiller, 1992) between study 1 and study 2 to detect potential differences between the samples, however, results of the Welch’s t-test were not significant with t(30.7)=1.27, p\=.214.”

- Authors should add significant level on Fig 6.B as in Fig 3.C, and a n.s on Fig 6.D

Thank you very much for your input, we added significance levels and a n.s. to the Figures 6B and 6D.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This article identifies ADGR3 as a candidate GPCR for mediating beige fat development. The authors use human expression data from Human Protein Atlas and Gtex databases and combine this with experiments performed in mice and a murine cell line. They refer to a GPCR bioactivity screening tool PRESTO-Salsa, with which it was found that Hesperetin activates ADGR3. From their experiments, authors conclude that Hesperetin activates ADGR3, inducing a Gs-PKA-CREB axis resulting in adipose thermogenesis.

Strengths:

The authors analyze human data from public databases and perform functional studies in mouse models. They identify a new GPCR with a role in thermogenic activation of adipocytes.

Considerations:

Selection of ADGRA3 as a candidate GPCR relevant for mediating beiging in humans:

The authors identify GPCRs that are expressed more highly in murine iBAT compared to iWAT in response to cold and assess which of these GPCRs are expressed in human subcutaneous or visceral adipocytes. Although this strategy will identify GPCRs that are expressed at higher levels in brown fat compared to beige and thus possibly more active in thermogenic function, the relevance in choosing GPCRs that also are expressed in unstimulated human white adipocytes should be considered. Thermogenic activity is not normally present in human white adipocytes. It would have strengthened the GPCR selection if the authors instead had assessed the intersection with human brown adipocytes that were activated with norepinephrine.

We appreciate your constructive feedback and believe that by adopting this refined strategy, we will strengthen our selection of GPCRs related to adipose thermogenesis in other ongoing studies. We look forward to continuing our research in this area and contributing to the understanding of adipose thermogenesis and its potential therapeutic applications. Thank you once again for your valuable input. 

Strategy to investigate the role of ADGRA3 in WAT beiging:

Having identified ADGRA3 as their candidate receptor, the authors investigated the receptor in mouse models, the murine inguinal adipocyte cell line 3T3 and in human subcutaneous adipose progenitors (HAdsc) differentiated in vitro. Calling the human cells "beige" is a stretch as these cells are derived from a white adipose depot. The authors do observe regulation in UCP1 and abundance of mitochondria following modification of ADGRA3 in the cells. However, in future studies, it should be considered if the receptor rather plays a role in differentiation per se, and perhaps not specifically in thermogenic differentiation/activity.

Regarding the reviewer's suggestion to consider whether ADGRA3 plays a role in differentiation per se, rather than specifically in thermogenic differentiation/activity, we acknowledge that this is an important consideration. Our current studies have focused on the role of ADGRA3 in regulating UCP1 expression and mitochondrial abundance, which are hallmarks of adipose thermogenic activity. However, we recognize that ADGRA3 may also have broader roles in adipocyte differentiation and function that are not limited to thermogenesis.

To address this point, in future studies, we plan to conduct additional experiments to investigate the potential role of ADGRA3 in adipocyte differentiation, including its effects on the expression of markers of adipocyte differentiation and its impact on adipocyte metabolism and function. These studies will provide further insights into the mechanisms by which ADGRA3 regulates adipocyte biology.

According to the Human Protein Atlas and Gtex databases, ADGRA3 is not only expressed in adipocytes, but also in other tissues and cell types. The authors address this by measuring the expression in a panel of these tissues, demonstrating a knockdown not only in the adipose tissue, but also in the liver and less pronounced in the muscle (Figure S2). It should thus be emphasized that the decreased TG levels in serum and liver in the mice might in fact depend on Adgra3 overexpression in the liver. Even though this might not have been the purpose of the experiment, it is important to highlight this as it could serve as hypothesis building for future studies of the function of this receptor.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and feedback. We appreciate the insight provided by the Human Protein Atlas and Gtex databases regarding the tissue distribution of ADGRA3. We fully acknowledge that the decreased TG levels observed in both the serum and liver of the mice might be linked to the overexpression of Adgra3 in the liver.

Although this was not the primary objective of our experiment, we agree that this observation is worth highlighting as it could serve as a basis for future hypothesis-driven research on the functional role of ADGRA3 in different tissues. In light of your comments, we emphasized this potential link between Adgra3 overexpression in the liver and reduced TG levels in discussion, as follows.

“…the precise mechanisms underlying the influence of on adipose thermogenesis. Furthermore, it is crucial to highlight that the observed decrease in TG levels in both serum and liver (Figure 4-figure supplement 2C-D) might be attributed to the significant increase in Adgra3 expression in the liver, which is a consequence of the nanoparticle-mediated overexpression of Adgra3. While the exact mechanism remains to be fully elucidated, this correlation suggests a potential link between Adgra3 overexpression in the liver and reduced TG levels in the serum. We will employ more sophisticated models in subsequent studies to further…”

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Zhao et al. explored the function of adhesion G protein-coupled receptor A3 (ADGRA3) in thermogenic fat biology.

Strengths:

Through both in vivo and in vitro studies, the authors found that the gain function of ADGRA3 leads to browning of white fat and ameliorates insulin resistance.

Weaknesses:

There are several lines of weak methodologies such as using 3T3-L1 adipocytes and intraperitoneal(i.p.) injection of virus. Moreover, as the authors stated that ADGRA3 is constitutively active, how could the authors then identify a chemical ligand?

Comments on revised version:

The revised manuscript by Zhao et al. has limited improvement. The authors refused to perform revised experiments using primary cultures even though two reviewers pointed out the same weakness (3T3-L1 adipocytes are unsuitable). Using infrared thermography to measure body temperature is also problematic.

Thanks for your comments. We regret that human adipocytes induced from human adipose-derived stem cells (hADSCs) were not recognized as primary cultures by multiple reviewers. Therefore, we have included relevant experimental results of mouse primary adipocytes induced from stromal vascular fraction (SVF) in Figure 8E-H as a supplement. The thermal imaging device was used to measure the temperature of BAT, while the body temperature was measured at 9:00 using a rectal probe connected to a digital thermometer.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper presents a data processing pipeline to discover causal interactions from time-lapse imaging data, and convicingly illustrates it on a challenging application for the analysis of tumor-on-chip ecosystem data. The core of the discovery module is the original tMIIC method of the authors, which is shown in supplementary material to compare favourably to two state-of-the-art methods on synthetic temporal data on a 15 nodes network.

Strengths:

This paper tackles the problem of learning causal interactions from temporal data which is an open problem in presence of latent variables. The core of the method tMIIC of the authors is nicely presented in connection to Granger- Schreiber causality and to the novel graphical conditions used to infer latent variables and based on a theorem about transfer entropy. tMIIC compares favourably to PC and PCMCI+ methods using different kernels on synthetic datasets generated from a network of 15 nodes. A full application to tumor-onchip cellular ecosystems data including cancer cells, immune cells, cancer-associated fibroblasts, endothelial cells and anti cancer drugs, with convincing inference results with respect to both known and novel effects between those components and their contact.

The code and dataset are available online for the reproducibility of the results.

We thank Reviewer #1 for highlighting the main results and strengths of our paper, as well as, for his/her recommendations below to further improve the manuscript.

Weaknesses:

The references to ”state-of-the-art methods” concerning the inference of causal networks should be more precise by giving citations in the main text, and better discussed in general terms, both in the first section and in the section of presentation of CausalXtract. It is only in the legend of the figures of the supplementary material that we get information. Of course, comparison on our own synthetic datasets can always be criticized but this is rather due to the absence of common benchmark and I would recommend the authors to explicitly propose their datasets as benchmark to the community.

Following Reviewer #1’s suggestion, we now compare tMIIC’s performance to other state-of-the-art causal discovery methods for time series data in the main text and in a new Figure 2. This Figure 2 also highlights the relation between graph-based causal discovery methods for time series data and Granger-Schreiber temporal causality, as discussed in more details in Methods (Theorem 1).

We also agree about the importance of sharing benchmark datasets with the community. This is the reason why we provide the dynamical equations of the 15-node benchmarks in Supplementary Tables 1 & 2, so that anyone can generate equivalent time series datasets of any desired length.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors propose a methodology to perform causal (temporal) discovery. The approach appears to be robust and is tested in the different scenarios: one related with live-cell imaging data, and another one using synthetic (mathematically defined) time series data. They compare the performance of their findings against another well-know method by using metrics like F-score, precision and recall,

Strengths:

Performance, robustness, the text is clear and concise, The authors provide the code to review.

We thank Reviewer #2 for his/her positive assessment of our work and the suggestions below to improve the manuscript.

Weaknesses:

One concern could be the applicability of the method in other areas like climate, economy. For those areas, public data are available and might be interesting to test how the method performs with this kind of data.

While our main expertise concerns the analysis of biological and biomedical data, we agree that tMIIC (which is included in MIIC R package) could in principle be applied to other areas, like climate, economy.

We have not included benchmarks on such diverse types of datasets in the present manuscript, which focuses on CausalXtract’s pipeline for the analysis and causal interpretation of live-cell time-lapse imaging data from complex cellular systems.

Author response:

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aim to elucidate the diversity and gene expression patterns of marine plankton using innovative collection and sequencing methodologies. Their work investigates the taxonomic and functional profiles of planktonic communities, providing insights into their ecological roles and responses to environmental changes.

Strengths:

The methodology utilized in this study, particularly the combination of single-cell sequencing and advanced bioinformatics techniques, represents a significant advancement in the field of plankton research. The application of the Smart-seq2 protocol for cDNA synthesis, followed by rigorous quality control measures, ensures high-quality data generation. This comprehensive approach not only enhances the resolution of the obtained genetic information but also allows for a more detailed exploration of the diversity and functional potential of the phytoplankton community.

One of the major strengths of this study is the rigorous methodological approach, including precise sampling techniques and robust data analysis protocols, which enhance the reliability of the results. The use of advanced sequencing technologies allows for a comprehensive assessment of gene expression, significantly contributing to our understanding of plankton diversity and its implications for marine ecosystems.

Weaknesses:

While the evidence presented is solid, there are areas where the analysis could be expanded. The authors could further explore the ecological interactions within plankton communities, which would provide a more holistic view of their functional roles. Additionally, a broader discussion of the implications of their findings for marine conservation efforts could enhance the manuscript's impact.

The choice of both the plankton net and filter pore size during the plankton collection process is critical, as these factors directly impact the types of phytoplankton collected. The use of a 25 μm filter paper, in particular, may result in the omission of many eukaryotic phytoplankton species. This limitation, combined with the characteristics of the plankton net, could affect the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the results, potentially influencing the study's conclusions regarding phytoplankton diversity.

The timing of fixation is crucial, as it directly affects whether the measured transcriptome accurately represents the organisms' actual transcriptional state in their native water environment. If fixation occurred a significant time after sample collection, the transcriptomic data may not reflect their true in situ transcriptional activity, which greatly reduces the relevance of this method.

Thank you for your time, effort, and expertise.

We agree that additional analyses could improve our understanding of the plankton communities sampled. We have conducted an array of alternative analyses that were not included in the current manuscript and plan to perform new analyses over the next few months as part of a deeper revision of the manuscript. We are especially interested in “providing a more holistic view of the functions” of individual plankton within the community.

As for the protocol details, the pore size of the filter paper was chosen to focus on ~100 micron-sized organisms as a starting point: they are likely to contain more RNA than smaller organisms, making them well suited for an initial proof of concept of the methodology. That choice, however, is not particularly tightly constrained, therefore smaller plankton could be captured. This is supported by the lack of correlation, in our data, between organismal size and number of detected sequencing reads.

Timing to cell death/fixation is a common question we receive not just in this manuscript but any RNA-Seq from primary samples. In this case, plankton were seen swimming until picking, and after picking each organism was deposited within two seconds into a lysis buffer for fixation. Therefore, we do not have reason to believe that the transcriptional activity sampled in the sequencing reads differs in any major way from the one in living plankton. Nonetheless, a study specifically testing the effect of time between ocean sampling and reverse transcription would provide more quantitative information on this point.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper introduces Ukiyo-e-Seq, a novel method integrating microscopy with single-cell transcriptomics to study individual, uncultured eukaryotic plankton cells. By combining microscopic imaging with transcriptomic analysis, the approach links plankton morphology to gene expression, enabling taxonomic identification and functional protein exploration. Ukiyo-e-Seq was tested on 66 microbial eukaryotic cells, revealing taxonomic diversity across four superkingdoms and allowing analysis of protein complexes and developmental genes in individual species. According to the authors, this method has the potential to advance single-cell marine biodiversity studies by addressing limitations in traditional taxonomy and metatranscriptomics, especially for rare or uncultured organisms.

However, the study's conclusions are often weakly supported by data, particularly given that this is not the first study to combine microscopy and single-cell transcriptomics of eukaryotic plankton using Smart-seq2.

Strengths:

A notable strength is the authors' generation of several single-cell transcriptomes for the diatom Chaetoceros, which could benefit from greater focus rather than broadly addressing eukaryotic single cells.

Weaknesses:

The study lacks comparison with other single-cell transcriptomics studies and it was presented as the first study that combines imaging and single-cell transcriptomics (smart-seq2) of eukaryotic plankton while in fact it is not. The sampling methodology is not replicable as the authors used a tea strainer instead of standard plankton collection equipment to filter larger cells. Terminology throughout the paper is unconventional, such as "public and private contigs," "single-organism genomics," "highly expressed contigs," and "optical methods." Additionally, the authors did not specify which database was used for taxonomic assignments. These issues may stem from the authors' limited background in microbial ecology. Overall, the study has many drawbacks and it could benefit from complete rewriting and focusing mainly on single-cell transcriptomics of diatoms.

Thank you for your time, effort, and expertise.

There might be a bit of confusion between single-cell and single-organism sequencing, likely due to lack of clarity in our initial submission. In particular, in this manuscript no effort was spent trying to dissociate oligocellular plankton into individual cells before sequencing. While probably feasible, we expect that to be technically much harder than single-organism sequencing as performed here. The reviewer does not reference a published paper where combined imaging and RNA-Seq of individual uncultured plankton has been achieved, and we were unable to find one in the scientific literature. As stated in the manuscript, others have already performed some work on cultured plankton and single-organism sequencing (without matching images) of uncultured environmental microorganisms.

The suggestion to focus on a smaller biological niche such as diatoms and adopt language more familiar to that specific community is well received. Indeed, given that organisms as diverse as fish larvae and diatoms could be profiled with Ukiyo-e-Seq, future studies could use the same method to address specific questions with a deeper and more narrow scope. However, this manuscript is demonstrating the feasibility of Ukiyo-e-Seq and its ability to produce usable data for a broad spectrum of organisms: part of the scientific audience might not have a specific interest in diatoms.

The tea strainer was used for coarse pre-filtering: the exact pore size, geometry and factory tolerance on those measurements are inconsequential because each organism is later chosen (or not) based on a high-resolution microscopy image (or multiple, if fluorescence is considered). This really is a strength of Ukiyo-e-Seq over FACS or droplet-based sorters, which can only collect coarse optical information from each organism for (typically) less than 1 millisecond. In Ukiyo-q-Seq, while the actual decision to pick an individual is currently manual (by the operator of the picker), it can be automated in principle. For instance, one could build a machine learning model of plankton taxonomy based on a large collection of labelled images and use predictions from such a model to automatically drive the picker (e.g. focussing on diatoms), increasing throughput. Even in that case, however, the initial filtering stages using tea strainers, plankton nets, filter paper etc. would not be critical for the final selection of individuals as long as they are not too restrictive.

The database used for taxonomic assignment was the NCBI non-redundant nucleotide database, accessed through the reference library provided by Kraken2 (nt).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Gatt et al. present a novel take on single-cell RNA-sequencing from complex planktonic samples, introducing an approach they aptly named Ukiyo-e-Seq. This work combines environmental sampling with cell picking, microscopic imaging, and Smart-seq2 single-cell RNA sequencing to profile uncultured eukaryotic plankton. Developing single-cell approaches for such ecosystems is critical, given the poor representation of many planktonic species in cultures and reference databases. This work could help bridge existing technological gaps between morphological and molecular studies of aquatic microeukaryotes

The authors argue that microscopy does not provide information on the biochemistry of species under consideration. At best, it provides taxonomic labeling of species within a sample, yet imaging fails to assess their metabolic state or to disentangle cryptic species. In a standard metatranscriptomic setup, the sequence pool is described by aligning assembled contigs with reference databases to obtain functional and taxonomic information. This complex community-level data is impossible to parse at the single-organism level. Moreover, by relying on reference datasets, a lot of potential information can be missed. The aim of the approach is to combine the strengths of both methods, generating single-cell transcriptomic data linked to individual plankton images.

Strengths:

Ukiyo-e-Seq generated a valuable dataset by combining imaging and transcriptomics for individual planktonic organisms from environmental samples. This multimodal approach has the potential to improve taxonomic predictions and functional insights at the single-organism level. This manuscript demonstrates the technical feasibility of such an approach. Data of this type is rare and thus represents a valuable resource to further advance single-cell sequencing of planktonic species from environmental samples.

Weaknesses:

(1) The merge-split strategy, where single-cell reads are pooled prior to assembly, is counterintuitive. Pooling obscures the single-organism resolution that single-cell methods aim to achieve. The approach might be useful for assembling low-coverage contigs, but risks masking unique expression profiles for transcripts unique to a given well. As an alternative, the authors could assemble each well independently to obtain well-specific transcriptomic bins. Assemblies could then be clustered based on sequence similarity, thereby imposing strict clustering parameters to maintain resolution, to create a common reference for downstream analysis if needed. In my opinion, better results would be obtained by implementing a per-well assembly and read mapping.

(2) The focus on the top five most expressed contigs throughout the manuscripts' data analysis is a limiting choice, as it excludes most contigs. In the preprint, we are presented with a very narrow view of the data. Visualising the entire range of assembled contigs would provide a better picture of the transcriptomic composition and diversity per well. It would be interesting to assess if the full information could be used to preliminary bin transcriptomic sequences from individual wells, for example, by gathering all 'private' contigs with high read coverage in a single well. Does such a set represent a single complete eukaryotic transcriptome?

(3) I missed a verification with (broad-scale) taxonomic assessments based on the associated microscopic images. In their goals, the authors state that a joint approach has the potential to discover new taxonomic biodiversity. I agree, and to me, this is what is exciting about the preprint, yet I miss an example or the right bioinformatic implementation to drive home this claim. Are there organisms in wells where poor taxonomic annotations, based on alignment to a reference database or the LCA approach implemented in Kraken2, would usually result in ignoring the species in classic metatranscriptomics? Can you advance the taxonomic annotation by referring back to the organisms' picture? Can manual assessment of taxonomy advance the results from the LCA approach?

(4) The current use of AlphaFold to predict protein structures does not convincingly add to the study's core objectives.

Overall, Ukiyo-e-Seq presents a promising method for studying single-cell diversity in environmental samples, though the bioinformatic pipeline requires refinement to support some of the claims made by the authors. Additionally, the manuscript would benefit from clarity and additional details in its methods and a more consistent approach to presenting results and summary statistics across all assembled contigs and all sampled wells, rather than focusing on selected wells.

Thank you for your time and effort, and for your expertise on the matter.

The suggestions to conduct additional bioinformatic analyses to explore more fully the criticality and potential of various design choices (e.g. meta-assembly) are well received. We have tried some of those ideas already (e.g. assembling individual wells) and we have considered but not yet conducted or polished others (e.g. a more thorough taxonomic verification). We will endeavour to carry out as many of those analyses as possible during the deeper revision process in the coming months.

AlphaFold 3’s use was designed to demonstrate the ability to investigate protein-protein interactions from individual species. When two peptide sequences are detected within the same well, they are more likely to be potential interacting partners than in a metatranscriptomic study, because the compartmentalisation of reads into tens or hundreds of wells greatly reduces the search space of potential interaction partners (which has a baseline runtime complexity of n squared, where n is the number of peptide sequences identified).

----------

Author response:

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Liu et al. present CROWN-seq, a technique that simultaneously identifies transcription-start nucleotides and quantifies N6,2'-O-dimethyladenosine (m6Am) stoichiometry. This method is derived from ReCappable-seq and GLORI, a chemical deamination approach that differentiates A and N6-methylated A. Using ReCappable-seq and CROWN-seq, the authors found that genes frequently utilize multiple transcription start sites, and isoforms beginning with an Am are almost always N6-methylated. These findings are consistently observed across nine cell lines. Unlike prior reports that associated m6Am with mRNA stability and expression, the authors suggest here that m6Am may increase transcription when combined with specific promoter sequences and initiation mechanisms. Additionally, they report intriguing insights on m6Am in snRNA and snoRNA and its regulation by FTO. Overall, the manuscript presents a strong body of work that will significantly advance m6Am research.

Strengths:

The technology development part of the work is exceptionally strong, with thoughtful controls and well-supported conclusions.

We appreciate the reviewer for the very positive assessment of the study. We have addressed the concerns below.

Weaknesses:

Given the high stoichiometry of m6Am, further association with upstream and downstream sequences (or promoter sequences) does not appear to yield strong signals. As such, transcription initiation regulation by m6Am, suggested by the current work, warrants further investigation.

We thank the reviewer for the insightful comments. We have softened the language related to m6Am and transcription regulation. We totally agree with the reviewer that future investigation is required to determine the molecular mechanism behind m6Am and transcription regulation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In the manuscript "Decoding m6Am by simultaneous transcription-start mapping and methylation quantification" Liu and co-workers describe the development and application of CROWN-Seq, a new specialized library preparation and sequencing technique designed to detect the presence of cap-adjacent N6,2'-O-dimethyladenosine (m6Am) with single nucleotide resolution. Such a technique was a key need in the field since prior attempts to get accurate positional or quantitative measurements of m6Am positioning yielded starkly different results and failed to generate a consistent set of targets. As noted in the strengths section below the authors have developed a robust assay that moves the field forward.

Furthermore, their results show that most mRNAs whose transcription start nucleotide (TSN) is an 'A' are in fact m6Am (85%+ for most cell lines). They also show that snRNAs and snoRNAs have a substantially lower prevalence of m6Am TSNs.

Strengths:

Critically, the authors spent substantial time and effort to validate and benchmark the new technique with spike-in standards during development, cross-comparison with prior techniques, and validation of the technique's performance using a genetic PCIF1 knockout. Finally, they assayed nine different cell lines to cross-validate their results. The outcome of their work (a reliable and accurate method to catalog cap-adjacent m6Am) is a particularly notable achievement and is a needed advance for the field.

Weaknesses:

No major concerns were identified by this reviewer.

We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of the method and dataset. We have addressed the concerns below.

Mid-level Concerns:

(1) In Lines 625 and 626, the authors state that “our data suggest that mRNAs initate (mis-spelled by authors) with either Gm, Cm, Um, or m6Am.” This reviewer took those words to mean that for A-initiated mRNAs, m6Am was the ‘default’ TSN. This contradicts their later premise that promoter sequences play a role in whether m6Am is deposited.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have changed this sentence into “Instead, our data suggest that mRNAs initiate with either Gm, Cm, Um, or Am, where Am are mostly m6Am modified.” The revised sentence separates the processes of transcription initiation and m6Am deposition, which will not confuse the reader.

(2) Further, the following paragraph (lines 633-641) uses fairly definitive language that is unsupported by their data. For example in lines 637 and 638 they state “We found that these differences are often due to the specific TSS motif.” Simply, using ‘due to’ implies a causative relationship between the promoter sequences and m6Am has been demonstrated. The authors do not show causation, rather they demonstrate a correlation between the promoter sequences and an m6Am TSN. Finally, despite claiming a causal relationship, the authors do not put forth any conceptual framework or possible mechanism to explain the link between the promoter sequences and transcripts initiating with an m6Am.

(3) The authors need to soften the language concerning these data and their interpretation to reflect the correlative nature of the data presented to link m6Am and transcription initiation.

For (2) and (3). We have softened the language in the revised manuscript. Specifically, for lines 633-641 in the original manuscript, we have changed “are often due to” into “are often related to” in the revised manuscript, which claims a correlation rather than a causation.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

m6Am is an abundant mRNA modification present on the TSN. Unlike the structurally similar and abundant internal mRNA modification m6A, m6Am’s function has been controversial. One way to resolve controversies surrounding mRNA modification functions has been to develop new ways to better profile said mRNA modification. Here, Liu et al. developed a new method (based on GLORI-seq for m6A-sequencing), for antibody-independent sequencing of m6Am (CROWN-seq). Using appropriate spike-in controls and knockout cell lines, Liu et al. clearly demonstrated CROWN-seq’s precision and quantitative accuracy for profiling transcriptome-wide m6Am. Subsequently, the authors used CROWN-seq to greatly expand the number of known m6Am sites in various cell lines and also determine m6Am stoichiometry to generally be high for most genes. CROWN-seq identified gene promoter motifs that correlate best with high stoichiometry m6Am sites, thereby identifying new determinants of m6Am stoichiometry. CROWN-seq also helped reveal that m6Am does not regulate mRNA stability or translation (as opposed to past reported functions). Rather, m6Am stoichiometry correlates well with transcription levels. Finally, Liu et al. reaffirmed that FTO mainly demethylates m6Am, not of mRNA but of snRNAs and snoRNAs.

Strengths:

This is a well-written manuscript that describes and validates a new m6Am-sequencing method: CROWN-seq as the first m6Am-sequencing method that can both quantify m6Am stoichiometry and profile m6Am at single-base resolution. These advantages facilitated Liu et al. to uncover new potential findings related to m6Am regulation and function. I am confident that CROWN-seq will likely be the gold standard for m6Am-sequencing henceforth.

Weaknesses:

Though the authors have uncovered a potentially new function for m6Am, they need to be clear that without identifying a mechanism, their data might only be demonstrating a correlation between the presence of m6Am and transcriptional regulation rather than causality.

We thank the reviewer for the very positive assessment of the CROWN-seq method. We have softened the language which is related to the correlation between m6Am and transcription regulation.

Author response:

Reviewer 1 (Public Review)

(1) The proposed design is not sufficient to answer the research question. The rationale of the study proposed in the introduction is that auditory stimulation may explain the analgesic effects of RPMS. To answer this question, the authors should have used a factorial design using 4 groups (active RPMS + sound; active RPMS + no sound; sham RPMS + sound; sham RPMS + no sound). Using this design, it would have been possible to determine if the sound, the afferent stimulation, or both are necessary to produce analgesia. Rather, they tested two types of RPMS (iTBS, cTBS) without real rationale, one electrical stimulation and a placebo.

We will clarify that the study design employed was originally designed to determine whether iTBS or cTBS would be more effective to reduce pain. We included TENS as a positive control, and sham as a negative control. We were indeed surprised by the findings, and present them herein. Future RCTs should be performed to reproduce these findings.

(2) There are multiple ways that the current design could have introduced biases. The study was not randomized but pseudo-randomised. What does that mean? Was their allocation concealment? Was the assessor and data analyst blinded to group allocation? Did an intention to treat analyses were performed? Did the participants were adequately blinded (was it measured)?

This study was not designed as an RCT, but rather as experimental study. The study was pseudo-randomized to ensure that the groups had equal allocation and distribution of sexes.

The groups were blinded to the other stimulations (they were not informed of the various arms of the study, through different consent forms).

It was not possible to blind the experimenter as the iTBS and cTBS protocols are very different: iTBS has multiple bursts separated by brief intervals, whereas cTBS is continuous). The data were masked for analysis, and only unblinded at the final stage. We will update the manuscript to reflect these changes.

(3) The TENS parameters used were not optimal and are not those commonly used in clinical practice. This could have explained the lack of TENS effects. The lack of TENS effects has not been discussed and it is concerning. If TENS had been effective (as expected), the story about the auditory effects would not have been presented as the primary mechanisms underlying the current results.

We acknowledge that this is a limitation of the study. A future study should address this. However, we will not remove the arm for transparency.

(4) No primary outcome has been identified. It is important to mention that the interpretation of results is based on the presence of only one statistically significant result. Pain intensity and pain unpleasantness are not affected. This was not properly addressed in the Discussion. What does that mean that secondary hyperalgesia is affected but not pain?

We reiterate that this study was not designed as an RCT, but rather an experimental study with The primary outcomes measures that capture change in  were measures of pain sensitivity (pain intensity NRS, pain unpleasantness NRS, and secondary hyperalgesia). We will clarify this in the revised manuscript.

We will now include discussion of the effects being solely on secondary hyperalgesia, and not on pain intensity and unpleasantness.

(5a) The use of secondary hyperalgesia variable is concerning. How is it possible to measure secondary hyperalgesia if there is no lesioned tissue?

Secondary hyperalgesia refers to hyperalgesia assessed in an area adjacent to or remote of the site of stimulation. In general, it is not required to lesion a tissue to activate the nociceptive system or to induce pain. We have cited other studies that have employed secondary hyperalgesia as a pain outcome measure without inducing a lesion.

Hyperalgesia reflects increased pain on suprathreshold stimulation. Then, one measures the subjective response to a painful (i.e. suprathreshold) stimulation, then applies a conditioning stimulation (e.g. heat), and measures the subjective response to the same original stimulus. If the response after conditioning is higher than the baseline measure, hyperalgesia has been induced. Secondary hyperalgesia just refers to hyperalgesia assessed in an area adjacent to or remote of the site of stimulation. In general, it is not required to lesion a tissue to activate the nociceptive system or to induce pain.

(5b) If heat creates secondary hyperalgesia without lesion, what does that mean physiologically?

Secondary hyperalgesia is normally interpreted as a perceptual correlate of central sensitization.

(5c) Is it a valid and reliable "pain" variable?

Yes and yes. A noxious heat stimulus can reliably elicit secondary hyperalgesia (see section 3.2 from Quesada et al. 2021). We also cite several studies that have used secondary hyperalgesia as an outcome measure of central sensitization in pain.

(6) The follow-up study has been designed to cover the RPMS sound using pink noise. However, the pink noise was also present during the PHP measurement. How can we determine whether the absence of change is due to the pink noise during the RPMS or the presence of pink noise during PHP? I don't think this is possible to discriminate.

We will add a third study that performs the control analysis with the sound of the rPMS masked, but no pink noise otherwise. The study will be performed in two groups: one with pink noise, and one without pink noise.

Appraisal

(7) Despite all these potential issues, authors interpret their data with high confidence and with several overstatements in the Title, Abstract, and Discussion. The results do not support their conclusions. The fact that auditory stimulation may produce an analgesic effect is a hypothesis, but the current study cannot ascertain it.

We believe that the chief concern with the interpretation lies with concerns with the second study. The proposed third experiment will address these concerns.

Reviewer 2 (Public Review):

(1) My biggest concern in this paper is that the stimulation protocols are not applied after pain was induced in the subjects, but before. This is not bad in itself, but as the paper presents the stimulations as potential "treatments" it generates a severe mismatch between the objective, context (introduction), and impact (discussion) presented for the experiments, and how they are actually designed. This adds to the fact that healthy volunteers are used here to generate a study with low translational capability, that aims to be translational and provide an indication for clinics (maybe this is why the reduction in pain intensity caused by PMS when applied in patients, reported in references [29, 35 and 39], is not observed here).

We will reframe these as prophylaxis, rather than treatment. This study was an experimental study originally designed to determine which stimulation parameters (cTBS or iTBS) would be better suited to modulate pain. We performed the study in healthy individuals undergoing acute pain, akin to a person undergoing painful procedure, which could lead to central sensitization and pain persistence (e.g., post-surgical pain). However, before testing this in individuals undergoing actual procedures, it is essential to determine efficacy in people before translation.

Khan et al [29] is a case study with neuropathic pain, whereas our study uses a nociceptive pain model. Lim et al [35] employed 10 sessions of rPMS stimulation in patients with acute low back pain. Similar to our study, the change in VAS driven by rPMS was no different than the sham stimulation. We notice that there is no reference 39, and will correct this.

(2) TENS treatment duration is simply too short (90s) to be considered a therapeutic TENS intervention. I get that this duration was chosen to match the one of PMS, but TENS is never applied like this in the clinics, in which the duration varies from 10 minutes to an hour (or more). This specific study comparing different durations recommends 40 minutes for knee osteoarthritis pain relief (PMID: 12691335). Under these conditions, this stimulation is more similar to a sham TENS than to a real TENS treatment: I would suggest interpreting it as such. As the paper is right now, it could give the impression that PMS could produce clinical effects not observed in TENS, but while the PMS application resembles a clinical one, the TENS application does not (due to its extremely short duration). As an example, giving paracetamol at a dose 10 times below its effective dose is a placebo, not a paracetamol treatment.

We acknowledge that this is a limitation, and will address this in the Discussion of the revised manuscript.

(3) This study measured pain, not central sensitization. Specifically, the effects refer to the area of secondary hyperalgesia. The IASP definition for central sensitization is "Increased responsiveness of nociceptive neurons in the central nervous system to their normal or subthreshold afferent input." (PMID: 32694387). No neuronal results are reported in this article. Therefore, central sensitization is not measured here, and we do not know if it is reduced by sound. This frontally clashes with the title of the article and with many interpretations of the results. For a deep review on this topic, I recommend PMID: 39278607 and the short article PMID: 30416715.

It is widely accepted that central sensitization is the neurophysiological basis of secondary hyperalgesia (see PMID: 11313449; PMID: 10581220).

The reviewer is conflating secondary hyperalgesia due to central sensitization and chronic pain. Whether chronic pain is driven or maintained by central sensitization is not the goal of our study. However, there is ample evidence that nociceptive drive can induce plasticity in the CNS, which alters pain sensitivity, and that these changes facilitate pain.

(4a) There is no mention of blinding/masking/concealing in this manuscript. Was the therapist blind to whether they applied one protocol, another, or a placebo? Were the evaluators blind, as this can heavily influence their measurements? And the volunteers? Was allocation concealed? Was this blinding measured afterwards? Blinding is, together with randomization, the most important methodological feature for those interventional studies. For example, not introducing blinding and concealing directly makes a study lose 4 out of 10 points in the PEDro scale, failing to fulfill criteria 3, 5, 6, and 7 (https://pedro.org.au/english/resources/pedro-scale/).

This study was not designed as an RCT, but rather as experimental study. The study was pseudo-randomized to ensure that the groups had equal allocation and distribution of sexes.

The groups were blinded to the other stimulations (they were not informed of the various arms of the study, through different consent forms). However, blinding was not measured afterwards (again, this was not meant to be an RCT).

It was not possible to blind the experimenter as the iTBS and cTBS protocols are very different: iTBS has multiple bursts separated by brief intervals, whereas cTBS is continuous). The data were masked for analysis, and only unblinded at the final stage. We will update the manuscript to reflect these changes.

(4b) Continuing with methodological considerations, the dropout percentage is high (18% for the first and 25% for the second study), both above the 15% cutoff for criterion 8 of the PEDro, losing another point.

In the study, only 2 withdrew after feeling the heat, 2 were lost to follow up, and 2 had incomplete data. That totals 6/123 in Study 1. In study 2, none of the participants that met inclusion/exclusion criteria, and who were ‘allocated’ to the study were included (0% dropout/data loss).

We are unsure how to address this point, as we had clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, and these could only be measured after consenting. As this is an experimental study performed on healthy individuals in a university setting, we are not able to collect any study related data prior to consent.

We openly reported individuals who did not meet the criteria, and thus were excluded. These criteria are a combination of what is required to collect good quality data, and what we are ethically permitted to do. We understand that in an interventional trial where >15% drop out due to intolerance, or adverse events would indeed be concerning.

(5) Data reporting and statistical treatment can be improved, as only differences are reported and regression to the mean is not accounted for in this study. Moreover, baseline levels for the dependent variables (control session) are not accessible for evaluation and they are not compared statistically, making it impossible to know if the groups were similar at baseline. This will imply failing criterion 3 of the PEDro, for a total of 2/10 points.

This only concerns study 1, as study 2 is a within subject study design. Study 1 provides the raw data in Figure 4. We will provide the raw data for each of the primary outcome measures in a supplemental table in the revision.

Author response:

In this initial response to the public review, we outline our plan to address the major concerns raised. Below, we provide a general categorization of the suggestions and our corresponding responses

Weakness #1: Statistical Concerns - using the number of seizures (rather than the number of animals) may identify small effects that could be insignificant. Effect size should be taken into consideration.

Reviewer 1:

“While the data generally supports the authors' conclusions, a weakness of this manuscript lies in their analytical approach where EEG feature-space comparisons used the number of spontaneous or evoked seizures as their replicates as opposed to the number of IHK mice; these large data sets tend to identify relatively small effects of uncertain biological significance as being highly statistically significant.”

Reviewer 2:

“In several sections of the paper, the authors argue that two different groups are similar on the basis that no statistical difference was found between the two groups (i.e., p > 0.05); however, the failure to find a statistically significant difference, particularly with relatively small sample sizes, is not rigorous evidence that the two groups are actually similar - they are just "not significantly different.”

Reviewer 3:

“(3) The utility of increasing the number of seizures for enhancing statistical power is limited unless the sample size under evaluation is the number of seizures. However, the standard practice is for the sample size to be the number of mice.”

Reviewer 3:

“(1) Evaluation of seizure similarity using the SVM modeling and clustering is not sufficiently explained to show if there are meaningful differences between induced and spontaneous seizures. SVM modeling did not include analysis to assess the overfitting of each classifier since mice were modeled individually for classification.”

We understand the reviewers’ concerns. In this work, we used linear mixed effect model to address two levels of variability –between animals and within animals. The interactive linear mixed effect model shows that most (~90%) of the variability in our data comes from within animals (Residual), the random effect that the model accounts for, rather than between animals. Since variability between animals are low, the model identifies common changes in seizure propagation across animals, while accounting for the variability in seizures within each animal. Therefore, the results we find are of changes that happen across animals, not of individual seizures. We will make text edits to enhance understanding of the linear mixed effect model.

To address the point raised about similarity, we will explain how the SVM classifier was trained. The purpose of the SVM is not to identify meaningful differences between induced and spontaneous seizures. Rather, it is to classify EEG sections as “seizures” or non-seizures, demonstrating the gross similarity between induced and spontaneous seizures despite minor differences. We will make text clarifications for the SVM model.

Weakness #2: Clinical and biological significance is unclear.

Reviewer 1:

“Furthermore, the clinical relevance of similarly small differences in EEG feature space measurements between seizure-naïve and epileptic mice is also uncertain.”

Reviewer 2:

“While the paper may be relevant for the ETSP and contract research organizations (CROs), the paper was not written to attract the interest of biological scientists, even those in this specific area of epilepsy research. It may be of low interest to other neuroscientists… The key issue the authors aim to address is the 30-40% of patients with DRE, but the real problem with DRE patients is not that these people have seizures with no effect of the ASDs; rather, although ASD may reduce seizure burden, these patients continue to have some remaining seizures even after high doses of ASDs, which often leads to adverse effects from the particular ASDs… It remains unclear that the optogenetically induced seizures in this model are better than similarly induced seizures in a naïve animal, and there is no evidence that the model will be useful for finding new ASDs to treat DRE.”

Reviewer 3:

“(6) Human epilepsy is extensively heterogeneous in both etiology and individual phenotype, and it may be hard to generalize the approach.”

Reviewer 2:

“The authors state that this approach should be used to test for and discover new ASDs for DRE, and also used for various open/closed loop protocols with deep-brain stimulation; however, the paper does not actually discuss rigorously or critically the background literature on other published studies in these areas or how this approach will improve future research for a broader audience than the ETSP and CROs. Thus, it is not clear whether the utility will apply more widely and how extensive a readership will be attracted to this work.”

We appreciate the reviewer’s concerns. We will revise the manuscript to better emphasize the potential significance of our approach. The on-demand seizure model can be applied to address biologically and clinically relevant questions beyond its utility in drug screening. For example, crossing the Thy1-ChR2 mouse line with genetic epilepsy models, such as Scn1a mutants, could reveal how optogenetic stimulation differentially induces seizures in mutant versus non-mutant mice, providing insights into seizure generation and propagation in Dravet Syndrome. Due to the cellular specificity of optogenetics, we also envision this approach being used to study circuit-specific mechanisms of seizure generation and propagation. Regarding drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) and anti-seizure drug (ASD) screening, we agree with the reviewer that probing new classes of ASDs for DRE represents the critical goal. However, we believe a full exploration of additional ASD classes and/or modeling DRE lies outside the scope of this manuscript.

Weakness #3: Definition of Seizure is unclear

Reviewer 2:

“Although the figures provide excellent examples of individual electrographic seizures and compare induced seizures in epileptic and naïve animals, it is unclear which criteria were used to identify an actual seizure induced by the optogenetic stimulus, versus a hippocampal paroxysmal discharge (HPD), an "afterdischarge", an "electrophysiological epileptiform event" (EEE, Ref #36, D'Ambrosio et al., 2010 Epilepsy Currents), or a so-called "spike-wave-discharge" (SWD). Were HPDs or these other non-seizure events ever induced using stimulation in animals with IH-KA? A critical issue is that these other electrical events are not actual seizures, and it is unclear whether they were included in the column showing data on "electrographic afterdischarges" in Figure 5 for the studies on ASDs”

Reviewer 3:

“(2) The difference between seizures and epileptiform discharges or trains of spikes (which are not seizures) is not made clear.”

Reviewer 2:

“The differences between the optogenetically evoked seizures in IH-KA vs naïve mice are interpreted to be due to the "epileptogenesis" that had occurred, but the lesion from the KA-induced injury would be expected to cause differences in the electrically and behaviorally recorded seizures - even if epileptogenesis had not occurred. This is not adequately addressed.”

Thank you for pointing out the unclear definition of the seizures analyzed. We agree and will revise the text to clarify this issue. In this manuscript, we focused on tonic-clonic seizures. We analyzed animal behavior during evoked events, and a high percentage of induced electrographic events were accompanied by behavioral seizures with a Racine scale of three or above. Regarding epileptogenesis, our model is based on the IHK model, in which spontaneous tonic-clonic seizures occur a few to several days after KA injection. These mice are, by definition, epileptogenic. We will further clarify this methodology in the text.

Weakness #4: Similarity/Difference with Kindling Not Clear

Reviewer 2:

“The authors did not test whether an apparent "kindling" effect, apparently seen in naïve controls, also occurred in animals micro-injected with kainic acid (KA). This effect could cause model instability that might result in variability in response to ASDs. It is not clear whether the number of optogenetically induced seizures in epileptic animals would affect the response to drugs. It is also unclear how much of an improvement the animal model in the present work is over other similar models of TLE, where electrically triggered seizures could simply be applied to one of them.”

Reviewer 3:

“(5) It is unlikely that long-term adaptation to CA1-stimulated seizure induction is absent in these mice. A duration of evaluation longer than 16 days is warranted in light of the downward slope at days 13-16 for induced seizures in Figure 4C.”

We appreciate the reviewer’s comments regarding the “kindling effect” as well as its similarity to the kindling model. We will carefully assess the data and address this in the revised manuscript. In electrical kindling, the activated cellular population is non-specific, including both excitatory and inhibitory neurons. In our model, we specifically activate predominantly excitatory neurons (Thy1-positive neurons), which we observed to participate in convulsant-induced seizures (as demonstrated in Thy1-GCaMP experiments). We consider this specificity an improvement over the kindling model, making our approach more biologically relevant.

Weakness #5: Time needed to generate model is significant. Unclear if animals were pre-selected

Reviewer 1:

“Finally, the multiple surgeries and long timetable to generate these mice may limit the value compared to existing models in drug-testing paradigms.

Reviewer 2:

“The authors offer little mention of other research using animal models of TLE to screen ASDs, of which there are many published studies - many of them with other strengths and/or weaknesses. For example, although Grabenstatter and Dudek (2019, Epilepsia) used a version of the systemic KA model to obtain dose-response data on the effects of carbamazepine on spontaneous seizures, that work required use of KA-treated rats selected to have very high rates of spontaneous seizures, which requires careful and tedious selection of animals. The ETSP has published studies with an intra-amygdala kainic acid (IA-KA) model (West et al., 2022, Exp Neurol), where the authors claim that they can use spontaneous seizures to identify ASDs for DRE; however, their lack of a drug effect of carbamazepine may have been a false negative secondary to low seizure rates. The approach described in this paper may help with confounds caused by low or variable seizure rates. These types of issues should be discussed, along with others.”

We appreciate the reviewer’s insights. In an existing model investigating spontaneous tonic-clonic seizures (such as the intra-amygdala kainate injection model), the time investment is back-loaded, requiring two to three weeks per condition while counting spontaneous seizures, which may occur only once a day. In contrast, our model requires a front-loaded time investment. Once the animals are set up, we can test multiple drugs within a few weeks, providing significant time savings. Additionally, we did not pre-screen animals in our study. Existing models often pre-select mice with high rates of spontaneous seizures, whereas in our model, seizures can be induced even in animals with few spontaneous seizures. We believe that bypassing the need for pre-screening is a key advantage of our induced seizure model.

Reviewer 3:

“(7) No mention or assessment of mouse sex as a biological variable.”

Thank you for pointing this out. Both female and male animals were included in this study: Epileptic cohort: 7 males, 3 females; Naïve cohort: 3 males, 4 females

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Wilson's Disease (WD) is an inherited rare pathological condition due to a mutation in ATP7B that alters mitochondrial structure and dysfunction. Additionally, WD results in dysregulated copper metabolism in patients. These metabolic abnormalities affect the functions of the liver and can result in cholecystitis. Understanding the immune component and its contribution to WD and cholecystitis has been challenging. In this work, the authors have performed single-cell RNA sequencing of mesenchymal tissue from three WD patients and three liver hemangioma patients.

Strengths:

The authors describe the transcriptomic alterations in myeloid and lymphoid compartments.

Weaknesses:

In brief, this manuscript lacks a clear focus, and the writing needs vast improvement. Figures lack details (or are misrepresented), the results section only catalogs observations, and the discussion needs to focus on their findings' mechanistic and functional relevance. The major weakness of this manuscript is that the authors do not provide a mechanistic link between the absence of ATP7B and NK cells' impaired/altered functions. While the work is of high clinical relevance, there are various areas that could be improved.

In this study, we reported for the first time that ATP7B mutation and the resulting metabolic abnormalities in hepatocytes cause functional alteration of immune cells in WD patients. We dissected the transcriptional profiles of liver mesenchymal cells and delineated the functional differences of main immune cells in WD patients through scRNA-seq. The NK cell exhaustion and its clinical significance were further demonstrated.

The mechanism study is of our concern. Given that the ATP7B mutation is hepatocyte-specific, its effect on immune cells is most probably through intercellular communication rather than through the direct action of ATP7B protein. How ATP7B mutation disturbs the metabolic homeostasis in hepatocyte, how metabolic pathways regulate the release of signal substances, and how signal substances act on the NK cells need to be explained. These contents, together with this manuscript, are beyond the scope of a single article, so we put the novelty in this manuscript.

We sincerely appreciate the comments. We have improved the manuscript based on your valuable suggestions. The mechanism study is our subsequent research topic. We are actively promoting it and have found that ATP7B mutation rewires a certain metabolism pathway in hepatocyte, and that a critical metabolite functions as the mediator causing NK cell exhaustion.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Wilson's disease is a rare genetic disorder caused by mutations in the ATP7B gene. Previous studies have documented that ATP7B mutations can disrupt copper metabolism, affecting brain and liver function. In this paper, the authors performed a retrospective clinical study and found that Wilson's disease has a high incidence of cholecystitis. Single-cell RNA-seq analysis revealed changes in the immune microenvironment, including the activation of immune responses and the exhaustion of natural killer cells.

Strengths:

A key finding of this study is that the predominant ATP7B gene mutation in the Chinese population is the 2333G>T (p. R778L) mutation. The authors reported associations between Wilson's disease and cholecystitis, as well as the exhaustion of natural killer cells.

Weaknesses:

The underlying mechanisms linking ATP7B mutations to cholecystitis and natural killer cell exhaustion remain unclear. Specifically, it is not yet determined whether copper metabolism alterations directly cause cholecystitis and natural killer cell exhaustion, or if these effects are secondary to liver dysfunction.

In this study, we reported for the first time that ATP7B mutation and the resulting metabolic abnormalities in hepatocytes cause functional alteration of immune cells in WD patients. We dissected the transcriptional profiles of liver mesenchymal cells and delineated the functional differences of main immune cells in WD patients through scRNA-seq, focusing on the NK cell exhaustion and its clinical significance.

The mechanism study is of our concern. Given that the ATP7B mutation is hepatocyte-specific, its effect on immune cells is most probably through intercellular communication, so we prioritize the studying of this aspect. How ATP7B mutation disturbs the metabolic homeostasis in hepatocyte, how metabolic pathways regulate the release of signal substances, and how signal substances act on the NK cells need to be explained. These contents, together with this manuscript, are beyond the scope of a single article, so we put the novelty in this manuscript.

We sincerely appreciate the comments. The mechanism study is the topic of our follow-up study. We are actively promoting the research and we have found that ATP7B mutation rewires a certain metabolism pathway in hepatocyte, and that a critical metabolite functions as the mediator causing NK cell exhaustion.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Major:

(1) Abstract. A major portion of this manuscript focuses on non-NK cells. Data that describes NK cell exhaustion is only minimal. Therefore, the authors should modify the abstract.

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have supplemented the description of functional changes in other immune cells, and have modified the abstract (line 31-35).

(2) Introduction. There are three paragraphs. The first paragraph discusses cholecystitis. However, there are too many repetitions, and the information is unclear. In the second part, the authors discuss NK cells and their exhaustion. The authors do not establish a clear rationale or logic linking NK cells to WD or cholecystitis. In the last paragraph, the authors describe their findings. Their correlation between NK cell exhaustion and the poor healing process of cholecystitis has no direct experimental proof.

Thank you for your comments. We have deleted the repetitions and rephrased some sentences (line 72-74). Briefly, in the first paragraph, we proposed the significant prognostic value of immune cell dysfunction for cholecystitis. In the second paragraph, we introduced NK cell exhaustion and its potential to predict prognosis of certain diseases. In the third paragraph, we introduced that the liver is a central organ involved in metabolism and immunity, holding a large number of NK cells. Liver pathologies commonly impact the development and outcome of inflammation-associated diseases such as cholecystitis. WD was selected as a research model. In the last paragraph, we introduced our findings from clinical study, scRNA-seq, clinical samples, and bioinformatics analysis, and concluded at the end.

(3) Results. Overall, the results section lacks clarity and a clear focus. Figure legends need to be significantly detailed. The authors make too many broad statements without any support. The authors also make too many overstatements.

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have improved the inaccurate statements and made detailed refinement of figure legends. All the changes are marked in the manuscript, and related responses are described below.

Figure 1: No information is provided about the functional impairment of ATP7B protein due to the mutation found in the cohort of Chinese patients. What does 'immune abnormalities' (line 127) mean? What is the relevance of showing liver fibrosis and copper accumulation in the eye in Figure 1c and d, respectively? Total cholesterol concentrations are still within the range in the plasma of WD patients, but the authors call it higher. ECAR has not changed in WD patients, but the authors claim it has (line 117).

(1) All these gene mutations in WD disable the protein function and cause the same outcome. (2) We have deleted the inappropriate statement. (3) In clinical observation, we found that WD not only causes copper accumulation in hepatocytes, but also leads to a variety of diseases, including liver fibrosis, Kayser-Fleischer Ring, and lower risk of hyperglycemia. We showed these together with the data of cholecystitis incidence. We think these might suggest the significance of intercellular communication between hepatocytes and other cells in microenvironment. (4) We have deleted the inappropriate statement (line 108-110, 112-113).

Figure 2: Did the authors use the liver mesenchymal tissue or mesenchymal cells? Figure 2 states that they used mesenchymal cells, different from liver mesenchymal tissue. Numbers within Figure 2b UMAP are not visible. Were the initial T and NK cells annotated as indicated in Figure S2 (CD3D, CD#E, CD3G)? If so, that does not include NK cells.

(1) The liver mesenchymal cells were used for scRNA-seq. (2) It is possible that the image resolution was reduced due to the compression of files by the submission system during merging process. We confirm that the image resolution of all figures meets publishing requirements, and that all characters on the figures are visible. You can download figure files to view details. (3) It was our negligence that the incomplete cell markers were shown in Figure S2. We have updated the markers (CD3D, CD3E, NKG7), references (Ref #53, #55, and #56), and related figures (Figure 2e, and Figure S2c).

Figure 3: The authors should change 'Case' to 'WD patients' both in the text and figures. DEGs in Figure 3C indicate a transcriptomic alteration in the B cell compartment, which the authors do not delineate. Also, the rationale and explanation for the CellChat analyses are minimal. Concluding that a change occurred within the TME with minimal data and explanations is unfair.

Thank you for your comments. (1) We apologize for the confusion caused by the use of nomenclatures and abbreviations in the text and figures. In all scRNA-seq data analysis, presentation, and description, we used specific terms (CASE and CON) to refer to the group of WD patients and controls, as well as their cell population. We have now unified the use of nomenclature in full text and defined them when first appeared (line 126-127), avoiding using lowercase form to prevent confusion. (2) We have now compared the expression of key genes of B cell between the two group in the next section “The dysfunction of main immune cells in WD patients” (line 230-235, Figure 4e, Figure S4e). (3) We have described the results of cellular communication in more detail (line 188-194). (4) We have modified the conclusion and all the related statement in full text (line 29-31, 82-84, 149, 194-195).

Figure 4: This section deals with multiple cell types with minimal explanations. This section discusses various cell types, but it lacks focus. In particular, the T cell section should be separated and elaborated more in detail.

(1) In this section, we intended to show the comparison in function of main immune cells that account for a considerable proportion, instead of just showing differently expressed genes that provide minimal information. The evaluation of functional signature, based on the integration of multiple gene expression, allows a direct understanding of the final outcome owing to transcriptional changes. (2) Given that the main functions of T cells did not change significantly and there were more significant changes in innate immunity, the T cell section is relatively short and unsuitable as a separated part.

Figure 5: What are the distinct subsets of NK cells authors have found in the WD patients and controls? How do these subsets differ between the two groups in numbers and their transcriptomes? The presentation and labeling of Figure 5 and Supplementary Figure 5 need to be vastly improved. The pseudotime presentation in Figure 5b should be presented separately for the patients and the controls. Are the changes in gene expression presented in Figure 5a due to the change in the subset compositions? Figure 5c immuno-staining is not at all visible. A clear explanation should be given for the differences between Figure 5c and Figure 5e, where NKG2A expressions are shown. A better explanation for Figure 5d is required. Did the authors use all the antibodies with the same fluorochrome? If so, what color is that? Can the authors include the individual samples in the bar diagram in Figure 5e? Again, the data in Figure 5 is insufficient to conclude that NK cells are exhausted in WD patients. While the role of changes in the expression of T-BET and EOMES can be related to dysfunction and cellular exhaustion of NK cells, the statement made by the authors needs to be toned down as they do not test with independent experiments.

(1) The subsets of NK cell were clustered by gene expression profile and labeled by the characteristically expressed gene, using certain algorithm in the routine procedure. They cannot be distinguished in clinical samples by one or several genes or other sorting methods. Thus, we were not able to analyze these subsets in clinical samples. (2) We have supplemented the comparison of numbers and transcriptomes of three NK subtypes between the two groups (line 268-273). (3) We have checked the figures and confirmed that all characters on the figures are visible. (4) We have separately presented the plot in Figure S5d. (5) We compared the expression level of genes presented in Figure 5a between the two groups in three NK subtypes and supplemented this part (line 264-268). The results were very consistent across the three subtypes, suggesting that the results in total NK population were contributed by all three subtypes and not affected by a single composition. (6) KLRC1 is also known as NKG2A. We are sorry for not making a clear explanation, and now we use KLRC1 only in all text to avoid confusion. We have made a more clear and detailed description for Figure 5c, 5d, and 5e (now labeled as Figure 5b, 5c, and 5d), and have included the fluorochrome in Figure 5d (now labeled as Figure 5c) and the individual value in Figure 5e (now labeled as Figure 5d) (line 293-299). (7) In this section, we found the upregulated expression of inhibitory receptors, downregulated expression of effector molecules, and the impaired NK cell-mediated cytotoxicity in NK cell of WD patients from scRNA-seq. Then we validated the findings in clinical liver section samples and clinical blood samples by mIHC and flow cytometry, respectively. According to the recent articles, exhausted NK cells are characterized by decreased production of effector cytokines (e.g., IFNγ), as well as by impaired cytolytic activity, and downregulate expression of certain activating receptors and upregulate expression of inhibitory receptors (e.g., 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00760, 10.1038/s41590-018-0132-0, 10.1038/s41467-019-09212-y, 10.1080/2162402X.2016.1264562). Therefore, we concluded NK cell exhaustion in WD patients. (8) In the part about transcription factors, we kept the description of objective data and deleted the statement of the contribution of transcription factors to NK exhaustion.

Figure 6: Data presented in Figure 6 and the conclusion made in this manuscript are predictive. There is no direct testing of ATP7B in NK cells to show the functions of this gene. Extension of this to patient survival is purely speculative. As long as authors state these facts clearly in their text, it can be acceptable. However, they do not extend their conclusions to similar liver diseases.

ATP7B mutation is hepatocyte-specific, and it does not occur in any immune cells. The function of ATP7B in NK cell was not studied. We found the NK exhaustion and poor prognosis of cholecystitis in WD patients. Given that there were researches demonstrating that NK exhaustion is correlated with poor liver cancer prognosis, we hypothesized that NK exhaustion contributes to the poor prognosis of cholecystitis. Bioinformatics studies confirmed our hypothesis and supported the extension of this result to other inflammatory diseases. We had no experimental data, but this result was reliable in bioinformatics method.

(4) Discussion: While the authors analyzed multiple cell types, the discussion is primarily focused on NK cells. There is no clear link between copper utilization, NK cell function, and exhaustion that the authors articulate.

Thank you for your comments. The focus of our study is NK cell exhaustion, which is experimentally proven, so we discussed this aspect. We prioritize the effect of intercellular communication and metabolic alteration on the NK cell exhaustion in our follow-up study. Excess copper is released into the circulation in some circumstances in WD patients, but generally they receive long-term de-coppering therapy to maintain intracellular copper at a non-lethal level. Thus, we do not tend to consider copper as a critical factor in this study. In original manuscript, we mentioned the cuproptosis and its potential as a novel target. It is likely to lead to ambiguity and misunderstanding, so we deleted this part to put our point of view clearly.

(5) Supplementary Figures: The presentation and labeling of these figures need to be changed.

Thank you for your suggestions. We have modified the figures and confirmed that all characters on the figures are visible.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

It is better to test whether ATP7B mutation can directly affect immune functions.

Thank you for your suggestions. Given that the ATP7B mutation is hepatocyte-specific, its effect on immune cells is most probably through intercellular communication. Thus, we prioritize the effect of intercellular communication on the NK cell exhaustion and we are actively promoting the research.

Author response:

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

Public reviews:

Reviewer 1

We would like to express our gratitude to Reviewer 1 for providing a thorough summary of our work and highlighting its strengths. With regards to the weaknesses, we are committed to improve the manuscript by performing the necessary changes. First, we will specify the exact p-value in all cases.

Regarding the discussion section, we acknowledge the feedback regarding its potential confusion. In line with the reviewer's suggestion, we will reduce the literature review and highlight our findings.

Finally, for the preprint we did not include cofounders such as HIV infection and ethnicity as our study population did not exhibit viral infections and comprised only Hispanic individuals. We will make a more thorough description of the population of study and address these characteristics explicitly in both the methods section and the initial part of the results.

Reviewer 2

We appreciate and thank reviewer 2 for the commentaries. Although it is true that several papers have described the role of microbiome in COVID-19 severity, we firmly believe that our current work stands out. There is not much information related to this association in Mediterranean countries, especially in the south of Spain. In addition, most of the studies only describe microbiota composition in stool or nasopharyngeal samples separately, without investigating any potential relationships between them as we do.

(1) We agree with the reviewer idea of a limited sample size. We faced the challenge of collecting the samples during the peak of COVID-19 pandemia. Thus, doctors and nurses were overwhelmed and not always available for carrying out patient recruitment following the inclusion criteria. Despite these constraints, we ensured that all included samples met our specified inclusion criteria and were from subjects with confirmed symptomatology.

In addition, our main goal was to identify whether severity of the disease could be assessed through microbiota composition. Therefore we did not include a healthy group. Despite not having a large N, our results should be reproducible as they are supported by statistical analysis.

(2) We thank reviewer commentary, and since our original sentence may have lacked clarity, we intend to modify it to ensure it conveys the intended meaning more effectively.

Nonetheless, we remain confident in the significance of our findings. Not only have we found correlation between microbiota and COVID severity, but we have also described how specific bacteria from each condition is associated with key biochemical parameters of clinical COVID infection.

(3) We appreciate the feedback provided by the reviewer. In this case, we have performed 16S analysis due to its cost-effectiveness compared to metagenomic approaches. Furthermore, 16S analysis has undergone refinements that ensure comprehensive coverage and depth, along with standardized analysis protocols. Unlike 16S, metagenomic approaches lack software tools such as QIIME that facilitate standardization of analysis and, thus, reduce reproducibility of results.

(4) We sincerely appreciate this insightful suggestion. simply listing associations between both microbiomes and COVID-19 severity could not be enough, we intend to discuss how microbiota composition may be linked to the mechanisms underlying COVID-19 pathogenesis in our discussion.

(5) We are grateful for the constructive criticism and intend to rewrite our abstract to enhance clarity. Additionally, we will thoroughly review all figures and their descriptions to ensure accuracy and comprehensibility.

Reviewer 3

We acknowledge the annotations made by reviewer 3 and are committed to addressing all identified weaknesses to enhance the quality of our work. Our idea is to modify the methods section and figures to make them easier to understand.

Specifically, in the case of Figure 1, we recognize an error in the description of the Bray-Curtis test. We appreciate the commentary and we will make the necessary changes. Moreover, there is another observation related to Figure 1 description. We are going to modify it in order to gain accuracy.

For figure 2 we are planning to add a supplementary table showing the abundance of detected genus. Nevermind, we will also update the manuscript text to provide clarification on how we obtained this result.

Regarding the clarification about "1% abundance," we want to emphasize that we are referring to relative abundance, where 1 represents 100%. To avoid confusion, we will explicitly state this in both the methods section and figure descriptions. Besides, it is true that the statistical test employed for the analysis is not mentioned in the figure description and we recognize that the image may be difficult to interpret. Therefore, we will modify the text and a supplementary table displaying the abundance and p values is going to be added.

Furthermore, we agree with the reviewer's suggestion to investigate whether the bacteria identified as potential biomarkers for each condition are specific to their respective severity index or if there is a threshold. Thus, we will reanalyze the data and include a supplementary table with the abundance of each biomarker for each condition. We will also place greater emphasis on these results in our discussion.

Finally, in response to the reviewer's suggestion, we are going to go through the nasopharyngeal-fecal axis part in the discussion. It is well described that COVID-19 induces a dysbiosis in both microbiomes. Consequently, we understand that the ratio we have described could be an interesting tool for assessing COVID severity development as it considers alterations in both environments. However, we acknowledge that there may be room for improvement in clarifying the significance of this intriguing finding and its implications.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This manuscript from Schwintek and coworkers describes a system in which gas flow across a small channel (10^-4-10^-3 m scale) enables the accumulation of reactants and convective flow. The authors go on to show that this can be used to perform PCR as a model of prebiotic replication.

Strengths:

The manuscript nicely extends the authors' prior work in thermophoresis and convection to gas flows. The demonstration of nucleic acid replication is an exciting one, and an enzyme-catalyzed proof-of-concept is a great first step towards a novel geochemical scenario for prebiotic replication reactions and other prebiotic chemistry.

The manuscript nicely combines theory and experiment, which generally agree well with one another, and it convincingly shows that accumulation can be achieved with gas flows and that it can also be utilized in the same system for what one hopes is a precursor to a model prebiotic reaction. This continues efforts from Braun and Mast over the last 10-15 years extending a phenomenon that was appreciated by physicists and perhaps underappreciated in prebiotic chemistry to increasingly chemically relevant systems and, here, a pilot experiment with a simple biochemical system as a prebiotic model.

I think this is exciting work and will be of broad interest to the prebiotic chemistry community.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript states: "The micro scale gas-water evaporation interface consisted of a 1.5 mm wide and 250 µm thick channel that carried an upward pure water flow of 4 nl/s ≈ 10 µm/s perpendicular to an air flow of about 250 ml/min ≈ 10 m/s." This was a bit confusing on first read because Figure 2 appears to show a larger channel - based on the scale bar, it appears to be about 2 mm across on the short axis and 5 mm across on the long axis. From reading the methods, one understands the thickness is associated with the Teflon, but the 1.5 mm dimension is still a bit confusing (and what is the dimension in the long axis?) It is a little hard to tell which portion (perhaps all?) of the image is the channel. This is because discontinuities are present on the left and right sides of the experimental panels (consistent with the image showing material beyond the channel), but not the simulated panels. Based on the authors' description of the apparatus (sapphire/CNC machined Teflon/sapphire) it sounds like the geometry is well-known to them. Clarifying what is going on here (and perhaps supplying the source images for the machined Teflon) would be helpful.

We understand. We will update the figures to better show dimensions of the experimental chamber. We will also add a more complete Figure in the supplementary information. Part of the complexity of the chamber however stems from the fact that the same chamber design has also been used to create defined temperature gradients which are not necessary and thus the chamber is much more complex than necessary.

We added the scheme of the whole PTFE Chip to Figure 2 in the top left corner, indicating the ROI shown in the fluorescence micrographs. Additionally, the channel walls are now clearly indicated by white dotted lines. The dimensions of the setup are now shown clearer, by showing the total width of the channel as well as its height until the gas flux channel, as well as its depth. Changed caption of the figure accordingly and it now reads: “[…] The PTFE chip cutout in the top left corner shows the ROI used for the micrographs. The color scale is equal for both simulation and experiment and Channel dimensions are 4 x 1.5 x 0.25 mm as indicated. Dotted lines visualize the location of the channel walls. […]“

The data shown in Figure 2d nicely shows nonrandom residuals (for experimental values vs. simulated) that are most pronounced at t~12 m and t~40-60m. It seems like this is (1) because some symmetry-breaking occurs that isn't accounted for by the model, and perhaps (2) because of the fact that these data are n=1. I think discussing what's going on with (1) would greatly improve the paper, and performing additional replicates to address (2) would be very informative and enhance the paper. Perhaps the negative and positive residuals would change sign in some, but not all, additional replicates?

To address this, we will show two more replicates of the experiment and include them in Figure 2.

We are seeing two effects when we compare fluorescence measurements of the experiments.

Firstly, degassing of water causes the formation of air-bubbles, which are then transported upwards to the interface, disrupting fluorescence measurements. This, however, mostly occurs in experiments with elevated temperatures for PCR reactions, such as displayed in Figure 4.

Secondly, due to the high surface tension of water, the interface is quite flexible. As the inflow and evaporation work to balance each other, the shape of the interface adjusts, leading to alterations in the circular flow fields below.

Thus the conditions, while overall being in steady state, show some fluctuations. The strong dependence on interface shape is also seen in the simulation. However, modeling a dynamic interface shape is not so easy to accomplish, so we had to stick to one geometry setting. Again here, the added movies of two more experiments should clarify this issue.

We performed three more replicates of the experiment and included the averaged data points together with their respective standard deviation as error bars in Figure 2d. Additionally, the videos of each individual repeat are now added to the supplementary files for the reader to better understand where the strong fluctuations around half an hour come from. The Figure caption was adjusted to “ […] The maximum relative concentration of DNA increased within an hour to ~30 X the initial concentration, with the trend following the simulation. Error bars are the standard deviation from four independent measurements. […].

The main text was also changed to better explain how the fluctuations impact the measurements: […] Water continuously evaporated at the interface, but nucleic acids remained in the aqueous phase accumulating near the interface. They could only escape downward either by diffusion or by the vortex induced by the gas flowing across the interface, pushing the molecules back deeper into the bulk (See the flow lines in Fig2(b) taken from the simulation).  As the gas flow continuously removed excess vapor, the evaporation rate remained constant. Thus, except for fluctuations, a stable interface shape should be expected. However, due to the high surface tension of water, the interface is very flexible. As the inflow and evaporation work to balance each other, the shape of the interface adjusts, likely in response to small fluctuations in gas pressure and spatial variations in water surface tension. This is leading to alterations in the circular flow fields below (Supplementary Movie 2).

As these fluctuations are difficult to simulate, we decided to stick with one interface shape, matching evaporation and inflow speeds. The evaporation rate at the interface was therefore set to be proportional to the vapor concentration gradient and varied spatially along the interface between 5 and 10.5 µm/s (See Suppl. Fig. VI.1(d)). Using the known diffusion coefficient of 95 µm²/s for the 63mer[9]}, the simulation closely matched the experimental results. In both cases, DNA accumulated in regions with circular flow patterns driven by the gas flux (Fig.2(b), right panel).

5 minutes after starting the experiment, the maximum DNA accumulation was 3-fold, while after one hour of evaporation, around 30-fold accumulation was observed. Due to molecules residing in very shallow volumes when directly at the interface, the fluorescence signal can vary drastically compared to measurements deeper in the bulk. This can be seen in the fluctuations between independent measurements (See Supplementary Movies 2b,2b,2c), especially around 0.5~h shown in Figure 2(d). The simulated maximum accumulation followed the experimental results and starts saturating after about one hour (Fig.2(d)). […]”

The authors will most likely be familiar with the work of Victor Ugaz and colleagues, in which they demonstrated Rayleigh-Bénard-driven PCR in convection cells (10.1126/science.298.5594.793, 10.1002/anie.200700306). Not including some discussion of this work is an unfortunate oversight, and addressing it would significantly improve the manuscript and provide some valuable context to readers. Something of particular interest would be their observation that wide circular cells gave chaotic temperature profiles relative to narrow ones and that these improved PCR amplification (10.1002/anie.201004217). I think contextualizing the results shown here in light of this paper would be helpful.

Thanks for pointing this out and reminding us. We apologize. We agree that the chaotic trajectories within Rayleigh-Bénard convection cells lead to temperature oscillations similar to the salt variations in our gas-flux system. Although the convection-driven PCR in Rayleigh-Bénard is not isothermal like our system, it provides a useful point of comparison and context for understanding environments that can support full replication cycles. We will add a section comparing approaches and giving some comparison into the history of convective PCR and how these relate to the new isothermal implementation.

We added a main text paragraph after the last paragraph in section “Strand Separation Dynamics”: “[…]Rayleigh-Bénard convection cells generate similar patterns to those seen in Fig. 3(c) The oscillations in salt concentration resemble the temperature fluctuations observed in convection-based PCR reactions from earlier studies [32,33], which showed that chaotic temperature variations, compared to periodic ones, enhanced the efficiency of the PCR reaction.[…]

Again, it appears n=1 is shown for Figure 4a-c - the source of the title claim of the paper - and showing some replicates and perhaps discussing them in the context of prior work would enhance the manuscript.

We appreciate the reviewer for bringing this to our attention. We will now include the two additional repeats for the data shown in Figure 4c, while the repeats of the PAGE measurements are already displayed in Supplementary Fig. IX.2. Initially, we chose not to show the repeats in Figure 4c due to the dynamic and variable nature of the system. These variations are primarily caused by differences at the water-air interface, attributed to the high surface tension of water. Additionally, the stochastic formation of air bubbles in the inflow—despite our best efforts to avoid them—led to fluctuations in the fluorescence measurements across experiments. These bubbles cause a significant drop in fluorescence in a region of interest (ROI) until the area is refilled with the sample.

Unlike our RNA-focused experiments, PCR requires high temperatures and degassing a PCR master mix effectively is challenging in this context. While we believe our chamber design is sufficiently gas-tight to prevent air from diffusing in, the high surface-to-volume ratio in microfluidics makes degassing highly effective, particularly at elevated temperatures. We anticipate that switching to RNA experiments at lower temperatures will mitigate this issue, which is also relevant in a prebiotic context.

The reviewer’s comments are valid and prompt us to fully display these aspects of the system. We will now include these repeats in Figure 4c to give readers a deeper understanding of the experiment's dynamics. Additionally, we will provide videos of all three repeats, allowing readers to better grasp the nature of the fluctuations in SYBR Green fluorescence depicted in Figure 4c.

The data from the triplicates are now added to Figure 4c, showing how air bubbles, forming through degassing at the high temperatures required for Taq polymerase, disrupt the measurement, as they momentarily dry off the channel and stop the reaction until the channel fills again. Figure caption has been adapted and now reads: “[…] Dotted lines show the data from independent repeats. Air bubbles formed through degassing can momentarily disrupt the reaction. […]”

We additionally changed the main text to explain the reader the experimental difficulties: “[…] In other repetitions of the reaction, this increase was sometimes even observed earlier, around the one-hour mark (dotted lines). However, air bubbles nucleated by degassing events rise and temporarily dry out the channel, interrupting the reaction until the liquid refills the channel (Supplementary Movies 4,4b,4c\&5). Despite our best efforts, we were unable to fully prevent this, especially given the high temperatures required for Taq polymerase activity. In an identical setting when the gas- and water flux were switched off, no fluorescence increase was found (See Fig. 4(c) red lines). Fluorescence variations are additionally caused by fluctuations in the position of the gas-water interface, as discussed earlier. […]”

I think some caution is warranted in interpreting the PCR results because a primer-dimer would be of essentially the same length as the product. It appears as though the experiment has worked as described, but it's very difficult to be certain of this given this limitation. Doing the PCR with a significantly longer amplicon would be ideal, or alternately discussing this possible limitation would be helpful to the readers in managing expectations.

This is a good point and should be discussed more in the manuscript. Our gel electrophoresis is capable of distinguishing between replicate and primer dimers. We know this since we were optimizing the primers and template sequences to minimize primer dimers, making it distinguishable from the desired 61mer product. That said, all of the experiments performed without a template strand added did not show any band in the vicinity of the product band after 4h of reaction, in contrast to the experiments with template, presenting a strong argument against the presence of primer dimers.

We added a main text section explaining this to the reader: “[…]Suppl. Fig. IX.2 shows all independent repeats of the corresponding experiments. No product was detected in any of these cases, ruling out reaction limitations such as primer dimer formation. Primer dimers would form even in the absence of a template strand and would be identifiable through gel electrophoresis. As Taq polymerase requires a significant overlap between the two dimers to bind, this would result in a shorter product compared to the 61mer used here.  […]”

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Schwintek et al. investigated whether a geological setting of a rock pore with water inflow on one end and gas passing over the opening of the pore on the other end could create a non-equilibrium system that sustains nucleic acid reactions under mild conditions. The evaporation of water as the gas passes over it concentrates the solutes at the boundary of evaporation, while the gas flux induces momentum transfer that creates currents in the water that push the concentrated molecules back into the bulk solution. This leads to the creation of steady-state regions of differential salt and macromolecule concentrations that can be used to manipulate nucleic acids. First, the authors showed that fluorescent bead behavior in this system closely matched their fluid dynamic simulations. With that validation in hand, the authors next showed that fluorescently labeled DNA behaved according to their theory as well. Using these insights, the authors performed a FRET experiment that clearly demonstrated the hybridization of two DNA strands as they passed through the high Mg++ concentration zone, and, conversely, the dissociation of the strands as they passed through the low Mg++ concentration zone. This isothermal hybridization and dissociation of DNA strands allowed the authors to perform an isothermal DNA amplification using a DNA polymerase enzyme. Crucially, the isothermal DNA amplification required the presence of the gas flux and could not be recapitulated using a system that was at equilibrium. These experiments advance our understanding of the geological settings that could support nucleic acid reactions that were key to the origin of life.

The presented data compellingly supports the conclusions made by the authors. To increase the relevance of the work for the origin of life field, the following experiments are suggested:

(1) While the central premise of this work is that RNA degradation presents a risk for strand separation strategies relying on elevated temperatures, all of the work is performed using DNA as the nucleic acid model. I understand the convenience of using DNA, especially in the latter replication experiment, but I think that at least the FRET experiments could be performed using RNA instead of DNA.

We understand the request only partially. The modification brought about by the two dye molecules in the FRET probe to be able to probe salt concentrations by melting is of course much larger than the change of the backbone from RNA to DNA. This was the reason why we rather used the much more stable DNA construct which is also manufactured at a lower cost and in much higher purity also with the modifications. But we think the melting temperature characteristics of RNA and DNA in this range is enough known that we can use DNA instead of RNA for probing the salt concentration in our flow cycling.

Only at extreme conditions of pH and salt, RNA degradation through transesterification, especially under alkaline conditions is at least several orders of magnitude faster than spontaneous degradative mechanisms acting upon DNA [Li, Y., & Breaker, R. R. (1999). Kinetics of RNA degradation by specific base catalysis of transesterification involving the 2 ‘-hydroxyl group. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 121(23), 5364-5372.]. The work presented in this article is however focussed on hybridization dynamics of nucleic acids. Here, RNA and DNA share similar properties regarding the formation of double strands and their respective melting temperatures. While RNA has been shown to form more stable duplex structures exhibiting higher melting temperatures compared to DNA [Dimitrov, R. A., & Zuker, M. (2004). Prediction of hybridization and melting for double-stranded nucleic acids. Biophysical Journal, 87(1), 215-226.], the general impact of changes in salt, temperature and pH [Mariani, A., Bonfio, C., Johnson, C. M., & Sutherland, J. D. (2018). pH-Driven RNA strand separation under prebiotically plausible conditions. Biochemistry, 57(45), 6382-6386.] on respective melting temperatures follows the same trend for both nucleic acid types. Also the diffusive properties of RNA and DNA are very similar [Baaske, P., Weinert, F. M., Duhr, S., Lemke, K. H., Russell, M. J., & Braun, D. (2007). Extreme accumulation of nucleotides in simulated hydrothermal pore systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(22), 9346-9351.].

Since this work is a proof of principle for the discussed environment being able to host nucleic acid replication, we aimed to avoid second order effects such as degradation by hydrolysis by using DNA as a proxy polymer. This enabled us to focus on the physical effects of the environment on local salt and nucleic acid concentration. The experiments performed with FRET are used to visualize local salt concentration changes and their impact on the melting temperature of dissolved nucleic acids.  While performing these experiments with RNA would without doubt cover a broader application within the field of origin of life, we aimed at a step-by-step / proof of principle approach, especially since the environmental phenomena studied here have not been previously investigated in the OOL context. Incorporating RNA-related complexity into this system should however be addressed in future studies. This will likely require modifications to the experimental boundary conditions, such as adjusting pH, temperature, and salt concentration, to account for the greater duplex stability of RNA. For instance, lowering the pH would reduce the RNA melting temperature [Ianeselli, A., Atienza, M., Kudella, P. W., Gerland, U., Mast, C. B., & Braun, D. (2022). Water cycles in a Hadean CO2 atmosphere drive the evolution of long DNA. Nature Physics, 18(5), 579-585.].

(2) Additionally, showing that RNA does not degrade under the conditions employed by the authors (I am particularly worried about the high Mg++ zones created by the flux) would further strengthen the already very strong and compelling work.

Based on literature values for hydrolysis rates of RNA [Li, Y., & Breaker, R. R. (1999). Kinetics of RNA degradation by specific base catalysis of transesterification involving the 2 ‘-hydroxyl group. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 121(23), 5364-5372.], we estimate RNA to have a half-life of multiple months under the deployed conditions in the FRET experiment (High concentration zones contain <1mM of Mg2+). Additionally, dsRNA is multiple orders of magnitude more stable than ssRNA with regards to degradation through hydrolysis [Zhang, K., Hodge, J., Chatterjee, A., Moon, T. S., & Parker, K. M. (2021). Duplex structure of double-stranded RNA provides stability against hydrolysis relative to single-stranded RNA. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(12), 8045-8053.], improving RNA stability especially in zones of high FRET signal. Furthermore, at the neutral pH deployed in this work, RNA does not readily degrade. In previous work from our lab [Salditt, A., Karr, L., Salibi, E., Le Vay, K., Braun, D., & Mutschler, H. (2023). Ribozyme-mediated RNA synthesis and replication in a model Hadean microenvironment. Nature Communications, 14(1), 1495.], we showed that the lifetime of RNA under conditions reaching 40mM Mg2+ at the air-water interface at 45°C was sufficient to support ribozymatically mediated ligation reactions in experiments lasting multiple hours.

With that in mind, gaining insight into the median Mg2+ concentration across multiple averaged nucleic acid trajectories in our system (see Fig. 3c&d) and numerically convoluting this with hydrolysis dynamics from literature would be highly valuable. We anticipate that longer residence times in trajectories distant from the interface will improve RNA stability compared to a system with uniformly high Mg2+ concentrations.

Added a new Supplementary section for this. We used the trace from Figure 3(c) and calculated the hydrolysis rate for each timestep by using literature values from RNA [Li, Y., & Breaker, R. R. (1999). Kinetics of RNA degradation by specific base catalysis of transesterification involving the 2 ‘-hydroxyl group. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 121(23), 5364-5372.]. We conclude that the conditions deployed for the experiment are not harsh on RNA, with hydrolysis rates in the E-6 1/min regime. The figure below (also now in the supplementary information) shows the hydrolysis of RNA deployed under the conditions of the experiment in Figure 3. RNA is not expected to hydrolyze under these conditions and timescales, in which a replication reaction would occur. With a half life of around 83 days, even a prebiotically plausible – very slow – replication reaction would not be constrained by hydrolysis boundary conditions in this scenario.

Referenced to this section in the supplementary information in the maintext: […] In the experimental conditions used here, RNA would also not readily degrade, even if the strand enters the high salt regimes (See Suppl. Sec. IX). Using literature values for hydrolysis rates under the deployed conditions, we estimate dissolved RNA to have a half life of around 83 days. […]

(3) Finally, I am curious whether the authors have considered designing a simulation or experiment that uses the imidazole- or 2′,3′-cyclic phosphate-activated ribonucleotides. For instance, a fully paired RNA duplex and a fluorescently-labeled primer could be incubated in the presence of activated ribonucleotides +/- flux and subsequently analyzed by gel electrophoresis to determine how much primer extension has occurred. The reason for this suggestion is that, due to the slow kinetics of chemical primer extension, the reannealing of the fully complementary strands as they pass through the high Mg++ zone, which is required for primer extension, may outcompete the primer extension reaction. In the case of the DNA polymerase, the enzymatic catalysis likely outcompetes the reannealing, but this may not recapitulate the uncatalyzed chemical reaction.

This is certainly on our to-do list for future experiments in this setting. Our current focus is on templated ligation rather than templated polymerization and we are working hard to implement RNA-only enzyme-free ligation chain reaction, based on more optimized parameters for the templated ligation from 2’3’-cyclic phosphate activation that was just published [High-Fidelity RNA Copying via 2′,3′-Cyclic Phosphate Ligation, Adriana C. Serrão, Sreekar Wunnava, Avinash V. Dass, Lennard Ufer, Philipp Schwintek, Christof B. Mast, and Dieter Braun, JACS doi.org/10.1021/jacs.3c10813 (2024)]. But we first would try this at an air-water interface which was shown to work with RNA in a temperature gradient [Ribozyme-mediated RNA synthesis and replication in a model Hadean microenvironment, Annalena Salditt, Leonie Karr, Elia Salibi, Kristian Le Vay, Dieter Braun & Hannes Mutschler, Nature Communications doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37206-4 (2023)] before making the jump to the isothermal setting we describe here. So we can understand the question, but it was good practice also in the past to first get to know the setting with PCR, then jump to RNA.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Could the authors comment on the likelihood of the geological environments where the water inflow velocity equals the evaporation velocity?

This is an important point to mention in the manuscript, thank you for pointing that out. To produce a defined experiment, we were pushing the water out with a syringe pump, but regulated in a way that the evaporation was matching our flow rate. We imagine that a real system will self-regulate the inflow of the water column on the one hand side by a more complex geometry of the gas flow, matching the evaporation with the reflow of water automatically. The interface would either recede or move closer to the gas flux, depending on whether the inflow exceeds or falls short of the evaporation rate. As the interface moves closer, evaporation speeds up, while moving away slows it down. This dynamic process stabilizes the system, with surface tension ultimately fixing the interface in place.

We have seen a bit of this dynamic already in the experiments, could however so far not yet find a good geometry within our 2-dimensional constant thickness geometry to make it work for a longer time. Very likely having a 3-dimensional reservoir of water with less frictional forces would be able to do this, but this would require a full redesign of a multi-thickness microfluidics. The more we think about it, the more we envisage to make the next implementation of the experiment with a real porous volcanic rock inside a humidity chamber that simulates a full 6h prebiotic day. But then we would lose the whole reproducibility of the experiment, but likely gain a way that recondensation of water by dew in a cold morning is refilling the water reservoirs in the rocks again. Sorry that I am regressing towards experiments in the future.

We added a paragraph after the second paragraph in Results and Discussion.

It now reads: […] For a real early Earth environment we envision a system that self-regulates the water column's inflow by automatically balancing evaporation with capillary flows. The interface adjusts its position relative to the gas flux, moving closer if the inflow is less than the evaporation rate, or receding if it exceeds it. When the interface nears the gas flux, evaporation accelerates, while moving it away slows evaporation. This dynamic process stabilizes the system, with surface tension ultimately fixing the interface's position. […]

(2) Could the authors speculate on using gases other than ambient air to provide the flux and possibly even chemical energy? For example, using carbonyl sulfide or vaporized methyl isocyanide could drive amino acid and nucleotide activation, respectively, at the gas-water interface.

This is an interesting prospect for future work with this system. We thought also about introducing ammonia for pH control and possible reactions. We were amazed in the past that having CO2 instead of air had a profound impact on the replication and the strand separation [Water cycles in a Hadean CO2 atmosphere drive the evolution of long DNA, Alan Ianeselli, Miguel Atienza, Patrick Kudella, Ulrich Gerland, Christof Mast & Dieter Braun, Nature Physics doi.org/10.1038/s41567-022-01516-z (2022)]. So going more in this direction absolutely makes sense and as it acts mostly on the length-selectively accumulated molecules at the interface, only the selected molecules will be affected, which adds to the selection pressure of early evolutionary scenarios.

Of course, in the manuscript, we use ambient air as a proxy for any gas, focusing primarily on the energy introduced through momentum transfer and evaporation. We speculate that soluble gasses could establish chemical gradients, such as pH or redox potential, from the bulk solution to the interface, similar to the Mg2+ accumulation shown in Figure 3c. The nature of these gradients would depend on each gas's solubility and diffusivity. We have already observed such effects in thermal gradients [Keil, L. M., Möller, F. M., Kieß, M., Kudella, P. W., & Mast, C. B. (2017). Proton gradients and pH oscillations emerge from heat flow at the microscale. Nature communications, 8(1), 1897.] and finding similar behavior in an isothermal environment would be a significant discovery.

Added a paragraph in the Conclusion to showcase this: [… ] Furthermore we expect that other gases, such as CO2, could establish chemical gradients in this environment. Such gradients have been observed in thermal gradients before [23] and finding similar behaviour in an isothermal environment would be a significant discovery.[…]

(3) Line 162: Instead of "risk," I suggest using "rate".

Thanks for pointing this out! Will be changed.

Fixed.

(4) Using FRET of a DNA duplex as an indicator of salt concentration is a decent proxy, but a more direct measurement of salt concentration would provide further merit to the explicit statement that it is the salt concentration that is changing in the system and not another hidden parameter.

Directly observing salt concentration using microscopy is a difficult task. While there are dyes that change their fluorescence depending on the local Na+ or Mg2+ concentration, they are not operating differentially, i.e. by making a ratio between two color channels. Only then we are not running into artifacts from the dye molecules being accumulated by the non-equilibrium settings. We were able to do this for pH in the past, but did not find comparable optical salt sensors. This is the reason we ended up with a FRET pair, with the advantage that we actually probe the strand separation that we are interested in anyhow. Using such a dye in future work would however without a doubt enhance the understanding of not only this system, but also our thermal gradient environments.

(5) Figure 3a: Could the authors add information on "Dried DNA" to the caption? I am assuming this is the DNA that dried off on the sides of the vessel but cannot be sure.

Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out. This is correct and we will describe this better in the revised manuscript.

Added a sentence in the caption to address this: […] Fluctuations in interface position can dry and redissolve DNA repeatedly (see “Dried DNA” in right panel). […]

(6) Figure 4b and c: How reproducible is this data? Have the authors performed this reaction multiple independent times? If so, this data should be added to the manuscript.

The data from the gel electrophoresis was performed in triplicates and is shown in full in supplementary information. The data in c is hard to reproduce, as the interface is not static and thus ROI measurements are difficult to perform as an average of repeats. Including the data from the independent repeats will however give the reader insight into some of the experimental difficulties, such as air bubbles, which form from degassing as the liquid heats up, that travel upwards to the interface, disrupting the ongoing fluorescence measurements.

This was also pointed out by reviewer 1 and addressed there.

(7) Line 256: "shielding from harmful UV" statement only applies to RNA oligomers as UV light may actually be beneficial for earlier steps during ribonucleoside synthesis. I suggest rephrasing to "shielding nucleic acid oligomers from UV damage.".

Will be adjusted as mentioned.

Fixed.

(8) The final paragraph in the Results and Discussion section would flow better if placed in the Conclusion section.

This is a good point and we will merge results and discussion closer together.

Fixed.

(9) Line 262, "...of early Life" is slightly overstating the conclusions of the study. I suggest rephrasing to "...of nucleic acids that could have supported early life."

This is a fair comment. We thank the reviewer for his detailed analysis of the manuscript!

Changed the phrase to: […]In this work we investigated a prebiotically plausible and abundant geological environment to support the replication of nucleic acids. […]

(10) In references, some of the journal names are in sentence case while others are in title case (see references 23 and 26 for example).

Thanks - this will be fixed.

Fixed.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study provides compelling evidence that RAR, rather than its obligate dimerization partner RXR, is functionally limiting for chromatin binding. This manuscript provides a paradigm for how to dissect the complicated regulatory networks formed by dimerizing transcription factor families.

Dahal and colleagues use advanced SMT techniques to revisit the role of RXR in DNA-binding of the type-2 nuclear receptor (T2NR) RAR. The dominant consensus model for regulated DNA binding of T2NRs posits that they compete for a limited pool of RXR to form an obligate T2NR-RXR dimer. Using advanced SMT and proximity-assisted photoactivation technologies, Dahal et al. now test the effect of manipulating the endogenous pool size of RAR and RXR on heterodimerization and DNA-binding in live U2OS cells. Surprisingly, it turns out that RAR, rather than RXR, is functionally limiting for heterodimerization and chromatin binding. By inference, the relative pool size of various T2NRs expressed in a given cell, rather than RXR, is likely to determine chromatin binding and transcriptional output.

The conclusions of this study are well supported by the experimental results and provide unexpected novel insights into the functioning of the clinically important class of T2NR TFs. Moreover, the presented results show how the use of novel technologies can put long-standing theories on how transcription factors work upside down. This manuscript provides a paradigm for how to further dissect the complicated regulatory networks formed by T2NRs or other dimerizing TFs. I found this to be a complete story that does not require additional experimental work. However, I do have some suggestions for the authors to consider.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) Does the increased chromatin binding measured when the RAR levels are increased reflect a higher occupancy of a similar set of loci, or are additional loci bound? The authors could discuss this issue in the context of the published literature. Obviously, this could be addressed experimentally by ChIP-seq or a similar analysis, but this would extend beyond the main topic of this manuscript.

We attempted to explore this experimentally using ChIP-seq with multiple RAR- and RXR-specific antibodies. Unfortunately, our results were inconclusive, as the antibody enrichment relative to the IgG control was insufficient for reliable interpretation. Specifically, our ChIP-seq enrichment levels were only around 1.5fold, while the accepted standard for meaningful ChIP enrichment is typically at least 2-fold. Due to these technical limitations, we decided to defer these experiments for now.

However, we agree with the reviewer that understanding whether the increased chromatin binding of RAR reflects higher occupancy at the same set of loci or binding to additional loci is a key question. In similar experiments involving the transcription factor TFEB (Esbin et al., 2024, Genes Dev, doi: 10.1101/gad.351633.124) where an increase in the SMT bound fraction occurred, both scenarios—higher occupancy at known loci and binding to additional loci in ChIP-seq was observed. So, addressing this intriguing possibility in future studies focused on RAR and RXR would be interesting.

(2) The results presented suggest convincingly that endogenous RXR is normally in excess to its binding partners (in U2OS cells). This point could be strengthened further by reducing RXR levels, e.g., by knocking out 1 allele or the use of shRNAs (although the latter method might be too hard to control). Overexpression of another T2NR might also help determine the buffer capacity of RXR.

We appreciate the reviewers’ acknowledgment that our results convincingly demonstrate that endogenous RXR is typically in excess relative to its binding partners in U2OS cells. We agree that this conclusion could be further reinforced by experiments such as overexpression of another T2NR to test RXR's buffering capacity. We are actively pursuing follow-up experiments involving overexpression of additional T2NRs to address this question in more detail. These studies are ongoing, and we plan to explore the buffer capacity of RXR more extensively in a future manuscript.

(3) The ~10% difference in fbound of RAR and RXR (in Figs 1 and 2), while they should be 1:1 dimers, is explained by invoking the expression of RXR isoforms. Can the authors be more specific concerning the nature of these isoforms?

We have provided detailed information about different T2NRs expressed in U2OS cells according to the Expression Atlas and the Human Protein Atlas Database in Supplementary Table S1. Table S1 specifically shows that both isoforms of RXRα and RXRβ are expressed in U2OS cells. Additionally, the caption of Table S1 explicitly notes the presence of isoform RXRβ in U2OS cells. In the main text, we reference Table S1 when discussing the 10% difference in fbound between RARα and RXRα, and we have now suggested that the expression of RXRβ likely accounts for the observed discrepancy.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In the manuscript "Surprising Features of Nuclear Receptor Interaction Networks Revealed by Live Cell Single Molecule Imaging", Dahal et al combine fast single molecule tracking (SMT) with proximity-assisted photoactivation (PAPA) to study the interaction between RARa and RXRa. The prevalent model in the nuclear receptor field suggests that type II nuclear receptors compete for a limiting pool of their partner RXRa. Contrary to this, the authors find that over-expression of RARa but not RXRa increases the fraction of RXRa molecules bound to chromatin, which leads them to conclude that the limiting factor is the abundance of RARa and not RXRa. The authors also perform experiments with a known RARa agonist, all trans retinoic acid (atRA) which has little effect on the bound fraction. Using PAPA, they show that chromatin binding increases upon dimerization of RARa and RXRa.

Strengths:

In my view, the biggest strength of this study is the use of endogenously tagged RARa and RXRa cell lines. As the authors point out, most previous studies used either in vitro assays or over-expression. I commend the authors on the generation of single-cell clones of knock-in RARa-Halo and Halo-RXRa. The authors then carefully measure the abundance of each protein using FACS, which is very helpful when comparing across conditions. The manuscript is generally well written and figures are easy to follow. The consistent color-scheme used throughout the manuscript is very helpful.

Weaknesses:

(1) Agonist treatment:

The authors test the effect of all trans retinoic acid (atRA) on the bound fraction of RARa and RXRa and find that "These results are consistent with the classic model in which dimerization and chromatin binding of T2NRs are ligand independent." However, all the agonist treatments are done in media containing FBS. FBS is not chemically defined and has been found to have between 10 and 50 nM atRA (see references in PMID 32359651 for example). The addition of 1 nM or 100 nM atRA is unlikely to result in a strong effect since the medium already contains comparable or higher levels of agonist. To test their hypothesis of ligand-independent dimerization, the authors should deplete the media of atRA by growing the cells in a medium containing charcoal-stripped FBS for at least 24 hours before adding agonist.

We acknowledge the reviewer's concern regarding the presence of atRA in FBS and agree that it may introduce baseline levels of agonist. However, in our experiments, both the 1 nM and 100 nM atRA treatments resulted in observable changes in RAR expression levels (Figure S3C). Additionally, the luciferase assays demonstrated that 100 nM atRA significantly increased retinoic acid-responsive promoter activity (Figure S1C). Given these clear responses to atRA, we believe the observed lack of effect on the chromatin-bound fraction cannot be attributed to the presence of comparable or higher levels of atRA in the FBS, as the reviewer suggests. Moreover, since our results align with the established literature and do not impact the core findings of our study, we decided not to pursue the suggested experiments with charcoal-stripped FBS in this manuscript.  

(2) Photobleaching and its effect on bound fraction measurements:

The authors discard the first 500 to 1000 frames due to the high localization density in the initial frames. This will preferentially discard bound molecules that will bleach in the initial frames of the movie and lead to an over-estimation of the unbound fraction.

For experiments with over-expression of RAR-Halo and Halo-RXR, the authors state that the cells were pre-bleached and that these frames were used to calculate the mean intensity of the nuclei. When pre-bleaching, bound molecules will preferentially bleach before the diffusing population. This will again lead to an over-representation of the unbound fraction since this is the population that will remain relatively unaffected by the pre-bleaching. Indeed, the bound fraction for over-expressed RARa and RXRa is significantly lower than that for the corresponding knock in lines. To confirm whether this is a biological result, I suggest that the authors either reduce the amount of dye they use so that this pre-bleaching is not necessary or use the direct reactivation strategy they use for their PAPA experiments to eliminate the pre-bleaching step.

As for the measurement of the nuclear intensity, since the authors have access to multiple HaloTag dyes, they can saturate the HaloTagged proteins with a high concentration of JF646 or JFX650 to measure the mean intensity of the protein while still using the PA-JFX549 for SMT. Together, these will eliminate the need to prebleach or discard any frames.

The Janelia Fluor dyes used in our experiments are known for their high photostability (Grimm et al., 2021, JACS Au, doi: 10.1021/jacsau.1c00006). During the initial 80 ms imaging to calculate the mean nuclear intensity, the laser power was kept at very low intensity (~3%) for a brief duration (~10 seconds), in contrast to the high-intensity (~100%) used during the tracking experiments, which span around 3 minutes. This low-power illumination does not induce significant photobleaching but merely puts the dyes in a temporary dark state. Therefore, this pre-bleaching step closely resembles the direct reactivation strategy employed in our PAPA experiments.

To further address the reviewer's concern, we performed a frame cut-off analysis for our SMT movies of endogenous RARα-Halo and over-expressed RARα-Halo (Figure S9B). The analysis shows no significant change in the bound fraction of either endogenous or over-expressed RARα-Halo when discarding the initial 1000 frames. Based on these results, we conclude that the pre-bleaching does not lead to an overestimation of the unbound fraction, and that our experimental approach is robust.

(3) Heterogeneous expression of the SNAP fusion proteins:

The cell lines expressing SNAP tagged transgenes shown in Fig S6 have very heterogeneous expression of the SNAP proteins. While the bulk measurements done by Western blotting are useful, while doing single-cell experiments (especially with small numbers - ~20 - of cells), it is important to control for expression levels. Since these transgenic stable lines were not FACS sorted, it would be helpful for the reader to know the spread in the distribution of mean intensities of the SNAP proteins for the cells that the SMT data are presented for. This step is crucial while claiming the absence of an effect upon over-expression and can easily be done with a SNAPTag ligand such as SF650 using the procedure outlined for the over-expressed HaloTag proteins.

We agree with the reviewer that there is heterogeneity in SNAP protein expression across the transgenic lines. In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, we performed the proposed experiment to assess the distribution of mean intensities for two key experimental conditions: Halo-RXRα with overexpressed RARα-SNAP and HaloRXRα with overexpressed RARαRR-SNAP. These results again confirm that the increase in chromatin-bound fraction of Halo-RXRα is observed only in the presence of RARα capable of heterodimerizing with RXRα, supporting our main conclusion (Figure S9).

For these experiments, we followed the same labelling procedure described in the methods section for tracking endogenous Halo-tagged proteins alongside transgenic SNAP proteins. As shown in Figure S9, for ~ 70 cell nuclei, the distribution of mean intensities is similar for both conditions, with the bound fraction of Halo-RXRα significantly increasing in the presence of RARα-SNAP compared to RARαRR-SNAP. This analysis underscores that the observed effects are indeed due to the functional differences between the two RARα variants rather than variability in expression levels.

(4) Definition of bound molecules:

The authors state that molecules with a diffusion coefficient less than 0.15 um2/s are considered bound and those between 1-15 um2/s are considered unbound. Clarification is needed on how this threshold was determined. In previous publications using saSPT, the authors have used a cutoff of 0.1 um2/s (for example, PMID 36066004, 36322456). Do the results rely on a specific cutoff? A diffusion coefficient by itself is only a useful measure of normal diffusion. Bound molecules are unlikely to be undergoing Brownian motion, but the state array method implemented here does not seem to account for non-normal diffusive modes. How valid is this assumption here?

We acknowledge the inconsistency in the diffusion coefficient thresholds for defining the chromatin-bound fraction used across our group’s publications. The choice of threshold or cutoff (0.1 µm²/s vs 0.15 µm²/s) is largely arbitrary and does not significantly impact the results. To validate this, we tested the effect of different cutoffs on fbound (%) for endogenously expressed Halo-tagged RARα and RXRα (Figure S10). As shown in Figure S10, there was no substantial difference in fbound (%) calculated using a 0.1 µm²/s versus 0.15 µm²/s cutoff (e.g., RARα clone c156: 47±1% vs 49±1%; RXRα clone D6: 34±1% vs 35±1%). 

Since we have consistently applied the 0.15 µm²/s cutoff throughout this manuscript across all experimental conditions, the comparative analysis of fbound (%) remains valid. While we agree that a Brownian diffusion model may not fully capture the motion of bound molecules, our state array model accounts for localization error, which likely incorporates some of the chromatin motion features. Moreover, the distinction between bound (<0.15 µm²/s) and unbound (1-15 µm²/s) populations is sufficiently large that using a normal diffusion model is reasonable for our analysis.

(5) Movies:

Since this is an imaging manuscript, I request the authors to provide representative movies for all the presented conditions. This is an essential component for a reader to evaluate the data and for them to benchmark their own images if they are to try to reproduce these findings.

We have now included representative movies for all the SMT experimental conditions presented in the manuscript. Please see data availability section of the manuscript.

(6) Definition of an ROI:

The authors state that "ROI of random size but with maximum possible area was selected to fit into the interior of the nuclei" while imaging. However, the readout speed of the Andor iXon Ultra 897 depends on the size of the defined ROI. If the ROI was variable for every movie, how do the authors ensure the same sampling rate?

We used the frame transfer mode on the Andor iXon Ultra 897 camera for our acquisitions, which allows for fast frame rate measurements without altering the exposure time between frames. Additionally, we verified the metadata of all our movies to ensure a consistent frame interval of 7.4 ms across all conditions. This confirms that the sampling rate was maintained uniformly, despite the variability in ROI size. 

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) 'Hoechst' is mis-spelled.

We have now corrected this typo in the manuscript.

(2) Cos7 appears in several places throughout the text. I assume this is a typo. If so, please correct it. If not, please explain if some experiments were done in Cos7 cells and kindly provide a justification for that.

The use of Cos7 cells is intentional and not a typo. Cos7 cells have been previously utilized in studies investigating the interaction between T2NRs (Kliewer et al., 1992, Nature, doi: 10.1038/355446a0). In our study, due to technical issues with antibodies for coIP in U2OS cells, we initially used Cos7 cells for control experiments to verify that Halo-tagging of RARα and RXRα did not disrupt their interaction, by transiently expressing the constructs in Cos7 cells. Following these control experiments, we confirmed the direct interaction of endogenously expressed RAR and RXR in U2OS cells with their respective binding partners using the SMT-PAPA assay. Since these results confirmed that Halo-tagging did not interfere with RAR-RXR interactions, we chose not to repeat the coIP experiments in U2OS cells.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

This study aims to investigate the stoichiometric effect between core factors and partners forming the heterodimeric transcription factor network in living cells at endogenous expression levels. Using state-of-the-art single-molecule analysis techniques, the authors tracked individual RARα and RXRα molecules labeled by HALO-tag knock-in. They discovered an asymmetric response to the overexpression of counter-partners. Specifically, the fact that an increase in RARα did not lead to an increase in RXRα chromatin binding is incompatible with the previous competitive core model. Furthermore, by using a technique that visualizes only molecules proximal to partners, they directly linked transcription factor heterodimerization to chromatin binding.

Strengths:

The carefully designed experiments, from knock-in cell constructions to singlemolecule imaging analysis, strengthen the evidence of the stoichiometric perturbation response of endogenous proteins. The novel finding that RXR, previously thought to be a target of competition among partners, is in excess provides new insight into key factors in dimerization network regulation. By combining the cutting-edge single-molecule imaging analysis with the technique for detecting interactions developed by the authors' group, they have directly illustrated the relationship between the physical interactions of dimeric transcription factors and chromatin binding. This has enabled interaction analysis in live cells that was challenging in single-molecule imaging, proving it is a powerful tool for studying endogenous proteins.

Weaknesses:

As the authors have mentioned, they have not investigated the effects of other T2NRs or RXR isoforms. These invisible factors leave room for interpretation regarding the origin of chromatin binding of endogenous proteins (Recommendations 4). In the PAPA experiments, overexpressed factors are visualized, but changes in chromatin binding of endogenous proteins due to interactions with the overexpressed proteins have not been investigated. This might be tested by reversing the fluorescent ligands for the Sender and Receiver. Additionally, the PAPA experiments are likely to be strengthened by control experiments (Recommendations 5).

We agree that this would be an interesting experiment. However, there are three technical challenges that complicate its implementation: First, as demonstrated in our original PAPA paper, dark state formation is less efficient when dyes are conjugated to Halo compared to SNAPf, making the reverse configuration less optimal. Second, SNAPf-tagged proteins have slower labeling kinetics than Halotagged proteins, often resulting in under-labeling of SNAPf. Third, our SNAPf transgenes were integrated polyclonally. Since background PAPA scales with the concentration of the sender-labeled protein, variable concentrations of the senderlabeled SNAPf proteins would introduce significant variability, complicating the interpretation of the background PAPA signal. Due to these concerns, we believe that performing reciprocal measurements with reversed fluorescent ligands may not yield reliable results. 

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) The term "Surprising features" in the title is ambiguous and may force readers to search for what it specifically refers to. Including a word that evokes specific features might be helpful.

Our findings contradict previous work, which suggested that chromatin binding of T2NRs is regulated by competition for a limited pool of RXR. In contrast, we found that RAR expression can limit RXR chromatin binding, but not the other way around, which challenges the existing model. This unexpected result is what we refer to as a "surprising feature" in our title, and we believe it accurately reflects the novel insights our study provides. We also think that this is clearly conveyed in our manuscript abstract, supporting the use of "Surprising features" in the title. 

(2) p.3, line 11 - The threshold of 0.15 μm2s-1 seems to be a crucial value directly linked to the value of fbound. What is the rationale for choosing this specific value? If consistent conclusions can be obtained using threshold values that are similar but different, it would strengthen the robustness of the results.

Please refer to our response to Reviewer #2’s Public Review point 4. The threshold choice is arbitrary and doesn’t affect the overall conclusions. To test this, we compared fbound (%) values calculated using both 0.1 μm²s-1 and 0.15 μm²s-1 cutoffs. For example, with endogenously expressed Halo-tagged RARα (clone c156), we observed fbound values of 47±1% vs 49±1%, and for RXRα (clone D6), 34±1% vs 35±1%, respectively (Figure S10). Since we have consistently applied the 0.15 μm²s-1 cutoff across all experimental conditions in this manuscript, the comparisons of fbound (%) between different conditions are robust and valid.

(3) p.4, line 13 - "the fbound of endogenous RARα-Halo (47{plus minus}1%) was largely unchanged upon expression of SNAP (47{plus minus}1%)" part of the sentence is not surprising. It would make more sense if it were expressed as "the fbound of endogenous RARα-Halo (47{plus minus}1%) was largely unchanged upon expression of RXRα-SNAP (49{plus minus}1%), consistent with the control SNAP (47{plus minus}1%).".

We understand how the original phrasing may be confusing to the readers and have restructured the sentence as suggested by the reviewer for clarity.

(4) p.6, line 26 - The discussion that "most chromatin binding of endogenous RXRα in U2OS cells depends on heterodimerization partners other than RARα" seems to contradict the top right figure in Figure 4. If that's the case, the binding partner for the bound red molecule might be yellow rather than blue. Given a decrease in the number of RARα molecules with an unchanged binding ratio, the total number of binding molecules has decreased. Could it be interpreted that the potential reduction in RXRα chromatin binding, accompanying the decrease in binding RARα, is compensated for by other partners?

We agree with the reviewer that both the yellow and blue molecules in Figure 4 represent T2NRs that can heterodimerize with RXR. For simplicity, we chose to omit the depiction of RXR dimerization with other T2NRs (represented in yellow) in Figure 4. We have now included a note in the figure caption to clarify this. We plan to follow up on the buffer capacity of RXR with other T2NRs in a separate manuscript and will discuss this aspect in more detail once we have data from those experiments.

(5) Fig. 3 - I expected that DR localizations always appear more frequently than PAPA localizations by the difference in the number of distal molecules. Why does the linear line for SNAP-RXRα in Fig. 3 B have a slope exceeding 1? Also, although the sublinearity is attributed to binding saturation, is there any possibility that this sublinearity originates from the PAPA system like the saturation of PAPA reactivation? Control samples like Halo-SNAPf-3xNLS might address these concerns.

The number of DR and PAPA localizations depends on the arbitrarily chosen intensity and duration of green and violet light pulses. For any given protein pair, different experimental settings can result in PAPA localizations being greater than, less than, or equal to the number of DR localizations. Therefore, the informative metric is not the absolute number of DR and PAPA localizations, but rather how the ratio of PAPA to DR localizations changes between different conditions—such as between interacting pairs and non-interacting controls.

Regarding the sublinearity, we agree that it is essential to consider whether the observed sublinearity might stem from saturation of the PAPA signal. We know of two ways in which this could occur:

First, PAPA can be saturated as the duration of the green light pulse increases and dark-state complexes are depleted. However, this cannot explain the nonlinearity that we observe, because the duration of the green light pulse is constant, and thus the probability that a given complex is reactivated by PAPA is also constant. Likewise, holding the violet pulse duration constant yields a constant probability that a given molecule is reactivated by DR. PAPA localizations are expected to scale linearly with the number of complexes, while DR localizations are expected to scale linearly with the total number of molecules. Sublinear scaling of PAPA localizations with DR localizations thus implies that the number of complexes scales sublinearly with the total concentration of the protein.

Second, saturation could occur if PAPA localizations are undercounted compared to DR localizations. While this is a valid concern, we consider it unlikely in this case because 1) our localization density is below the level at which our tracking algorithm typically undercounts localizations, and 2) we observe sublinearity for RXR → RAR PAPA even though the number of PAPA localizations is lower than the DR localizations; undercounting due to excessive localization density would be expected to introduce the opposite bias in this case.

(6) Fig. 4 - The differences between A, B, and C on the right side of the model are subtle, making it difficult to discern where to see. Emphasizing the difference in molecule numbers or grouping free molecules at the top might help clarify these distinctions.

We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback. In response, we have revised Figure 4 by grouping the free molecules on the top right side for panels A, B and C, as suggested.

(7) While the main results are obtained through single-molecule imaging, no singlemolecule fluorescence images or trajectory plots are provided. Even just for representative conditions, these could serve as a guide for readers trying to reproduce the experiments with different custom-build microscope setups. Also, considering data availability, depositing the source data might be necessary, at least for the diffusion spectra.

We have now included representative movies for all the presented SMT conditions as source data. Please see data availability section of the manuscript.

(8) Tick lines are not visible on many of the graph axes. 

We have revised the figures to ensure that the tick lines are now clearly visible on all graph axes.

(9) Inconsistencies in the formatting are present in the methods, such as "hrs" vs. "hours", spacing between numbers and units, and "MgCl2". "u" should be "μ" and "x" should be "×". 

We have corrected the formatting errors.

(10) Table S4, rows 16 and 17 - Are "RAR"s typos for "RXR"s? 

We have corrected this in the manuscript.

(11) p.10~12 - Are three "Hoestch"s typos for "Hoechst"s? 

This is now corrected in the manuscript.

(12) p.11, line 17 - According to the referenced paper, the abbreviation should be "HILO" in all capital letters, not "HiLO". 

This is now corrected in the manuscript.

(13) "%" on p.3, line 18, and "." on p.6, line 27 are missing. 

This missing “%”  and “.” are now added.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Yao S. and colleagues aims to monitor the potential autosomal regulatory role of the master regulator of X chromosome inactivation, the Xist long non-coding RNA. It has recently become apparent that in the human system, Xist RNA can not only spread in cis on the future inactive X chromosome but also reach some autosomal regions where it recruits transcriptional repression and Polycomb marking. Previous work has also reported that Xist RNA can show a diffused signal in some biological contexts in FISH experiments.

In this study, the authors investigate whether Xist represses autosomal loci in differentiating female mouse embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and somatic mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs). They perform a time course of ESC differentiation followed by Capture Hybridization of Associated RNA Targets (CHART) on both female and male ESCs, as well as pulldowns with sense oligos for Xist. The authors also examine transcriptional activity through RNA-seq and integrate this data with prior ChIP-seq experiments. Additional experiments were conducted in MEFs and Xist-ΔB repeat mutants, the latter fails to recruit Polycomb repressors.

Based on this experimental design, the authors make several bold claims:

(1) Xist binds to about a hundred specific autosomal regions.

(2) This binding is specific to promoter regions rather than broad spreading.

(3) Xist autosomal signal is inversely correlated with PRC1/2 marks but positively correlated with transcription.

(4) Xist targeting results in the attenuation of transcription at autosomal regions.

(5) The B-repeat region is important for autosomal Xist binding and gene repression.

(6) Xist binding to autosomal regions also occurs in somatic cells but does not lead to gene repression.

Together, these claims suggest that Xist might play a role in modulating the expression of autosomal genes in specific developmental and cellular contexts in mice.

Strengths:

This paper deals with an interesting hypothesis that Xist ncRNA can also function at autosomal loci.

Weaknesses: The claims reported in this paper are largely unsubstantiated by the data, with multiple misinterpretations, lacking controls, and inadequate statistics. Fundamental flaws in the experimental design/analysis preclude the validity of the findings. Major concerns are listed below: (1) The entire paper is based on the CHART observation that Xist is specifically targeted to autosomal promoters. Overall, the data analysis is flawed and does not support such conclusions. Importantly the sense WT and the 0h controls are not used, nor are the biological replicates. 

We respectfully disagree with Rev1 but nevertheless thank the reviewer for making some suggestions that helped to strengthen our manuscript.  We have provided new experiments and analyses in the revised manuscript. Please see responses below.

Rev1 seems to have missed or misunderstood some key experiments. In fact, the sense WT and 0h controls were shown. Furthermore, we included at least two biological replicates for each experiment.

We used both male ES cells (which do not express Xist) and sense probes as key negative controls, as outlined in Figure S1. Crucially, we only analyzed peaks that were reproducible between biological replicates. The Xist CHART peaks in differentiating female ES cells were significantly enriched above the “background” defined by the sense probe and male controls. Specifically, in comparison to undifferentiated female ES cells (day 0) where both X chromosomes are active and Xist is not induced, Xist CHART robustly pulled down the X chromosome during cell differentiation (day 4, day 7, and day 14). In contrast, male ES cells showed no significant pull-down of the X chromosome, and the sense group also exhibited markedly reduced binding (new Figure S1B). Furthermore, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of CHART-seq reads (day 4 as an example) include Xist, sense, and input in WT and ΔRepB female, further confirmed that the sense probe CHART was clearly distinguishable from Xist CHART signals. Please see revised Figure S1C. Together, these findings underscore the specificity and robustness of our CHART results.

Data is typically visualized without quantification, and when quantified, control loci/gene sets are erroneously selected. Firstly, CHART validation on the X in FigS1 is misleading and not based on any quantifications (e.g., see the scale on Kdm6a (0-190) compared to Cdkl5 (0-40)). If scaled appropriately, there is Xist signal on the escapee. 

Rev1 may have misread the presented data. In the example raised by Rev1, Fig. S1 is inherently quantitative: e.g., a ratio is a number in Fig. S1A (now Fig. S1B) and all gene tracks in Fig. 1B-E are shown with scales. We showed X-linked genes in Fig. S1 (now Fig. S2) as a control to demonstrate that the CHART worked and that Xist accumulated over time from day 0 to day 14. Our new Figure 1B demonstrates the Xist accumulation in graph format. 

Our paper focuses on Xist autosomal binding sites. Thus, the X-linked examples were placed in the supplement. Escapee genes do in fact accumulate Xist at their promoter regions and this finding is consistent with data published by Simon et al. (2013, Nature). It was therefore not desirable in this paper to reanalyze X-linked genes, including escapees. Nevertheless, to address the reviewer’s concerns, we present new data in new Figure S3A. Here we analyzed the density of Xist binding across X-linked genes, including both active and inactive genes, as well as escapee genes. From this quantitative analysis, it should be clear that escapees do bind Xist. However, from the metagene plots in Figure S3B, we confirm the previous conclusion that escapees bind Xist at high levels just upstream of the promoter and that there is a depletion of Xist in the escapee gene body, consistent with a barrier preventing Xist from moving into the active gene. 

All X-linked loci should have been quantified and classified based on escape status; sense control should also be quantified, and biological replicates should be shown separately. 

Please see above response.

Additionally, in the revised manuscript, we have examined the Irreproducible Discovery Rate (IDR) to validate the reproducibility of peaks between the two replicates in the revised version, and we included a representative example from female WT ES cells at day 4 (revised Figure S4A). The results showed a strong correlation between the replicates, with an IDR threshold of 0.05 (red point > 0.05). As described in the Methods section, to ensure reliable and robust peak identification, we performed peak calling (MACS2) separately on each replicate, and then used bedtools intersect to identify peaks that overlapped between the two replicates. This stringent process, including strict q-value settings in MACS2, ensures the reliability and reproducibility of the peaks presented in this study.

Secondly, and most importantly, Figure 1 does not convincingly show specific Xist autosomal binding. Panel A quantification is on extremely variable y-scales and actually shows that Xist is recruited globally to nearly all autosomal genes, likely indicating an unspecific signal. Again, the sense and 0h controls should have been quantified along with biological replicates. 

Figure 1 shows heatmaps and corresponding metagenes for d0, d4, d7, and d14 female ES cells. Two biological replicates are analyzed. In our revised manuscript, we have used Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients to measure the strength and direction of a relationship between two biological replicates and shown that the two replicates have high reproducibility (new Figure S1A). On d0, the Xist coverage on autosomes and X chromosome is low, but there is a clear increase on d4, d7, and d14, particularly at the TSS of autosomal genes, as shown by the metagene plots on in Figure 1A-B and the CHART density maps in new Figure 1E-F. We also show relative depletion of Xist signals in the male and sense negative controls.

Upon inspecting genome browser tracks of all regions reported in the manuscript (Rbm14, Srp9, Brf1, Cand2, Thra, Kmt2c, Kmt2e, Stau2, and Bcl7b), the signal is unspecific on all sites with the possible exception of Kmt2e. On all other loci, there is either a strong signal in the 0h ESC controls or more signal in some of the sense controls. This implies that peak calling is picking up false positive regions. How many peaks would have been picked up if the sense or the 0h controls were used for peak calling? It is likely that there would be a lot since there are also possible "peaks" (e.g., Fzd9) in control tracks. 

The analysis cannot be performed by visual inspection. A statistical analysis must be performed to call signal above noise. This is why we performed peak-calling on two biological replicates and identified overlapping peaks using bedtools intersect to improve reliability. Significant peaks are noted as black bars under each track. As mentioned above, for our analysis, we focused on the top 100 peaks based on peak scores to ensure robustness. Xist has significantly higher signal compared to the sense probe in the Xist-autosomal peak regions (revised Figure 1E-F). Additionally, we conducted peak calling on undifferentiated ES cells (d0) and detected a significantly higher number of peaks (~600) compared to the differentiated states (d4 or d7) (~100).

Single-cell sequencing studies have shown that about 2% of undifferentiated mESCs express detectable Xist (Pacini et al., Nat Commun, 2021). The Xist peaks in “day 0” cells may be due to the differentiating population.

Further inspection of the data was not possible as the authors did not provide access to the raw fastq files. When inspecting results from past published experiments {Engreitz, 2013 #1839} reported regions were not bound by Xist. 

On the contrary, we deposited the raw data files to GEO prior to the submission of the paper and included the reviewer link to access them. As of August 24, 2024, GEO publicly released these files, allowing for full inspection of the data. 

Regarding the Engreitz publication, it is not recommended to compare our current study to their analysis for the crucial reason that the Engreitz study was not conducted under physiological conditions. The authors overexpressed the Xist gene in male ES cells. Because Xist RNA can silence genes in male cells as well, this ectopic overexpression normally leads to cell death — thus forcing examination of effects in a narrow time window before Xist can fully spread and act across the genome. Comparing our experiments (endogenous Xist expression in female ES cells) to the ectopic overexpression in male ES cells of Engreitz et al. should therefore not be undertaken.

Thirdly, contrary to the authors' claim, deleting the B repeat does not lead to a loss of autosomal signal. Indeed, comparing Fig1A and Fig2B side by side clearly shows no difference in the autosomal signal, likely because the autosomal signal is CHART background. Properly quantifying the signal with separate replicates as well as the sense and 0h controls is vital. Overall current data together with published results indicate that CHART peak calling on autosomes is due to technical noise or artefacts.

In our revised manuscript, we have included the quantitative results as mentioned above in the main and supplementary figure (new Figure 1E-F, Figure 2E-F, and S3A). The data clearly show an enrichment in the Xist CHART samples in differentiating female ES cells.

We believe the reviewer may be comparing the original Figure 1A and Figure 2A (not Figure 2B). As mentioned above, the analysis cannot be performed by visual inspection. Please see new Figure 2E and 2F. From these data, it should be clear that deleting RepB causes a decrease in Xist targeting to autosomal loci.

(2) The RNA-seq analysis is also flawed and precludes strong statements. Firstly, the analysis frequently lacks statistical analysis (Fig3B, FigS2B-C) and is often based on visualizations (Fig 3D-G) without quantifications. Day 4 B-repeat deletion does not lead to a significant change in the expression of genes close to Xist signal (Fig3H, d14 does not fully show). 

Please see new revised Figure 3B and Figures S2B-C (now revised as Figures S6A and S6B). 

Secondly, for all transcriptional analysis, it is important to show autosomal non-target genes, which is not always done. 

In the revised manuscript, we included non-target genes for each analysis (new Figure 4E-F, 5D and 5F, 7C and 7E, S7F, S8).

Indeed, both males and B repeat deletion will lead to transcriptional changes on autosomes as a secondary effect from different X inactivation status. The control set, if used, is inappropriate as it compares one randomly selected set of ~100 genes. This introduces sampling error and compares different classes of genes. Since Xist signal targets more active genes, it is important to always compare autosomal target genes to all other autosomal genes with similar basal expression patterns.

Please see new Figure S8. We included 100 randomly selected non-target sites on autosomes for this comparative analysis. For consistency, we applied the same flanking regions (10 kb) in the analysis of both target and non-target genes. We believe that this selection method for nontargets is appropriate for two reasons: first, it allows us to control for Xist binding and non-binding; second, it ensures a similar number of genes in both groups, providing a robust foundation for statistical analysis. 

(3) The ChIP-seq analysis also has some problems. The authors claim that there is no positive correlation between genes close to Xist autosomal binding (10kb) compared to those 50kb away (Fig 3C, S2D); however, this analysis is based entirely on metagene visualization. Signal within the Xist binding sites should be quantified (not genes close by) and compared to other types of genomic loci and promoters. Focusing on the 50kb group only as controls is misleading.

We believe the reviewer may have misunderstood our conclusions. As stated in the paper, we observed lower coverage of the histone marks H3K27me3 and H2AK119ub, associated with PRC2 and PRC1, respectively. Our conclusions regarding PRC1/2 support the RNA-seq results, indicating that Xist tends to bind to actively expressed genes. In other words, these genes exhibit lower levels of PRC-mediated silencing signals. This observation underscores the relationship between Xist binding and gene activity, highlighting that Xist preferentially associates with regions that are less subject to silencing by polycomb repressive complexes.

Secondly, the authors only look at PRC mark signal upon differentiation; what about the 0h timepoint, i.e., is there pre-marking? 

Day 0 is not an appropriate timepoint for this analysis because Xist is not yet induced. There is also a small fraction of cells (<5%) that spontaneously differentiate and start to undergo XCI. Because of these reasons, the day 0 timepoint is considered somewhat heterogeneous and it would be difficult to make conclusions regarding Xist peaks in these samples.

Most worryingly, the data analysis is not consistent between figures (see Fig3C vs 5H-I). In Fig5, the group of Xist targets was chosen as those within 100kb of Xist binding, which would encompass all the control regions from Fig3C. In this analysis, the authors report that there is Xist-dependent H3K27me3 deposition, and in fact, here the Xist autosomal targets have more of it than the controls. Overall, all of this analysis is misleading, and clear conclusions cannot be made.

We believe that the reviewer may have also misunderstood the analysis in Figure 5. Figure 5 shows the effect of the Xist inhibitor, X1, on H3K27me3 and gene expression. X1 blocks reduces PRC2 targeting and gene silencing — consistent with X1’s effect on RepA as published in Aguilar et al. 2022. 

All in all, because the fundamental observation is not robust (see point 1), all subsequent analyses are also affected. There are also multiple other inconsistencies within the analysis; however, they have not been included here for brevity.

We again respectfully disagree with Rev1 but thank the reviewer for making suggestions that helped to strengthen our manuscript.  We believe that the revised manuscript with new analyses is improved in part because of the reviewer’s critical comments.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

To follow-up on recent reports of Xist-autosome interaction the authors examine female (and male transgenic) mESCs and MEFs by CHARTseq. Upon finding that only 10% of reads map to X, they sought to identify reproducible alternative sites of Xist-binding, and identify ~100 autosomal Xistbinding sites and show a transient impact on expression.

Strengths:

The authors address a topical and interesting question with a series of models including developmental timepoints and utilize unbiased approaches (CHARTseq, RNAseq). For the CHARTseq they have controls of both sense probes and male cells; and indeed do detect considerable background with their controls. The use of deletions emphasizes that intact functional Xist is involved. The use of 'metagene' plots provides a visual summation of genic impact.

Reviewer 2 has made some excellent suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and are grateful to the reviewer for the recommendations.

Weaknesses:

Overall, the result presentation has many 'sample' gene presentations (in contrast to the stronger 'metagene' summation of all genes). The manuscript often relies on discussion of prior X chromosomal studies, while the data generated would allow assessment of the X within this study to confirm concordance with prior results using the current methodology/cell lines. 

Many of the 'follow-up' analyses are in fact reprocessing and comparison of published datasets. The figure legends are limited, and sample size and/or source of control is not always clear. While similar numbers of autosomal Xist-binding sites were often observed, the presented data did not clarify how many were consistent across time-points/cell types. While there were multiple time points/lines assessed, only 2 replicates were generally done.

We apologize for the deficiencies in the legend.  The revised manuscript has corrected them.

We generated many new datasets with deep sequencing, with at least two biological replicates for each. Such experiments are extremely expensive by nature. Thus, two biological replicates are typically considered acceptable.

Additionally, we performed reanalysis of published datasets to test whether — in the hands of other investigators — cell lines expressing Xist also supported autosomal targeting. Figure 4 is a case in point. Here we examined Tg1 and Tg2, which respond to doxycycline to overexpress Xist from an ectopic site. Transcriptomic analysis showed significant downregulation of autosomal Xist targets, as exemplified by Rbm14 and Bcl7b (new Figure 4C, S9B). In contrast, non-targets of Xist such as Stau1 did not demonstrate significant changes in gene expression (new Figure 4E and 4G). Looking across all autosomal target genes, we observed a significant decrease in mean expression in the Xist overexpressing cell lines (new Figure 4D). The fact that the autosomal changes were also observed in datasets generated by other investigators greatly strengthen our conclusions. 

Aim achievement:

The authors do identify autosomal sites with enrichment of chromatin marks and evidence of silencing. More details regarding sample size and controls (both treatment, and most importantly choice of 'non-targets' - discussed in comments to authors) are required to determine if the results support the conclusions.

Specific scenarios for which I am concerned about the strength of evidence underlying the conclusion:

I found the conclusion "Thus, RepB is required not only for Xist to localize to the X- chromosome but also for its localization to the ~100 autosomal genes " (p5) in constrast to the statement 2 lines prior: "A similar number of Xist peaks across autosomes in ΔRepB cells was observed and the autosomal targets remained similar". Some quantitative statistics would assist in determining impact, both on autosomes and also X; perhaps similar to the quintile analysis done for expression.

We have added the Xist coverage panel for day 4 and 7 in the identified Xist-autosomal peak regions (new Figure 1E-F, Figure 2E-F), as mentioned above. The results clearly demonstrate that the deletion of RepB decreases Xist binding to autosomes. Also, we showed that ΔRepB increased X-linked genes expression in our revised Figure 3D. 

It is stated that there is a significant suppression of X-linked genes with the autosomal transgenes; however, only an example is shown in Figure 4B. To support this statement, a full X chromosomal geneset should be shown in panels F and G, which should also list the number of replicates. 

Please see new Figure 4B.

As these are hybrid cells, perhaps allelic suppression could be monitored? Is Med14 usually subject to X inactivation in the Ctrl cells, and is the expression reduced from both X chromosomes or preferentially the active (or inactive) X chromosome?

If Rev2 is referring to Figure 4, the dataset used in Figure 4 comes from another research group and was previously published (Loda, A. et al. Nat Commun, 2017).

If Rev2 is referring to our ES cells, they are N2 cell lines.  The X chromosomes are fully hybridized (Cas/Mus), but the autosomes are not fully hybridized (Ogawa et al., Science, 2008). Med14 is subject to XCI and is expressed from the Xa, silenced on the Xi. 

The expression change for autosomes after transgene induction is barely significant; and it was not clear what was used as the Ctrl? This is a critical comparator as doxycycline alone can change expression patterns.

We agree that there was a modest change in expression after transgene induction, but it is a significant change. Again, the dataset is from a published study where the authors generated doxycycline-responsive Xist transgenes (see above). The control in this case is Dox-treated wildtype cells. We now clarify these points.

In the discussion there is the statement. "Genetic analysis coupled to transcriptomic analysis showed that Xist down-regulates the target autosomal genes without silencing them. This effect leads to clear sex difference - where female cells express the ~100 or so autosomal genes at a lower level than male cells (Figure 7H)." This sweeping statement fails to include that in MEFs there is no significant expression difference, in transgenics only borderline significance, and at d14 no significant expression difference. The down-regulation overall seems to be transient during development while targeting is ongoing?

Indeed, the Xist effects on autosomes seem to occur during cell differentiation in ES cells. While there is no apparent effect in MEFs, we cannot exclude effects on other somatic cells. Regardless of whether the effects are in early development or throughout life, the sex differences may have life-long effects in mammals. The study conducted in human cells by the Plath lab also concluded that the differences primarily affect stem cells.

Finally, I would have liked to see discussion of the consistency of the identified genes to support the conclusion that the autosomal sites are not merely the results of Xist diffusion.

We address this in the third paragraph of the Discussion. Our main argument is that if autosomal binding were caused by diffusion, then RepB deletion or X1 treatment would have led to increased binding at autosomal sites, as Xist would bind less to the X chromosome. However, as demonstrated in our study, both treatments resulted in reduced Xist binding on both the X chromosome and autosomes. This finding suggests that the binding is specific and reliant on Xist's RepA and RepB domains, rather than being a passive diffusion process.

To examine overlap between the conditions (days of differentiation and WT/RepB cells), we generated Venn Diagrams as now shown in Figure S4E.

The impact of Xist on autosomes is important for consideration of impact of changes in Xist expression with disease (notably cancers). Knowing the targets (if consistent) would enable assessment of such impact.

We thank Rev2 for the very helpful review and for the forward-looking experiments. Indeed, the physiological changes brought on by autosomal targeting will be of future interest.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Yao et al use CHART to identify chromatin associated with Xist in female mouse ESCs, and, as control, male ESCs at various timepoints of differentiation. Besides binding of Xist to X chromosome regions they found significant binding to autosomes, concentrating mostly on promoter regions of around 100 autosomal genes, as elucidated by MACS. The authors went on to show that the RepB repeat is mostly responsible for these autosomal interactions using a female ESC line in which RepB is deleted. Evidence is provided that Xist interacts with active autosomal genes containing lower coverage of repressive marks H3K27me3 and H2AK119ub and that RepB dependent Xist binding leads to dampening of expression, but not silencing of autosomal genes. These results were confirmed by overexpression studies using transgenic ESCs with doxycycline-inducible Xist as well as via a small molecule inhibitor of Xist (X1), inducing/inhibiting the dampening of autosomal genes, respectively. Finally, using MEFs and Xist mutants RepB or RepE the authors provide evidence that Xist is bound to autosomal genes in cells after the XCI process but appears not to affect gene expression. The data presented appear generally clear and consistent and indicate some differences between human and mouse autosomal regulation by Xist. Thus, these results are timely and should be published.

We thank Rev3 for the positive remarks and great suggestions.  We have amended the manuscript per below. 

Strengths:

Regulation of autosomal gene expression by Xist is a "big deal" as misregulation of this lncRNA causes developmental defects and human disease. Moreover, this finding may explain sexspecific developmental differences between the sexes. The results in this manuscript identify specific mouse autosomal genes bound by Xist and decipher critical Xist regions that mediate this binding and gene dampening. The methods used in this study are appropriate, and the overall data presented appear convincing and are consistent, indicating some differences between human and mouse autosomal regulation by Xist.

Weaknesses:

(1) The figure legends and/or descriptions of data are often very short lacking detail, and this unnecessarily impedes the reading of the manuscript, in particular the figures would benefit not only from more detailed descriptions/explanations of what has been done but also what is shown. 

We have included more detailed descriptions in the figure legends and throughout the manuscript.

This will facilitate the reading and overall comprehension by the reader. One out of many examples: In Fig S1B in the CHART data at d4 and d7 there is not only signal in female WT Xist antisense but also in female sense control. For a reader that is not an expert in XCI it would be helpful to point out in the legend that this signal corresponds to the lncRNA Tsix (I suppose), that is transcribed on the other strand.

We thank the reviewer for this excellent point.  We have amended the Results section accordingly.

(2) Different scales are used in the lower panels of Figures 1A and 2A, which makes it difficult to directly compare signals between the different differentiation stages.

We have included a figure combining all timepoints — d0, d4, d7, and d14 WT female Xist CHART signals  — on the X chromosome and autosomes to support our thesis. Please see new Figure 1B.

(3) In this study some of the findings on mouse cells contrast previously published results in human ESCs: 1) Xist binding occurs preferentially to promoters in mice, not in human. 2) Binding of Xist is mostly detected in polycomb-depleted regions in mice but there is a positive correlation between Xist RNA and PRC2 marks in human ESCs. These differences are surprising but may be very interesting and relevant. While I am aware that this might be a difficult task, it would be helpful to experimentally address this issue in order to distinguish whether species specific and/or methodological differences between the studies are responsible for these differences.

Indeed, our findings in mouse cells contrast with those observed in humans. As discussed in the manuscript, this discrepancy may be attributed to factors such as cell type, differentiation methods, and the Xist pull-down technique employed (our CHART method utilizes a 20 nt oligo library, whereas RAP uses long oligos). We agree that future work should investigate the underlying causes of these differences between mouse and human systems.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

For Figure 2: labelling ∆B on the panel A timeline (e.g. d0-∆B) would make the results clearer for the audience. Panel B makes most sense beside panel E of Figure 1, so combine here and skip in Figure 1?

We have modified Figure 2A and thank Rev2 for this suggestion. As for the embedded tables: since we performed peak calling for WT and ∆B separately, we believe that showing both the peak numbers and their corresponding peak patterns provides a clearer representation of the data.

I agree that at day 7 there appears to be a difference in X; but by day 14 this looks much more minimal - is it just time-shifted rather than altered? Perhaps this could be discussed. Autosomal binding sites show no change in number.

Day 7 exhibits the strongest Xist binding on the X chromosome, consistent with the de novo establishment phase of XCI when Xist is expressed at the highest levels (300 copies/cell during de novo XCI versus ~100 copies/cell during maintenance [Sunwoo et al., 2015 as cited]. Per our RNA-seq analysis here, we also observed highest Xist expression on day 7 and reduced levels on day 14 (Fig. S5A). This expression difference explains the reduced Xist CHART levels on day 14 compared to day 7. 

While the X has previously been examined, it would seem beneficial to conduct the same expression analyses (Figure 3) for the X (perhaps supplemental), as the authors have the data 'in hand'. I feel comparison to X in the main figure for panels A and B would fit, while a similar analysis for the X for panel C could be supplemental, presumably supporting the published data to which this data is currently compared. 

This is a good suggestion. Please find the new data in Figures 2E-F and 3D, which demonstrate that the RepB deletion inhibits Xist binding on the X chromosome, resulting in increased X-linked gene expression, as previously mentioned. Since Xist binds across the X chromosome, we did not perform peak calling as we did for the autosomes. Therefore, applying a similar analysis as in Figures 3A-B may not be appropriate in this case.

Such a direct comparison to X-data from the same study would be important. For panel H: How many replicates (2)? This should be in the legend. What is the change in median expression? Again, a supplemental figure showing impact on X-linked targets would be useful. Do male and female ESCs show an expression difference prior to differentiation (ie d0)? The data underlying this Figure should be in one of the supplementary tables, showing the full statistical tests and average change. The supplementary tables 8-12 list the WT target genes, not expression differences with the deletion. Again, given that the difference appears transient, might the ∆B cells be altered in rate of differentiation?

Panel H (revised Figure 3G) includes two replicates, and this has been added to the legends. We have provided a supplementary figure demonstrating that RepB increases the expression levels of X-linked genes on days 4, 7, and 14 (revised Figure 3D). Male and female ESCs show differences in the expression of X-linked genes, as both X chromosomes are active in females at this stage prior to differentiation (revised Figure S5C). 

A supplementary table with statistical tests and average change information has been included in our revised version (Table S11).

On the other hand, these Xist-autosomal target genes displayed no significant differences between WT male, female, or ∆B female cells on day 0 — prior to onset of XCI and Xist expression. Please see new Figure 3H. 

As for whether ∆B cells are altered in their rate of differentiation, the analysis by Colognori et al. 2019 indicates that ∆B cells differentiate similarly to WT cells. (In Figure 6 of Colognori et al. 2019, autosomal genes expressed similarly in WT and ∆B cells, whereas XCI is affected only in ∆B cells)

We have also modified the legends for our supplementary tables.

Why were the transgene lines examined upon neuronal differentiation rather than the same approach as in Figures 1-3? I would have thought neuronal differentiation might be more similar to d14, where limited changes remain? Could the authors clarify and discuss?

We apologize for the confusion. The Tg lines in Figure 4 came from a previously published study. We performed reanalysis of published datasets because we wanted to test whether — in the hands of other investigators — cell lines expressing Xist also supported autosomal targeting. Here we examined Tg1 and Tg2, which respond to doxycycline to overexpress Xist from an ectopic site. Transcriptomic analysis showed significant downregulation of autosomal Xist targets, as exemplified by Bcl7b and Rbm14 (Figure 4C and S9B). In contrast, non-targets of Xist such as Stau1 did not demonstrate significant changes in gene expression (Figure 4E and 4F). Looking across all autosomal target genes, we observed a significant decrease in mean expression in the Xist overexpressing cell lines (Figure 4D). The fact that the autosomal changes were also observed in datasets generated by other investigators greatly strengthen our conclusions. We have clarified this in the Results section.

Figure 5 - the legend should specify the number of replicates and clarify the blue/green (intuitive, but not specified). Are the 'target' / 'non-target' genes from d4 Chart (but the RNA from d5)? How are 'non-targets' defined - do they match the 'targets' in certain criteria (expression level, chromatin features, GC content)? Do they change per differentiation protocol?

We have modified the legends to clarify that the 'target' and 'non-target' genes are derived from the day 4 CHART-seq data, while the RNA data is from day 5, as that study sequenced day 5 and not day 4. Non-targets were randomly chosen based on (i) the absence of Xist binding and (ii) similar expression levels. Please see revised Figure S8.

It would be helpful to compare Xist expression levels across the various models, and the MEF model could be better described - are they polyploid as often happens?

We have included the Xist expression levels of ES cells and MEF cells in the revised version (revised Figure S5A, 6D). The transformed MEFs are indeed tetraploid, as is typical.

For 6A to be informative, one needs to know % mapping to X in ES timeline, which is in supplemental, so perhaps 6A should also be supplemental?

We have moved 6A to the supplemental figure.

It is odd that ∆B seems to have had more impact in MEFs, and I would like more discussion - but I also think I am missing something: "We observed that Xist signals were more substantially reduced on both the Xi and autosomal regions in ΔRepE MEFs compared to ΔRepB cells", yet in lower panel 6 G it looks like ∆B is LOWER than ∆E? Am I misinterpreting?

We apologize for the confusing writing.  The revised text now reads:  “To investigate, we utilized a deletion of Xist’s Repeat E (∆RepE), which was previously demonstrated to severely abrogate localization of Xist to the Xi 41,42. We reasoned that the severe loss of Xist binding might unmask a transcriptomic difference. As expected, we observed that Xist signals were somewhat more reduced on the Xi in ΔRepE MEFs compared to ΔRepB cells (Figure 6E-6F). Despite this reduction, peak coverages in autosomal target genes did not increase in ΔRepE MEFs (Figure 6E-6F). However, there was an overall decrease in the number of significant autosomal peaks in ∆RepE MEFs relative to WT cells (Figure 6A). Regardless, we observed no significant transcriptomic differences in ∆RepE MEFs relative to WT MEFs (Figure 7A-7E). Additionally, further examination of RNA sequencing data from male and female MEF cells in two published studies 43,44 corroborated that the expression levels of these autosomal Xist targets did not exhibit significant changes (Figure 7F and 7G). Altogether, the analysis in MEFs demonstrates that Xist continues to bind autosomal genes in post-XCI somatic cells. However, autosomal binding of Xist in post-XCI cells does not overtly impact expression of the associated autosomal genes. Nonetheless, we cannot exclude more subtle changes that do not meet the significance cut-off.”

Overall, I would like to see how consistent these autosomal peaks are - I shudder to suggest Venn diagrams, but something to show whether there are day/lineage specific peaks and/or ∆repeat B/E resistant peaks. 

We now present Venn diagrams comparing MEF, ES_d4, and ES_d7, showing approximately 50% overlap between MEF and ES cells (revised Figure S10B). This may be expected, as each timepoint is a different developmental stage of XCI, with expected gene expression differences.

Very minor comments:

It would be easier if the supplemental tables were tabs in 1 file!

We will defer to the editor on how best to format the supplemental tables.

Similar to the text, could gene names be included in the supplemental?

We have provided gene names in the supplemental files.

Figure 3 legend: should 'representing' be representative?

We have modified it.

"Xist patterns identified in human cells" p 5; it is challenging to follow human versus mouse, so specify or ensure correct use of XIST/Xist Indeed, we edited the manuscript accordingly.

Gene names should be italicized.

We have italicized gene names in our manuscript.

Ref. 38 lacks details (...).

We have updated the reference.

Peak-like characters - perhaps characteristics? P8

We have modified this.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

On page 6, the 6th sentence in the first paragraph needs correction. "Consistent with Xist's behavior on the X chromosome."

We have modified the sentence. Thank you.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The study by Longhurst et al. investigates the mechanisms of chemoresistance and chemosensitivity towards three compounds that inhibit cell cycle progression: camptothecin, colchicine, and palbociclib. Genome-wide genetic screens were conducted using the HAP1 Cas9 cell line, revealing compound-specific and shared pathways of resistance and sensitivity. The researchers then focused on novel mechanisms that confer resistance to palbociclib, identifying PRC2.1. Genetic and pharmacological disruption of PRC2.1 function, but not related PRC2.2, leads to resistance to palbociclib. The researchers then show that disruption of PRC2.1 function (for example, by MTF2 deletion), results in locus-specific changes in H3K27 methylation and increases in D-type cyclin expression. It is suggested that increased expression of D-type cyclins results in palbociclib resistance.

Strengths:

The results of this study are interesting and contribute insights into the molecular mechanisms of CDK4/6 inhibitors. Importantly, while CDK4/6 inhibitors are effective in the clinic, tumour recurrence is very high due to acquired resistance.

Weaknesses:

A key resistance mechanism is Rb loss, so it is important to understand if resistance conferred by PRC2.1 loss is mediated by Rb, and whether restoration of PRC2.1 function in Rb-deplete cells results in renewed palbociclib sensitivity. It is also important to understand the clinical implications of the results presented. The inclusion of these data would significantly improve the paper. However, besides some presentation issues and typos as described below, it is my opinion that the results are robust and of broad interest.

Major questions:

(1) Is the resistance to CDK4/6 inhibition conferred by mutation of MTF2 mediated by Rb?

(2) Are mutations in PRC2.1 found in genetic analyses of tumour samples in patients with acquired resistance?

We thank the reviewer for their editing and experimental suggestions, and have integrated their responses into our re-submitted manuscript.

We also agree that understanding the role of RB1 in mediating palbociclib resistance to the proposed resistance mechanism is of particular interest. However, as there are three RB proteins expressed in human cells, this is a technically difficult question to probe genetically. Despite this technical challenge, we have provided multiple lines of evidence in our resubmitted manuscript that the resistance to palbociclib observed in our PRC2.1-deficent cells is mediated through the canonical CDK4/6-RB1 pathway. First, disruption of RB1 in HAP1 cells results in palbociclib resistance to a level comparable level to PRC2.1 disruption (Fig. 4E). Second, inactivation of SUZ12 or MTF2 increases the number of cells entering S-phase in palbociclib treatment (Fig. 4G) with no increase in basal rates of apoptosis (Fig. S2D), suggesting that any proliferation advantage observed in PRC2.1-defective cells is due to resistance to  palbociclib-induced cell cycle arrest. Third, we show that over expression of CCND1 and CCND2 is sufficient to drive resistance to palbociclib in wild-type HAP1 cells (Fig. S5F).  And finally, increased levels of CCND1 and CCND2 observed in cells lacking PRC2.1 activity results in higher CDK4/6 activity as measured by RB1 phosphorylation, despite palbociclib blockade (Fig. 6F). All these lines of evidence strongly suggest that MTF2-containing PRC2.1 regulates G1 progression in through the canonical CDK4/6RB1 pathway by repressing CCND1 and CCND2 expression. 

Whether or not MTF2 deletion leads to palbociclib resistance in clinical samples is also of a question of particular interest. Currently, we are unaware of any reports that specifically mention MTF2 deletion as leading to palbociclib resistance, and we were unable to find another example in our own cancer database review. However, we have included references to other examples of MTF2 mutation resulting in chemotherapeutic resistance in our discussion. Additionally, although MTF2 is rarely observed to be mutated in cancers (Ngubo et al. 2023), it is highly differentially expressed and investigating decreased MTF2 transcription in palbociclib resistant tumors, though challenging, might prove fruitful.  However, as mechanisms of palbociclib resistance is an area of active investigation, we speculate that future studies might uncover additional examples of MTF2 mediating resistance to this clinically important chemotherapeutic.  

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Longhurst et al. assessed cell cycle regulators using a chemogenetic CRISPR-Cas9 screen in haploid human cell line HAP1. Besides known cell cycle regulators they identified the PRC2.1 subcomplex to be specifically involved in G1 progression, given that the absence of members of the complex makes the cells resistant to Palbociclib. They further showed that in HAP1 cells the PRC2.1, but not the PRC2.2 complex is important to repress the cyclins CCND1 and CCND2. This can explain the enhanced resistance to Palbociclib, a CDK4/6Inhibitor, after PRC2.1 deletion.

Strengths:

The initial CRISPR screen is very interesting because it uses three distinct chemicals that disturb the cell cycle at various stages. This screen mostly identified known cell cycle regulators, which demonstrates the validity of the approach. The results can be used as a resource for future research.

The most interesting outcome of the experiment is the finding that knockouts of the PRC2.1 complex make the cell resistant to Palbociclib. In a further experiment, the authors focused on MTF2 and JARID2 as the main components of PRC2.1 and PRC2.2, respectively. Via extensive analyses, including genome-wide experiments, they confirmed that MTF2 is particularly important to repress the cyclins CCND1 and CCND2. The absence of MTF2 therefore leads to increased expression of these genes, sufficient to make the cell resistant to palociclib. This result will likely be of wide interest to the community.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness of the manuscript is that the experiments were performed in only one cell line. To draw more general conclusions, it would be essential to confirm some of the results in other cell lines.

In addition, some of the findings, such as the results from the CRISPR screen as well as the stronger impact of the MTF2 KO on H3K27me3 and gene expression (compared to JARID2 KO), are not unexpected, given that similar results were already obtained before by other labs.

We thank the reviewer for their suggestions and we believe that we have addressed their main concern about the generality of the MTF2 regulation of D-type cyclin expression in our resubmitted manuscript. We have now shown through shRNA knockdown that MTF2 represses CCND1 in two additional cell lines, the breast cancer MDA-MB-231 and immortalized monkey COS7 cell line (Fig. 6E). However, it is important to note that MTF2 did not control CCND1 expression in every cell line tested (Fig. 6D), underscoring the context-dependent nature of this regulation. Future studies will illuminate what cell or tumor types in which this regulation is observed.

Additionally, while MTF2 has previously been shown to exert a greater effect on H3K27me3 levels in some circumstances (Loh et al. 2021, Rothberg et al. 2018), a number of notable reports in ES cell lines have concluded that PRC2 localization and H3K27me3 at the majority of genomic sites are dependent on both PRC2.1 and PRC2.2 activity (Healy et al. 2019, Højfeldt et al. 2019, Perino et al. 2020, Oksuz et al. 2018). Therefore, we think it is important to highlight the greater dependence on MTF2 for promoter proximal H3K27me3 levels in our transformed cell line context.  

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study begins with a chemogenetic screen to discover previously unrecognized regulators of the cell cycle. Using a CRISPR-Cas9 library in HAP1 cells and an assay that scores cell fitness, the authors identify genes that sensitize or desensitize cells to the presence of palbociclib, colchicine, and camptothecin. These three drugs inhibit proliferation through different mechanisms, and with each treatment, expected and unexpected pathways were found to affect drug sensitivity. The authors focus the rest of the experiments and analysis on the polycomb complex PRC2, as the deletion of several of its subunits in the screen conferred palbociclib resistance. The authors find that PRC2, specifically a complex dependent on the MTF2 subunit, methylates histone 3 lysine 27 (H3K27) in promoters of genes associated with various processes including cell-cycle control. Further experiments demonstrate that Cyclin D expression increases upon loss of PRC2 subunits, providing a potential mechanism for palbociclib resistance.

The strengths of the paper are the design and execution of the chemogenetic screen, which provides a wealth of potentially useful information. The data convincingly demonstrate in the HAP1 cell line that the MTF2-PRC2 complex sustains the effects of palbociclib (Figure 4), methylates H3K27 in CpG-rich promoters (Figure 5), and represses Cyclin D expression (Figure 6). These results could be of great interest to those studying cell-cycle control, resistance mechanisms to therapeutic cell-cycle inhibitors, and chromatin regulation and gene expression.

There are several weaknesses that limit the overall quality and potential impact of the study. First, none of the results from the colchicine and camptothecin screens (Figures 1 and 2) are experimentally validated, which lessens the rigor of those data and conclusions. Second, all experiments validating and further exploring results from the palbociclib screen are restricted to the Hap1 cell line, so the reproducibility and generality of the results are not established. While it is reasonable to perform the initial screen to generate hypotheses in the Hap1 line, other cancer and non-transformed lines should be used to test further the validity of conclusions from data in Figures 4-6. Third, conclusions drawn from data in Figures 3D and 4D are not fully supported by the experimental design or results. Finally, there have been other similar chemogenetic screens performed with palbociclib, most notably the study described by Chaikovsky et al. (PMID: 33854239). Results here should be compared and contrasted to other similar studies.

We thank the reviewer for their suggestions regarding our manuscript. While the genes recovered as mediating cellular responses to camptothecin and colchicine was never confirmed following our chemogenetic screens, we felt our primary findings were in the area of palbociclib resistance and decided focus our follow-up investigations on genes. We included the results camptothecin and colchicine chemogenetic screens as confirmation of the specificity of PRC2 mutation resulting in resistance to palbociclib (Fig. 4C) and for others in the community to use as a resource for future investigations. We have also clarified our results for Figure 3D and 4D in our revised manuscript, as well as included additional plots of these results (Fig. S1DS1F). And, with our resubmitted manuscript, we believe we have addressed their concern of the generality of our results by demonstrating our primary finding that MTF2 regulates D-type cyclins in additional cell lines other than HAP1. We feel these results indicate that while not “general”, there are additional cellular contexts that our main result holds true. In line with this, and to address how our chemogenetic screens fits into the landscape of previous studies, including Chaikosvsky et al., we have included the following lines to our discussion:  “Additionally, other chemogenetic screens utilizing palbociclib and have not identified that inactivation of PRC2 components as either enhancing or reducing palbociclib-induced proliferation defects, suggesting that PRC2 mutation is neutral in the cell lines studied. These observations not only underscore the context-dependent ramifications of mutation of these PRC2 complex members, but also may help inform the context in which CDK4/6 inhibitors are most efficacious.”

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) "We found that only thirteen and twenty genes resulted in sensitivity or resistance, respectively, in every conditions tested and were deemed non-specific and excluded from any further analysis (see Table S2)." It's unclear to me why these genes were deemed 'nonspecific'. Are these genes functionally important for the general exclusion of xenobiotic molecules?

By this, we simply meant that these effects were not specific to one condition. Such genes could affect drug half-life or a general stress response, but are less likely to have functions directly tied to the pathway targeted by a drug than are genes whose loss affects only one condition.  

(2) "Given that increased CCND1 levels is sufficient to drive increased CDK4/6 kinase activity, upregulation of these D-type cyclins is likely to be a significant contributor to the palbociclib resistance in MTF2∆ cells." It's unclear to me what is the basis for this statement. This is only true if there is free CDK4/6. If CDK4/6 is already fully occupied by D-type cyclins, then increased CCND1 levels would not be expected to have an effect. 

While we anticipated that increased levels of CCND1 would result in more CDK4/6-Dtype association, we now demonstrate in the new Figure S5F that there is more CCND1 in complex with CDK6 in both SUZ12∆ and MTF2∆ cell lines. Furthermore, we able to show in Figure S5G that overexpression of D-type cyclins results in resistant to palbociclib-induced proliferation defects in HAP1 cells.

(3) The description of the results is very confusing in places, especially regarding "resistance" versus "sensitivity" genes. For example: "CCNE1, CDK6, CDK2, CCND2 and CCND1, all of which are integral to promoting the G1/S phase transition, ranked as the 2nd, 24th, 27th, 29th and 46th most important genes for palbociclib resistance, respectively (Figures 1F and 1G). CCND1 and CCND2 bind either CDK4 or CDK6, the molecular targets of palbociclib, whereas CDK2 and CCNE1 form a related CDK kinase that promotes the G1/S transition.

Similarly, cells with sgRNAs targeting RB1, whose phosphorylation by CDK4/6 is a critical step in G1 progression, displayed substantial resistance to palbociclib." My reading of this paragraph suggests that disruption of the CDK6 locus is associated with palbociclib resistance - surely this is a typo and instead should have been sensitivity? Please explain.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out and have corrected this typo  

(4) Sensitivity to palbociclib was enhanced in cells expressing sgRNAs targeting H4 acetylation, positive regulators of Pol II transcription, and regulators of the DNA Damage Response pathway (Figures 3A and 3B), although this sensitivity was much weaker than that seen with DNA damaging agents. This observation is consistent with long-term treatment with palbociclib inducing DNA damage, as has been suggested by a number of recent publications 65,66." This is also consistent with recent work on Cdk7 inhibitors (Wilson et al. Mol Cell 2023), as Cdk7 inhibition is expected to affect both CDK1/2/4/6 activities and Pol II transcription.

We thank the reviewer for bringing this observation to our attention and we have added this citation to this passage in our manuscript.

(5) Figure 3D - would it not make sense to plot the data such that palbo concentration is on the x-axis? It is also difficult to interpret since the data are normalized to starting "% proliferation" at the indicated palbo treatment, when it is likely that % proliferation changes significantly with palbo concentration. Indeed, this is the graphing format used for a later figure (Figure 4D). The data with rotenone suggests palbo antagonizes rotenone-mediated reduction in proliferation. But it's unclear to me whether the graph shows the converse - that rotenone treatment modulates palbo-induced cell cycle arrest.

This reviewer is correct about the fact that increasing doses of palbociclib in the absence of oxidative phosphorylation do indeed have an effect on proliferation. However, it is helpful to normalize proliferation values to each initial dose of palbociclib and then compare this to the different oxidative phosphorylation inhibitors treatment combinations. To illustrate that the oxidative phosphorylation inhibitors do indeed antagonize palbociclib-induced proliferation defects, we have now included the data graphed as each oxidative phosphorylation inhibitor vs palbociclib as Supplemental Figures S1D-S1F.

• The highest concentration of GSK126 tested (5µM) does not appear to confer resistance, but perhaps this is due to off-target effects or cytotoxicity?

We agree with the reviewer that at the highest doses of dose of GSK126, low doses of palbociclib do not confer resistance to palbociclib. However, higher doses do appear to have this effect. We have included a statement in our results section to address this reviewer’s observations. 

• Disruption of Emi1 leads to resistance (Figure 1F, FZR1), yet overexpression induces resistance (Mouery et al. bioRxiv 2023). Explain.

We do not understand why EMI1 responds in this way, and therefore we cannot comment on this in the text. 

Typos/stylistic comments:

• Typo "However, the net result of these opposing effects on cell cycle progression, and the contribution of the individual subcomplexes to this regulation, rained unclear."

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out, and we have corrected it.  

• Use of the word "growth" - I think the authors should be more precise. Is "proliferation" meant here?

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out, and we have corrected it.

• n Figure 4G, two of the panels have 8.42%. Is this correct, or may it be a copy/paste error?

This was an error, but is no longer relevant as we have reconducted and reanalyzed this experiment.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Major Points

(1) Some of the conclusions should be confirmed in additional cell lines. I would suggest testing the resistance to Palbociclib in several additional cell lines, where MTF2 and JARID2 are deleted. If the conclusion can be generalized, one would expect that the differential role of MTF2 versus JARID2 can be confirmed in more cell lines.

While the PRC2.1-dependent repression of D-type cyclins does not appear to be general, we have now demonstrated in Figures 5SE and 6F that there are multiple different cellular contexts in which our observations are consistent. Specifically, we demonstrate that GSK126 causes upregulation of CCND1 in both immortalized nontumor cells (COS7 cells) and in the breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-231. Moreover, in both cases we showed that this effect is PRC2.1-dependent, as shRNA knockdown of MTF2 increases expression of CCND1.

(2) In addition, it may be attractive to make use of publicly available RNA-seq data of MTF2 and JARID2 knockout/down cells, to investigate the generality of the finding that PRC2.1 regulates CCND1 and CCND2.

While it would be useful to address this issue, Figure S5E demonstrates that the repression of D-type cyclin expression by PRC2.1 is context dependent. Furthermore, prior to identifying the lines shown in Figure 6F and 5SE, we were not aware of which lines to focus our investigations on. However, we have now demonstrated a few cellular contexts in which either chemical inhibition of PRC2 or knockdown of MTF2 results in de-repression of CCND1 expression.

(3) At a bare minimum the authors should strongly discuss the limitations of the study, and tone down the conclusions.

We would agree with this based upon the data in the original submitted manuscript, however, now that we have shown that this effect is more general, this is less critical. That said, we do not see this effect in all cell lines, and we have made this apparent in the final version of the manuscript.

Minor point

(1) In my view, Figures 1-3 should be shortened to the most essential points, and some data/figures should be moved to the supplementary figures. Especially the STING genenetwork graphs are in my view not particularly meaningful.

While we understand the opinion of this reviewer, we feel that these data will be of significant interest to some readers.  

(2) Figure 6E and 6F/G appear to be largely redundant. This can perhaps be made more concise.

This has been addressed in the new version of Figure 6

(3) Figure 5D should be enlarged. 

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and have enlarged the image.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The manuscript could be edited to improve clarity. In several places, the scientific logic motivating an experiment is confusing, and there are several hypotheses and conclusions that seem opposite from what the data are suggesting. Some aspects of the figures were also unclear. Specific examples include the following:

(1) Last sentence of abstract : "Our results demonstrate a role for PRC2.1, but not PRC2.2, in promoting G1 progression." Data show that knockout of PRC2.1 components promotes G1 progression through upregulation of CycD, so the conclusion here is the opposite.

We thank the reviewer for catching this error. We have now changed this to “in antagonizing G1 progression”.

(2) In the second paragraph of the results, CCNE1, CDK2, etc are described as scoring high for palbociclib resistance, but those genes scored as sensitizing. Also, in that paragraph, it is described that a drug is sensitizing cells to loss of a gene, which seems like incorrect logic. It should be clarified that knock-out of a gene either sensitizes or desensitizes cells to the drug.

We thank the reviewer for catching this error. We have now corrected it.  

(3) In the motivation for the experiment in Figure 3D, it is written: "we asked whether chemical inhibition of oxidative phosphorylation could rescue sensitivity to palbociclib". Considering that knock-out of genes that mediate oxidative phosphorylation confer resistance to palbociclib, it is confusing why it was expected that chemical inhibitors would restore sensitivity.

We are sorry if the original wording was confusing. We have now changed this to “combined inhibition of oxidative phosphorylation and CDK4/6 activity mutually rescue the proliferation defect imposed by agents targeting the other process”.  

(4) If the intention of Figure 3D is to test the hypothesis that chemical inhibition of oxidative phosphorylation modulates sensitivity to palbociclib, the clarity of Figure 3D would be improved if data were shown such that palbociclib concentration is on the x-axis and the different curves are different drug concentrations.

It appears that there is some mutual suppression, which inhibition of each process rescues cells partly from inhibition of the other. In fact, with these drugs the stronger of the two is seen as the rescue of mitochondrial poisons by palbociclib. We have now discussed this in the text.  

(5) The authors should check the units on the x-axis in Figure 4D, should they be log[uM Palbo] or log [nM Palbo]?

We thank the reviewer for catching this error. We have now corrected it

(6) It should be clarified which data are summarized in the graph to the right in Figure 4G, are these experiments with palbociclib?

This is currently included in the figure legends.

(7) The text suggests that the control CCNE1 knockout is shown in Figure 4E, but those data are missing.

This has been corrected in Figure 4E.

Several conclusions are not well supported by the data and should be revised or more data and analysis should be added.

(1) The titular conclusion that the "PRC2.1 Subcomplex Opposes G1 Progression through Regulation of CCND1 and CCND2" has only been demonstrated in the context of a Cdk4/6 inhibitor in HAP1 cells. There is little evidence supporting this claim that is broadly applicable. For example, data in Figure 4G show small and not demonstrable significant differences in G1 and S phase populations in the mock experiments. Also, experiments in other cells are needed to support the rigor and generality of the conclusion.

Our chemogenetic screen and competitive proliferation assay data in Figure 4A, 4C and 4E support the conclusion that PRC2.1 and PRC2.2 play opposing roles in G1 progression. Furthermore, we have repeated the initial BrdU incorporation experiments shown in Figure 4G and have been able to demonstrate that JARID2∆ cells do indeed display a significant decrease of cells entering into S-phase when treated with palbociclib. Most importantly, in the Figures 6D and 6E we show additional cell lines where this is the case.  Therefore, we feel that this title is valid in the current version of the manuscript, where we have shown it to be the case in multiple tumor-derived human cell lines as well as immortalized non-human primate cells.  

(2) It is unclear how the data in Figure 3D support the conclusion that the administered inhibitors of oxidative phosphorylation influence response to palbociclib.

As noted in the response to point 4, we have now discussed this mutual rescue more thoroughly in the text.  

(3) In Figure 4D, the IC50 values should be calculated and statistical significance based on biological replicates should be determined. Also, the conclusion that "increasing doses of GSK126 withstood palbociclib-induced growth suppression" is overstated, as ultimately all drug conditions succumb to palbocilib suppression of proliferation, although there may be differences in sensitivity.

We have now  included a statical analysis of each data point in Figure 4D.  

Editorial comments:

(1) The title does not seem to optimally capture the content of the paper. Please consider changing it, e.g. focusing on palbociclib resistance. 

While we used this particular drug to make the original observation, we feel it is more general to discuss the underlying biology (cyclin gene control) than the pharmacological methodology. Moreover, we have now extended our findings about the regulation of D-type cyclins by PRC2.1 to several cell lines, derived from both cancers and primary cells, re-enforcing the fact that this effect is observed more broadly.   

(2) Please indicate the biological system (haploid human HAP1 cells) in either title or abstract.

The abstract now indicates that we have observed this in CML, breast cancer and immortalized primary cells.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aim to investigate the relationship between low estrogen levels, postmenopausal hypertension, and the potential role of the molecule L-AABA as a biomarker for hypertension. By employing metabolomic analysis and various statistical methods, the study seeks to understand how estrogen deficiency affects blood pressure and identify key metabolites involved in this process, with a particular focus on L-AABA.

Strengths:

The study addresses a relevant and understudied area: the role of estrogen and metabolites in postmenopausal hypertension. It presents a novel hypothesis that L-AABA may serve as a protective factor against hypertension, which could have significant clinical implications if proven.

We appreciate the acknowledgment of our study’s focus on an important and understudied area. Our hypothesis regarding L-AABA’s role as a possible protective factor against hypertension indeed holds promise for advancing clinical implications.

Weaknesses:

The evidence linking L-AABA to hypertension is largely correlative, lacking experimental validation or mechanistic proof. Key limitations, such as the inadequacy of the ovariectomy model in replicating human menopause, are acknowledged but not addressed with alternative approaches. In summary, while the study offers an intriguing hypothesis, its conclusions are premature and require further experimental validation and human data to substantiate the claims.

We recognize the limitations regarding the correlative nature of our findings and the inadequacy of the OVX model in replicating human menopause. Future research will prioritize experimental validation and incorporate human studies to solidify our conclusions.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Dr. Yao Li et al. documented the metabolomic profile of the aorta from OVX rats and that from OVX plus E2. These conditions mimic post-menopause hypertension and hormonal replacement therapy.

Strengths:

The authors state that this is probably the first study to examine the metabolic changes in the aorta of post-menopause hypertension.

As pointed out by the reviewer, our study may be the first to investigate changes in aortic metabolism in postmenopausal hypertension. As an exploratory study, our goal is to depict the overall characteristics and explore possible research directions.

Weaknesses:

There are several weaknesses, and a few of them are quite serious.

(1) The aorta is not a resistant artery and has little to do with hypertension. The authors should have used resistant arteries for this study. The expression of several adrenergic receptors and cholinergic receptors in the aorta and resistant arteries are different. It is unknown whether the aorta metabolomic profile has any relevance to BP and whether they are similar to that of the resistant arteries. I understand the logistics issue of obtaining enough tissues from resistant arteries. At least, once some leads are discovered in the aorta, the authors should validate it in resistant arteries. This should be feasible.

We acknowledge the limitation of using the aorta and will aim to include studies on resistant arteries to validate our metabolomic findings.

(2) The aorta and all the arteries have three layers. It is critically important to know whether the metabolic changes occur in the intima or in the media, while the adventitia probably has little to do with vasoconstriction and hypertension. If the authors want to use the aorta to conduct the preliminary study, they should completely remove the adventitia and then use samples with and without their endothelium stripped and then assess their metabolomic profiles. After the leads are obtained from this preliminary profiling, they should be validated in endothelium and smooth muscles of the resistant artery. The current experiments are not appropriately designed.

Future studies will involve detailed profiling of specific arterial layers, focusing on the intima and media to enhance the relevance of our findings related to hypertension.

(3) The tail-cuff BP measurement is a technique of the last century. The current gold standard of BP measurement is by telemetry. The tail-cuff method is particularly problematic in this study because the 1-2 h restraining of the rats for more than 10 times BP measurement will cause significant stress in the animal, and their stress hormone secretion might cause biased metabolomic profiles in the OVX versus shames operated mice. The problem can be totally avoided by using telemetry.

We appreciate the suggestion and will consider telemetry for more accurate blood pressure measurements in future experiments to minimize stress-related bias.

(4) Although the L-AABA showed a high p-value (10^-4) of a decrease in the OVX rats, the fold change is small (2-3 folds). Such a small change should be validated using a different method to be convincing.

We plan to employ additional methods to validate the observed changes in L-AABA levels in the following research, ensuring robustness of our findings.

(5) The authors claim (or hypothesize) that the reduced AABA level in OVX can cause vascular remodeling. This can be easily validated by the histology of the OVX-resistant artery, and they should do that during the revision. The authors should also examine the M1 macrophage function from the OVX mice to validate their claimed link of AABA to M1.

We intend to conduct histological analyses and examine M1 macrophage function in OVX-resistant arteries to validate our hypothesis in the following research.

(6) As mentioned above, the authors need to pinpoint the changes of AABA to target cells, i.e., endothelial cells, SMC, or M1, and then use in vitro or in vivo cell biology approaches to assess whether these cells in the OVX rat indeed have an abnormality in function and, indeed, such functional changes are responsible for the BP phenotype.

Addressing these points, we aim to pinpoint specific cell types affected by AABA variations and conduct in vitro and in vivo studies to examine their physiological impacts in the following research.

(7) The results of the current study can be condensed into 1 or 2 figures that can serve as a base or a starting point for a deeper scientific study.

Thank you for your suggestion. As a omics research, our research approach may differ from traditional mechanism studies.

Summary

The experimental design of this manuscript is inappropriate, and the methods are not up to the current standards. The whole study is descriptive and rudimentary. It lacks validation and mechanism. The data from this manuscript might be of some value and can serve as the first step for more investigation of the mechanism of post-menopause hypertension.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The decrease in estrogen levels is strongly associated with postmenopausal hypertension. Dr. Yao Li and colleagues aimed to investigate the metabolomic mechanisms of underlying postmenopausal hypertension using OVX and OVX+E2 rat models. They successfully established a correlation between reduced estrogen levels and the development of hypertension in rats. They identified L-alpha-aminobutyric acid (AABA) as a potential marker for postmenopausal hypertension. The research explored the metabolic alterations in aortic tissues and proposed several potential mechanisms contributing to postmenopausal hypertension.

Strengths:

The group performed a comprehensive enrichment analysis and various statistical analyses of the metabolomics data.

As summarized by the reviewer, our current study conducted a comprehensive analysis of metabolomics data. It is also a reliable foundation for further mechanism research.

Weaknesses:

(1) The manuscript is descriptive in nature, although they mentioned their primary objective is to explore the potential mechanisms linking low estrogen levels with postmenopausal hypertension. No mechanism insights have been interrogated in this study, which has been mentioned by the authors in the discussion. The connection between E2, AABA, and macrophage needs to be validated in endothelial cells, vascular smooth muscle cells, and other aortic tissue cells. Without such verification, the manuscript predominantly raises hypotheses only based on metabolomic data.

We have proposed research hypotheses based on detailed omics data. Further research on the mechanisms involving endothelial and vascular smooth muscle cells to validate the pathway connections between E2, AABA, and macrophages is undoubtedly the future direction of this study.

(2) The serum contains three forms of estrogen: Estradiol, Estrone, and Estriol. The authors used the Rat E2 ELISA kit. Ideally, all three forms of estrogen should be measured.

Future assays will aim to measure Estradiol, Estrone, and Estriol to capture a more comprehensive picture of estrogen’s role in postmenopausal hypertension.

Author response:

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

eLife Assessment

This useful study reports on the discovery of an antimicrobial agent that kills Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Sensitivity is attributed to a combination of DedA assisted uptake of oxydifficidin into the cytoplasm and the presence of a oxydifficidin-sensitive RplL ribosomal protein. Due to the narrow scope, the broader antibacterial spectrum remains unclear and therefore the evidence supporting the conclusions is incomplete with key methods and data lacking. This work will be of interest to microbiologists and synthetic biologists.

General comment about narrow scope: The broader antibacterial spectrum of oxydifficidin has been reported previously (S B Zimmerman et al., 1987). The main focus of this study is on its previously unreported potent anti-gonococcal activity and mode of action. While it is true that broad-spectrum antibiotics have historically played a role in effectively controlling a wide range of infections, we and others believe that narrow-spectrum antibiotics have an overlooked importance in addressing bacterial infections. Their advantage lies in their ability to target specific pathogens without markedly disrupting the human microbiota.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Kan et al. report the serendipitous discovery of a Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain that kills N. gonorrhoeae. They use TnSeq to identify that the anti-gonococcal agent is oxydifficidin and show that it acts at the ribosome and that one of the dedA gene products in N. gonorrhoeae MS11 is important for moving the oxydifficidin across the membrane.

Strengths:

This is an impressive amount of work, moving from a serendipitous observation through TnSeq to characterize the mechanism by which Oxydifficidin works.

Weaknesses:

(1) There are important gaps in the manuscript's methods.

The requested additions to the method describing bacterial sequencing and anti-gonococcal activity screening will be made. However, we do not think the absence of these generic methods reduces the significance of our findings.

(2) The work should evaluate antibiotics relevant to N. gonorrhoeae.

(1) It is not clear to us why reevaluating the activity of well characterized antibiotics against known gonorrhoeae clinical strains would add value to this manuscript. The activity of clinically relevant antibiotics against antibiotic-resistant N. gonorrhoeae clinical isolates is well described in the literature. Our use of antibiotics in this study was intended to aid in the identification of oxydifficidin’s mode of action. This is true for both Tables 1 and 2.

(2) If the reviewer insists, we would be happy to include MIC data for the following clinically relevant antibiotics: ceftriaxone (cephalosporin/beta-lactam), gentamicin (aminoglycoside), azithromycin (macrolide), and ciprofloxacin (fluoroquinolone).

(3) The genetic diversity of dedA and rplL in N. gonorrhoeae is not clear, neither is it clear whether oxydifficidin is active against more relevant strains and species than tested so far.

(1) We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We aligned the DedA sequence from strain MS11 with DedA proteins from 220 N. gonorrhoeae strains that have high-quality assemblies in NCBI. The result showed that there are no amino acid changes in this protein. Using the same method, we observed several single amino acid changes in RplL. This included changes at A64, G25 and S82 in 4 strains with one change per strain. These sites differ from R76 and K84, where we identified changes that provide resistance to oxydifficidin. Notably, in a similar search of representative Escherichia, Chlamydia, Vibrio, and Pseudomonas NCBI deposited genomes, we did not identify changes in RplL at position R76 or K84.

(2) While the usefulness of screening more clinically relevant antibiotics against clinical isolates as suggested in comment 2 was not clear to us, we agree that screening these strains for oxydifficidin activity would be beneficial. We have ordered Neisseria gonorrhoeae strain AR1280, AR1281 (CDC), and Neisseria meningitidis ATCC 13090. They will be tested when they arrive.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Kan et al. present the discovery of oxydifficidin as a potential antimicrobial against N. gonorrhoeae, including multi-drug resistant strains. The authors show the role of DedA flippase-assisted uptake and the specificity of RplL in the mechanism of action for oxydifficidin. This novel mode of action could potentially offer a new therapeutic avenue, providing a critical addition to the limited arsenal of antibiotics effective against gonorrhea.

Strengths:

This study underscores the potential of revisiting natural products for antibiotic discovery of modern-day-concerning pathogens and highlights a new target mechanism that could inform future drug development. Indeed there is a recent growing body of research utilizing AI and predictive computational informatics to revisit potential antimicrobial agents and metabolites from cultured bacterial species. The discovery of oxydifficidin interaction with RplL and its DedA-assisted uptake mechanism opens new research directions in understanding and combating antibiotic-resistant N. gonorrhoeae. Methodologically, the study is rigorous employing various experimental techniques such as genome sequencing, bioassay-guided fractionation, LCMS, NMR, and Tn-mutagenesis.

Weaknesses:

The scope is somewhat narrow, focusing primarily on N. gonorrhoeae. This limits the generalizability of the findings and leaves questions about its broader antibacterial spectrum. Moreover, while the study demonstrates the in vitro effectiveness of oxydifficidin, there is a lack of in vivo validation (i.e., animal models) for assessing pre-clinical potential of oxydifficidin. Potential SNPs within dedA or RplL raise concerns about how quickly resistance could emerge in clinical settings.

(1) Spectrum/narrow scope: The broader antibacterial spectrum of oxydifficidin has been reported previously (S B Zimmerman et al., 1987). The focus of this study is on its previously unreported potent anti-gonococcal activity and its mode of action. While it is true that broad-spectrum antibiotics have historically played a role in effectively controlling a wide range of infections, we and others believe that narrow-spectrum antibiotics have an overlooked importance in addressing bacterial infections. Their advantage lies in their ability to target specific pathogens without markedly disrupting the human microbiota.

(2) Animal models: We acknowledge the reviewer’s insight regarding the importance of in vivo validation to enhance oxydifficidin’s pre-clinical potential. However, due to the labor-intensive process needed to isolate oxydifficidin, obtaining a sufficient quantity for animal studies is beyond the scope of this study. Our future work will focus on optimizing the yield of oxydifficidin and developing a topical mouse model for subsequent investigations.

(3) Potential SNPs: Please see our response to Reviewer #1’s comment 3. We acknowledge that potential SNPs within dedA and rplL raise concerns regarding clinical resistance, which is a common issue for protein-targeting antibiotics. Yet, as pointed out in the manuscript, obtaining mutants in the lab was a very low yield endeavor.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors have shown that oxydifficidin is a potent inhibitor of Neisseria gonorrhoeae. They were able to identify the target of action to rplL and showed that resistance could occur via mutation in the DedA flippase and RplL.

Strengths:

This was a very thorough and clearly argued set of experiments that supported their conclusions.

Weaknesses:

There was no obvious weakness in the experimental design. Although it is promising that the DedA mutations resulted in attenuation of fitness, it remains an open question whether secondary rounds of mutation could overcome this selective disadvantage which was untried in this study.

We thank the reviewer for the positive comment. We agree that investigating factors that could compensate for the fitness attenuation caused by DedA mutation would enhance our understanding of the role of DedA.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) The use of the term "N. gonorrhoeae wildtype" should not be used. It is uninformative, as the species contains a large amount of diversity. Instead, please name the strain. From Figure 1, it looks like the authors used MS11. Since MS11 is a longstanding lab strain and likely does not reflect circulating N. gonorrhoeae, and since H041 is no longer in circulation, the authors should ideally test the compound against more representative strains of N. gonorrhoeae. This includes panels of isolates available through the CDC, for example (https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/resistance-bank/index.html). I encourage the authors to include FC428 or another recently identified isolate with the penA 60 allele to demonstrate oxydifficidin's activity against contemporary concerning isolates/lineages.

(1) “N. gonorrhoeae MS11” is now used instead of “N. gonorrhoeae WT” in this manuscript.

(2) In our revised manuscript, we have added MIC data for recently identified Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates AR#1280 and AR#1281 which contain the penA 60 allele (Table 1). The data shows oxydifficidin maintains its potent activity against these multidrug-resistant strains. We also added a description of this data to the results section as shown below.

Original text: “Oxydifficidin was more potent against N. gonorrhoeae MS11 than almost all other antibiotics we tested. In fact, it was only slightly less active than the highly optimized third-generation cephalosporin, ceftazidime.([18]) However, unlike third-generation cephalosporins, oxydifficidin retained activity against the multidrug resistant H041 clinical isolate (Table 1).([4]) H041 is resistant to the “standard of care” cephalosporin ceftriaxone (2 µg/mL) as well as a number of other antibiotics that are normally active against N. gonorrhoeae (penicillin G, 4 µg/mL; cefixime, 8 µg/mL; levofloxacin, 32 µg/mL).”

Changed to: “Oxydifficidin was more potent against N. gonorrhoeae MS11 than most other antibiotics we tested. Notably, unlike clinically used antibiotics such as ceftriaxone, azithromycin, and ciprofloxacin, oxydifficidin retained activity against all multidrug-resistant clinical isolates we examined (Table 1).” (Line 77-79)

(2) Does oxydifficidin have activity against N. meningitidis? It is the species most closely related to N. gonorrhoeae and the other pathogenic Neisseria.

Oxydifficidin has potent activity against N. meningitidis ATCC 13090. In our revised manuscript, we have included its MIC data in Figure 1c.

(3) Given claims that oxydifficidin activity in N. gonorrhoeae as compared to other Neisseria reflects N. gonorrhoeae's dedA and sensitive rplL, it would be good to assess the allelic diversity of these genes in N. gonorrhoeae. There are over 20,000 genomes from clinical isolates of N. gonorrhoeae in databases. It should be straightforward to check whether dedA and rplL allelic variants already exist in the population. Should variants be observed, oxydifficidin should be tested against the associated strains of N. gonorrhoeae.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We aligned the DedA sequence from strain MS11 with DedA proteins from 220 N. gonorrhoeae strains that have high-quality assemblies in NCBI. The result showed that there are no amino acid changes in this protein. Using the same method, we observed several single amino acid changes in RplL. This included changes at A64, G25 and S82 in 4 strains with one change per strain. These sites differ from R76 and K84, where we identified changes that provide resistance to oxydifficidin. Notably, in a similar search of representative Escherichia, Chlamydia, Vibrio, and Pseudomonas NCBI deposited genomes, we did not identify changes in RplL at position R76 or K84.

New text: “A survey of 220 N. gonorrhoeae strains with high-quality assemblies in NCBI found no mutations in the DedA protein.” (Line 104-105)

“These two mutations were not found in the survey of the same collection of N. gonorrhoeae strains used to look for DedA mutations.” (Line 143-144)

(4) Clinically relevant antibiotics for N. gonorrhoeae are penicillin, tetracycline, spectinomycin, gentamicin, ciprofloxacin, azithromycin, ceftriaxone; moreover, zoliflodacin and gepotidacin have reportedly successfully completed phase 3 trials. The authors should redo their MIC testing with these antibiotics (e.g., for Figures 1 and 2 and Tables 1 and 2), both because this will enable direct comparison with the many clinical isolates that have undergone testing and because these are the drugs most pertinent to clinical practice. Ampicillin, ceftazidime, chloramphenicol, bacitracin, and daptomycin are not relevant. Could the authors explain why they tested vancomycin, polymyxin B, irgasan, melittin, avilamycin, and thiostrepton?

Our use of antibiotics with diverse modes of action (e.g. vancomycin, polymyxin B, irgasan, melittin, avilamycin, and thiostrepton) in this study was intended to aid in the identification of oxydifficidin’s mode of action. This is true for both Tables 1 and 2.

To address the reviewer’s concern, in our revised manuscript, we have added MIC data for the following clinically relevant antibiotics: ceftriaxone (cephalosporin/beta-lactam), gentamicin (aminoglycoside), azithromycin (macrolide), and ciprofloxacin (fluoroquinolone) to Table 1.

(5) Please describe the characteristics of the transposon library (finding four transposons in a single strain does seem unexpected, given how most transposon libraries aim for one transposon insertion per strain).

We understand that one transposon insertion per strain is ideal for transposon libraries. This Bacillus strain proved to be recalcitrant to genetic manipulation. In the rare cases where we obtained resistance colonies upon electroporation with the transposon, all colonies contained multiple (≥ 4) transposon insertions. This made it impractical to build a library with one transposon insertion per library member.

We assumed that the anti-N. gonorrhoeae activity most likely originated from a natural product BGC, which typically range from 10-100 kb in size.

Based on the average of 50 kb per BGC, ~80 transposon insertions would be required to fully search the 4.2 Mb genome of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens BK for a BGC. At 4 mutations per transformant, 1x coverage of the genome would require only 20 library members.

After extensive electroporation of transposon into Bacillus amyloliquefaciens BK, we were able to obtain a library of 50 members, including one mutant (Tn5-3) that lacked anti-N. gonorrhoeae activity.

New text added to the methods section:

“A library containing 50 transposon mutants was obtained. In the mutants examined, each strain contained ≥4 transposon insertions” (Line 337-339)

(6) Please describe in the methods how you sequenced and annotated the genome of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens BK.

The sequencing method is now described in “Genomic Sequencing and annotation of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens” section. The genome of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens BK was not fully annotated. Mutations were identified as described in the updated methods section below.

New text:

“Genomic Sequencing and annotation of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens

Genomic DNA from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens BK WT and transposon mutant Tn5-3 was isolated using PureLink Microbiome DNA purification kit (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

The Bacillus amyloliquefaciens BK WT genome was assembled by mapping its sequencing data onto the annotated genome of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42 using Geneious Prime. Differences in the mutant strain Tn5-3 were identified by mapping its sequencing data onto the assembled Bacillus amyloliquefaciens BK WT genome. The mutated genes were then annotated using NCBI BLAST. The oxydifficidin BGC was annotated using the antiSMASH online server.” (Line 253-260)

(7) Please describe in the methods how you screened the library for strains that lacked anti-gonococcal activity.

The method is added to our revised manuscript as section “Screening of Bacillus Strains Lacking Anti-N. gonorrhoeae Activity”.

New text:

“Screening of Bacillus Strains Lacking Anti-N. gonorrhoeae Activity

The transposon mutants of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens BK were grown overnight in LB medium at 30 °C. Each overnight culture was then diluted 1:5000, and 1 μl of the diluted culture was spotted onto a GCB agar plate swabbed with N. gonorrhoeae cells. The plate was then incubated overnight at 37 °C with 5% CO2. The mutant strain (Tn5-3) lacking anti-N. gonorrhoeae activity was identified due to its failure to produce a zone of growth inhibition in the resulting N. gonorrhoeae lawn.” (Line 341-346)

(8) Was only one strain found that was a 'non-producer' of anti-N. gonorrhoeae activity? Line 68 suggests that this was only one of multiple non-producers. Is that correct? If so, did you work up the others, and did they also have disruptions in the same biosynthetic gene cluster?

Only one strain was identified as a “non-producer” of anti-N. gonorrhoeae activity. We have modified the text to clarify this point.

Original text: “The sequencing of one non-producer strain revealed that it surprisingly contained four transposon insertions and one frame shift mutation.”

Changed to: “The sequencing of the non-producer strain revealed that it surprisingly contained four transposon insertions and one frame shift mutation.” (Line 53-54 )

(9) All sequences (including Bacillus amyloliquefaciens BK) must be deposited in a public database (e.g., NCBI) and the accession numbers reported in the manuscript.

Genomic sequence data of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens BK has been deposited in GenBank, and its accession number (GCA_019093835.1) now appears in figure legend of Figure S1a.

Figure S1a legend:

“Genome-based phylogenetic tree containing Bacillus amyloliquefaciens BK and closely related Bacillus spp. The tree was built by Genome Clustering of MicroScope using neighbor-joining method. The NCBI accession numbers of Bacillus strains used in the tree are GCA_000196735.1, GCA_000204275.1, GCA_000015785.2, GCA_019093835.1, GCA_000009045.1, GCA_000011645.1, GCA_000172815.1, GCA_000008005.1, and GCA_000007845.1 (from top to bottom).”

Minor

(10) Statements in the article would benefit from fact-checking. For example:

- gonorrhea is not the second most prevalent sexually transmitted infection worldwide; it is the second most reported bacterial sexually transmitted infection.

- Treatment is ceftriaxone 500mg IM x1 in the US, but 1g IM x1 in the UK and Europe. The UK guidelines also permit ciprofloxacin, should sequencing indicate gyrA 91S. I suggest reviewing / specifying which treatment guidelines you're referring to.

We appreciate the reviewer’s corrections. The word “prevalent” is now changed to “reported”.

Original text: “Gonorrhea, which is caused by Neisseria gonorrhoeae, is the second most prevalent sexually transmitted infection worldwide.”

Changed to: “Gonorrhea, which is caused by Neisseria gonorrhoeae, is the second most reported sexually transmitted infection worldwide.” (Line 2-3)

Original text: “Gonorrhea is the second most prevalent sexually transmitted infection worldwide, its causative agent is the bacterium Neisseria gonorrhoeae.”

Changed to: “Gonorrhea is the second most reported sexually transmitted infection worldwide, its causative agent is the bacterium Neisseria gonorrhoeae.” (Line 18-19)

“In the USA” is now added to the sentence stating gonorrhea treatment.

Original text: “The high dose (500 mg) of the cephalosporin ceftriaxone is currently the only recommended therapy for treating gonorrhea infections.”

Changed to: “The high dose (500 mg) of the cephalosporin ceftriaxone is currently the only recommended therapy for treating gonorrhea infections in the USA.” (Line 20-22)

(11) Please make sure all results are in the results section. The report of cell morphology, for example, should be in the results, not the discussion.

In our revised manuscript, we have included the cell morphology data in the results section with the text changes below.

Original text: “Interestingly, not only was dedA deficient N. gonorrhoeae less susceptible to oxydifficidin, oxydifficidin also kills this mutant more slowly (Figure 2b) than WT N. gonorrhoeae MS11.”

Changed to: “Interestingly, not only was dedA deficient N. gonorrhoeae less susceptible to oxydifficidin, oxydifficidin also kills this mutant more slowly (Figure 2b) than WT N. gonorrhoeae MS11. The dedA deletion mutant also showed an altered cell morphology with reduced membrane integrity and lower formation of micro-colonies (Figure S4). (Line 100-104)

Original text: “The dedA deletion mutant also showed an altered cell morphology with reduced membrane integrity and lower formation of micro-colonies (Figure S4), indicating that it should show reduced pathogenesis and fitness, and, as a result, not accumulate in a clinical setting, which adds to the therapeutic appeal of oxydifficidin.”

Changed to: “The dedA deletion mutant exhibited altered cell morphology, characterized by diminished membrane integrity and reduced micro-colony formation, indicating that it should show reduced pathogenesis and fitness, and, as a result, not accumulate in a clinical setting, which adds to the therapeutic appeal of oxydifficidin” (Line 206-210)

(12) Tables 1 and 2 should be combined and should address the most relevant antibiotics

The MIC data of additional relevant antibiotics are now included in Table 1. However, we still believe that keeping Tables 1 and 2 separate enhances the clarity of the manuscript. Table 2 specifically focuses on diverse ribosomal targeting antibiotics, which highlights the unique binding site of oxydifficidin.

(13) Supplemental Figure 1a. The tree could be better resolved, and there are four entries with the identical listing of "Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum" on different branches. In the methods or the legend, please indicate the accession numbers for these genomes. Also please specify how this tree was made-is it a maximum likelihood tree? Something else?

The tree is now better resolved and includes new entries. The requested information regarding accession numbers and tree construction method has been included in the figure legend.

New supplemental Figure 1a legend:

“a. Genome-based phylogenetic tree containing Bacillus amyloliquefaciens BK and closely related Bacillus spp. The tree was built by Genome Clustering of MicroScope using neighbor-joining method. The NCBI accession numbers of Bacillus strains used in the tree are GCA_000196735.1, GCA_000204275.1, GCA_000015785.2, GCA_019093835.1, GCA_000009045.1, GCA_000011645.1, GCA_000172815.1, GCA_000008005.1, and GCA_000007845.1 (from top to bottom).”

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The conclusions drawn in the manuscript are well-supported by the experimental data presented.

I have the below minor comments:

(1) "serendipitously identified" - I feel this wording should be avoided throughout the manuscript. The point of a research paper is to communicate methodology and experimental detail, and this language portrays the opposite.

While we agree that methodology and experimental procedures are paramount in scientific reporting, we believe it is equally important to convey, particularly to younger generations, that a part of the scientific process is often unplanned and can benefit from chance observations. Therefore, we would like to keep this wording.

(2) The introduction should include the biological roles/function of DedA proteins in bacteria.

DedA proteins perform a wide array of biological roles and functions in bacteria. In the results section (Line 107-116), we have described the most well-established of these functions, particularly the flippase activity, which appears to be directly related to oxydifficidin sensitivity. We believe that introducing this information in the results section enhances the manuscript’s clarity and flow.

(3) "When we screened this contaminant for antibacterial activity against lawns of other Gram-negative bacteria it did not produce a zone of growth of inhibition against any of the bacteria we tested (e.g., Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae, Caulobacter crescentus)." Can these data Figures be included in the Supplements?

This result was recorded in the lead author’s notebook, but no image was saved.

(4) Line 52: Was any base analyses performed on the Tn-mutants i.e., how many insertion-sites? Depth of mutants? Was a library constructed in this study or previously? Why were only BGC assessed?

Please see our response to Reviewer #1’s comment (5). We focused on BGCs because we believed the anti-N. gonorrhoeae activity most likely resulted from a molecule encoded by a natural product BGC.

(5) Line 98: Do the other 2 predicted DedA-like proteins also have a role in uptake of oxydifficidin? Is there some redundancy in uptake?

We generated knockout mutants for two other predicted DedA-like proteins in N. gonorrhoeae MS11, and the MIC of oxydifficidin for these mutants remained the same as for the N. gonorrhoeae MS11 wild type strain. Therefore, we believe that the DedA protein discussed in this manuscript is the primary transporter of oxydifficidin. However, we cannot completely rule out the possibility of redundancy in oxydifficidin uptake by other DedA-like proteins.

New text: “We also generated deletion mutants for two other predicted dedA-like genes, and the MIC of oxydifficidin for these mutants remained the same as for the N. gonorrhoeae MS11 wild type strain.” (Line 98-100)

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

This is a well presented manuscript and I could not immediately see any issues with it.

We appreciate the reviewer’s positive feedback.

Author response:

We are submitting a revised manuscript with major additions that address the main concerns in the initial reviews. At the highest level, this revision provides i) orthogonal biochemical measurements that yield concrete evidence of lysosomal protein aggregates, and ii) a plausible mechanism linking lysosomal lipid handling and protein aggregation through disruption of ESCRT function. We believe these additions significantly improve the completeness of this study and the conclusions that can be drawn from the data.

Below are more specific highlights on the addition in this revision:

-       We included orthogonal techniques (thioflavin-T staining and Lyso-IP followed by differential extraction) and confirmed the accumulation of RIPA-insoluble protein aggregates at the lysosomes in cells under lipid perturbation (Figure 3).

-       We performed TMT-Proteomics and identified accumulation of insoluble ESCRT components at the lysosomes under lipid perturbation (Figure 4). Two new authors involved in this effort are added onto the manuscript.

-       The ESCRT result prompted us to revisit lysosomal membrane integrity. With improved imaging conditions and analysis we were able to see increased membrane permeabilization under lipid perturbation. VPS4A overexpression partially rescued this phenotype, suggesting that lipid accumulation impairs ESCRT disassembly (Figure 5).

-       Together, the results suggest that lipid perturbation impairs ESCRT function, compromising both lysosomal membrane repair and microautophagy, resulting in the accumulation of endogenous protein aggregates at the lysosomes (Graphical Abstract).

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) Perhaps the most prominent limitation of this work is the unilateral focus on native cells (i.e. cells under no endogenous or exogenous stress) as the model for protein aggregate formation. Furthermore, although the ProteoStat stain has been utilized by many investigators before, the sole reliance on this stain as the read-out for their assays is concerning. To compound the concern, the ProteoStat-positive puncta co-localize with lysosmal markers which was surprising even to the authors. All in all, it behooves the authors to test proteostasis in multiple parallel ways to actually define what they are studying. How is it possible that protein aggregates under native conditions are only co-localized with lysosomes? Are we really studying protein aggregates which should predominantly be cytoplasmic insoluble aggregates?

(a) They need to get away from a simple stain like ProteoStat and conduct co-stainings with other markers such as poly-ubiquitin antibodies and other chaperones to define what and where else exactly are these aggregates.

Co-staining with poly-ubiquitin was included in the original manuscript. We added orthogonal staining with another widely used amyloid dye, Thioflavin-T, and provided fine-grained quantification of lysosomal vs cytosolic localization of various signals (Figures S4A-C & 3A-B).

(b) They need to do Immunoblots with and without triton insolubility to see if these aggregates are insoluble as most would predict. They can do lysosomal isolation vs cytoplasmic to see if the insoluble aggregates are really lysosomal.

We performed Lyso-IP followed by differential detergent extraction to confirm the accumulation of insoluble proteins at the lysosomes (Figure 3C). Proteomic analysis identified some of these insoluble proteins as ESCRT subunits (Figure 4).

(c) They should compare aggregate formation in the native state versus cells with lysosomal inhibition via Bafilomycin or chloroquine versus cells with proteosomal inhibition. The lysosomal inhibition experiments are particularly informative given the lysosomal relevance they have uncovered.

We included other small molecule inhibitors and at different time points to compare the effect of different modes of proteostasis challenge (Figure S4A-D). Together with the ESCRT finding, our results suggest the role of microautophagy in our system, and provide a model of how ProteoStat- and/or ubiquitin- positive substrates become partitioned between the cytoplasm and lysosomes under different perturbations.

(d) Many protein aggregates which are too bulky for proteosome degradation will traditionally be dealt with by aggrephagy. Why is this not observed?

Knockdown of core macroautophagy components did not impact Proteostat intensity in our CRISPRi screen, suggesting that basal macroautophagy plays a negligible role in clearing endogenous amyloid-like structures in our experimental system. We provide an alternative model that these aggregates instead arrive at the lysosomes via microautophagy.

(2) After addressing #1, they can validate if the genes they identified by CRISPR screens are also important in modulation of protein aggregate burden in other systems. For example, if they inhibit lysosomes by Bafilo or Chloroquine to obtain protein aggregates and then Knockdown the identified genes in the CRISPR screens, will they get the same results?

We addressed the effect of different modes of proteostasis challenge as recommended above. Deacidifying the lysosomes alone causes intense protein aggregation (Figure S4A-D) and eventually cell death, and was thus not combined with other perturbations.

(3) They identify lysosomal lipid metabolism genes/pathways as the culprit for inducing proteostasis. In particular sphingolipid and cholesteryl ester species appear to be operational here. However, there are no specific lipids species or specific lipid metabolism gene that is causative. Rather, you have to knockdown entire processes to have an effect. This suggests that the focus on lysosome health (i.e. permeability, proteolysis, etc) is rudimentary. When you have to knockdown entire classes of lipids, this would indicate more broad effects on cellular lipids (including membrane lipids beyond the lysosome) and related cellular health?

We included data on the effect of knocking down MYLIP, PSAP, and as a comparison PSMD2 on the growth rate of K562 cells (Figure S5A). MYLIP and PSAP KDs, which cause predominantly an accumulation of lipids, do not impede cell growth. Increasing lipid uptake by MYLIP KD increases cell proliferation under our culture conditions, suggesting a general negative impact on cell health was not required for the association between lipid levels and protein aggregates.

(a) They conduct a superficial methyl-beta-cyclodextrin experiment with equivocal results. The use of MBCD for different time-courses to deplete various membrane cholesterol pools including the plasma membrane pool is important to ascertain what aspect of the cellular cholesterol is affecting proteostasis. MBCD +/- cholesterol reintroduction time-courses for rescue will also be key to determine the culprit cellular cholesterol pool.

The MBCD / Filipin experiment helped us determine that ProteoStat doesn’t directly stain cholesterol, nor any major plasma membrane components. Free cholesterol was implicated in neither the screen nor the lipidomics and was not the subject of targeted experiments.

(b) The same concept can be applied to sphingolipids. There are sphingolipids in abundance in multiple membrane compartments. Which ones are causal here? More nuanced evaluation of this with sphingolipid staining/tracking can be conducted.

We attempted experiments where sphingolipids were added back to cells grown in FBS-depleted media. Nevertheless, we were not able to consistently deliver these lipid species and doing so while ensuring the correct subcellular localization at physiologically relevant level would require substantial methods development.

(c) As part of this, are lipid rafts and/or caveolae being affected by the perturbations in cholesterol and sphingolipids? Lipid rafts are highly enriched in these 2 lipids which could link to their preteostasis observation.

Indeed, ceramides released from SM hydrolysis are proposed to self-assembled into microdomains with negative curvature that can promote the formation of intralumenal vesicles (Alonso and Goni, 2018; Niekamp et al 2022). We propose that SM accumulation may hinder this process by counteracting the negative membrane curvature and impede microautophagy.

(d) How about ER membrane lipids? The UPR and subsequent effects on proteostasis are intricately involved with ER lipid bilayer composition.

We did not perform lipidomics on ER membranes in this study, though we note that at steady state, sphingolipids and cholesterol esters are not expected to be enriched at the ER (Ikonen and Zhou, 2021). We checked whether lipid-related genetic perturbations induced the UPR in published perturb-seq data in K562 cells. Neither MYLIP nor PSAP knockdown induced a UPR.

In conclusion, the manuscript is interesting but the excitement over a link between lysosome-related lipid metabolism and proteostasis needs to be tamped until a more robust experimental approach is employed to generate supportive and corroborating results.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

- The paper has a number of grammatically awkward sentences. Editing these would enhance clarity.

- It is important to show the co-localization of aggregates with the lysosome. This is shown in supplements but should be in a main figure. Here the authors cite previous work indicating that ProteoStat puncta co-localize with ubiquitinated proteins and state that they do not see this, then essentially just move on. Is there an explanation for this discrepancy and can it be resolved? What do they think is really going on? What happens to levels of ubiquitinated proteins when lipid metabolism is perturbed as in these experiments?

We have included the lipid-induced lysosomal protein aggregation data in the main text (Figure 3A-B), and provided fine-grained quantification of the cytosolic-vs-lysosomal ProteoStat / Ub / ThT signals under different aggregate-inducing conditions (Figure S4A-D). We discuss these results in the main text and propose a model involving ESCRT-mediated microautophagy in the main text. This is supported further by the LysoIP-proteomics and LMP analysis.

- Please add an indicator of amino acid numbers to Fig. 3C.

These annotations are now included (now Figure S3C).

- The legend for 3D is mislabelled.

We have corrected the legend (now Figure S3D).

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Protein homeostasis and lipid homeostasis are both are important for maintaining cellular functions. However, the crosstalk remains largely unknown. The manuscript entitled as "Impairment of lipid homoeostasis causes accumulation of protein aggregates in the lysosome" deals with this interesting topic. An important link between lysosomal protein aggregation and sphingolipids/cholesterol esters metabolism were discovered. The topic belonging to the Cell Biology domain also falls into the aims and scope of eLife. Here are the revisions I recommend:

(1) From lipidomics analysis, a remarkable correlation between levels of sphingomyelin and cholesterol ester and ProteoStat staining was found. Could the authors explain how sphingomyelin and cholesterol ester are quantified? The two lipids are not included as internal standards from the lipidomics experiment.

Sphingomyelin and cholesterol ester internal standards are included in the Avanti 330707 SPLASH® LIPIDOMIX® Mass Spec Standard, which was supplied at 3% v/v to the MeOH/H2O cell lysis buffer. We have amended the Methods section to clarify this.

(2) Could the authors perhaps delete Figure 1B and show it on Figure 2A only? There is no need to show the same figure two times. The threshold of both False Discovery Rate and Median Enrichment needs to be added. From Figure 2A, the Lysosomal hydrolases (GBA, LIPA, GALC) seems located in statistically insignificant region. Based on previous studies, the GBA could have an effect on sphingolipid levels, then how to explain that sphingomyelin was highly correlated with ProteoSate staining?

We have combined the two volcano plots into a single figure (now Figure 1D), and added a line to help visualize the gene effects while considering the combined contribution of FDR and enrichment. Individual lysosomal hydrolases indeed have insignificant effects on ProteoStat and this is discussed in the main text as having relatively constrained impacts on the general lipidome. For example, while GBA and GALC KDs can lead to accumulation of their immediate substrates (glucosylceramide and galactosylceramide, respectively), they do not directly impinge on sphingomyelin.

(3) The authors show the corelation between ProteoState staining and different lipids/lipid classes in Figure 3B and Figure S3A. It is not necessary to show the corelation with individual lipids (such as sphingomyelin(d18:1/24:0) and cholesterol ester(18:2). The corelation with full collection of lipid classes would be more representative, which is only list in Figure 3B and Figure S3A. It is suggested to add the information of how many individual lipids in each chass are used for the correlation analysis. Replace Figure 3A to Figure S3A, and put Figure 3A as supplementary figure are suggested.

We decided to retain the correlation of two individual lipids (a sphingomyelin and a cholesterol ester species) with ProteoStat as examples to illustrate with clarity how we obtained the class-wide comparison. The number of individual lipids included in each class for correlation analysis is now included in Figures 2F and S3A.

(4) The authors state that lipid uptake and metabolism modulate proteostasis. However, only cholesterol and LDL were tested. It would be more precise to state as cholesterol uptake and metabolism modulate proteostasis. In addition, sphingolipids and cholesterol esters accumulate with increased lysosomal protein aggregation. It would be interesting to see the effects of sphingolipids uptake, since sphingolipids are correlated with proteostasis better than cholesterol.

We attempted to add back specific sphingolipids to assess sufficiency. However, we found it challenging to ensure that these lipids were distributed to the correct subcellular locations at physiologically relevant levels. Without this crucial information, it was difficult to draw any conclusions about the sufficiency of the sphingolipids we tested to impair proteostasis.

Alonso A, Goñi FM. 2018. The Physical Properties of Ceramides in Membranes. Annu Rev Biophys 47:633–654. doi:10.1146/annurev-biophys-070317-033309

Ikonen E, Zhou X. 2021. Cholesterol transport between cellular membranes: A balancing act between interconnected lipid fluxes. Dev Cell 56:1430–1436. doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2021.04.025

Niekamp P, Scharte F, Sokoya T, Vittadello L, Kim Y, Deng Y, Südhoff E, Hilderink A, Imlau M, Clarke CJ, Hensel M, Burd CG, Holthuis JCM. 2022. Ca2+-activated sphingomyelin scrambling and turnover mediate ESCRT-independent lysosomal repair. Nat Commun 13:1875. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-29481-4

Author response:

We thank the editors and reviewers for their thorough evaluation of our manuscript. We appreciate the constructive feedback and insights provided. 

We acknowledge that some of our conclusions would benefit from more measured statements and additional computational controls. We will revise the manuscript to better reflect the scope and limitations of our analytical approach. While we cannot add new experimental validations at this stage, we will strengthen our computational analyses and clarify our methodology.

Below, we outline our planned revisions to address the major points raised in the public reviews:

Clarification of Terms and Definitions:

(1) We will make it clearer in our manuscript to emphasize that we reuse the same raw datasets from our previous study as described in Calendrilli et al, 2023, and there is no modification to the experimental methods or data. 

(2) We will provide clear definitions for:

- "Non-differentially expressed" genes

- "Ctrl specific" RNA sets

- The composition of control populations in different analyses

(3) We will revise the use of "non-diffusive RNA-chromatin interactome" and “RNase-resistant” terminology to better reflect our actual findings.

(4) We will also improve clarity regarding:

- The rationale for focusing on specific genomic regions

- The interpretation of evolutionary conservation data

(5) We will provide additional rationale on the exclusion of short-range interactions.

Figure Revisions:

(1) Figure 3a: We will correct any discrepancy between text references and figure content.

(2) Figure 4: We will standardize the color scheme between control and RNase-treated samples.

(3) We will follow the reviewer's suggestion to move figure 1g to the supplementary file. 

Additional Computational Analyses:

(1) We will consider adding controls for RNA length effects and integrate any existing knowledge on the protection extent variation across different RBP.

Discussions:

(1) We will carefully rephrase our conclusions to more accurately reflect the scope and limitations of our computational findings, ensuring we do not overstate the implications.

(2) We will expand the discussion of limitations, including:

- The focus on RNase-resistant interactions only

- The cell-type specificity of our findings

- The lack of functional validation

- The limited ability to discern and study the transient or weak RNA-chromatin interactions using the current dataset

(3) Regarding the recent papers from Jenner and Davidovich groups about RNase treatment effects on chromatin solubility:

- We will discuss these findings in our revised manuscript

- We will address potential limitations this may impose on our interpretations

Author response:

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This work examines the binding of several phosphonate compounds to a membrane-bound pyrophosphatase using several different approaches, including crystallography, electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy, and functional measurements of ion pumping and pyrophosphatase activity. The work attempts to synthesize these different approaches into a model of inhibition by phosphonates in which the two subunits of the functional dimer interact differently with the phosphonate.

Strengths:

This study integrates a variety of approaches, including structural biology, spectroscopic measurements of protein dynamics, and functional measurements. Overall, data analysis was thoughtful, with careful analysis of the substrate binding sites (for example calculation of POLDOR omit maps).

Weaknesses:

Unfortunately, the protein did not crystallize with the more potent phosphonate inhibitors. Instead, structures were solved with two compounds with weak inhibitory constants >200 micromolar, which limits the molecular insight into compounds that could possibly be developed into small molecule inhibitors. Likewise, the authors choose to focus the spectroscopy experiments on these weaker binders, missing an opportunity to provide insight into the interaction between more potent binders and the protein.

We acknowledge the reviewer concern regarding the choice of weaker inhibitors. We attempted co-crystallization with all available inhibitors, including those with higher potency. However, despite numerous efforts, these potent inhibitors yielded low-resolution crystals, making them unsuitable for detailed structural analysis. Therefore, we chose to focus on the weaker binders, as we were able to obtain high-quality crystal structures for these compounds. This allowed us to perform DEER spectroscopy with the added advantage of accurately analyzing the data against structural models derived from X-ray crystallography. Using these weaker inhibitors enabled a more precise interpretation of the DEER data, thus providing reliable insights into the conformational dynamics and inhibition mechanism. However, as suggested by the reviewer, in the revised version, we will perform DEER analysis on the more potent inhibitors to provide additional insight into their interactions.

In general, the manuscript falls short of providing any major new insight into membrane-bound pyrophosphatases, which are a very well-studied system. Subtle changes in the structures and ensemble distance distributions suggest that the molecular conformations might change a little bit under different conditions, but this isn't a very surprising outcome. It's not clear whether these changes are functionally important, or just part of the normal experimental/protein ensemble variation.

We respectfully disagree with the reviewer. The scale of motions seen in this study correspond to those seen in the full panoply of crystal structures of mPPases. Some proteins undergo very large conformational changes during catalysis – such as the rotary ATPase. This one doesn’t, meaning that the precise motions we describe are likely to be relevant. Conformational changes in the ensemble, whether large or small, represent essential protein motions which underlie key mPPase catalytic function. Our DEER spectroscopy data demonstrate the sensitivity and resolution necessary to monitor these subtle changes in equilibria, even if these are only a few Angstroms. For several of the conditions we investigated by DEER in solution, corresponding x-ray structures have been solved, with the derived distances agreeing well with the DEER distributions. This further validates the biological relevance of the structures, including serial time-resolved ones that indicate asymmetry.

The ZLD-bound crystal structure doesn't predict the DEER distances, and the conformation of Na+ binding site sidechains in the ZLD structure doesn't predict whether sodium currents occur. This might suggest that the ZLD structure captures a conformation that does not recapitulate what is happening in solution/ a membrane.

We agree with the reviewer that the ZLD-bound crystal structure does not predict the DEER distances. However, we believe this discrepancy arises from the effect of the bulkiness of ZLD inhibitor, which prevents the closure of the hydrolytic centre. Additionally, the absence of Na+ at the ion gate in the ZLD-bound structure suggests that Na+ transport does not occur, a conclusion further supported by our electrometric measurements. We agree with the reviewer, that the distances observed in the DEER experiments might represent a potential new conformation in solution, which may not be captured by the static X-ray structure, thereby offering insights into the dynamic nature of the protein under physiological conditions. Finally, the static x-ray structures have not captured the asymmetric conformations that must exist to explain half-of-the-sites reactivity.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Crystallographic analysis revealed the asymmetric conformation of the dimer in the inhibitor-bound state. Based on this result, which is consistent with previous time-resolved analysis, authors verified the dynamics and distance between spin introduced label by DEER spectroscopy in solution and predicted possible patterns of asymmetric dimer.

Strengths:

Crystal structures with inhibitor bound provide detailed coordination in the binding pocket thus useful information for the PPase field and maybe for drug development.

Weaknesses:

The distance information measured by DEER is advantageous for verifying the dynamics and structure of membrane protein in solution. However, regarding T211 data, which, as the authors themselves stated, lacks measurement precision, it is unclear for readers how confident one can judge the conclusion leading from these data for the cytoplasmic side.

We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the advantageous use of the DEER methodology for identifying dynamic states of membrane proteins in solution. We used two sites in our analysis: S525 (periplasm) and T211 (cytoplasm). As we clearly stated in the original manuscript, S525R1 yielded high-quality DEER data, while T211R1 yielded weak (or no) visual oscillations, leading to broad, though different distributions for the several conditions tested. Our main conclusions are based on the S525R1 data. We included the T211R1 data because, although it does not provide definitive evidence, it is consistent with our proposed model and offers additional insights into biologically relevant conditions. Furthermore, the shifts in the centre of mass (Fig EV8D) of the broad T211R1 distributions show a trend that is consistent with our model; although not proving it, it does not exclude it either. Lastly, these data do indeed confirm an important structural feature of mPPase in solution conditions which is the intrinsically high dynamic state of the loop5-6 where T211 is located, and consistent with our previous (Kellosalo et al., Science,  2012; Li et al., Nat. Commun, 2016; Vidilaseris et al., Sci. Adv., 2019; Strauss et al., EMBO Rep., 2024) and current x-ray crystallography data.

The distance information for the luminal site, which the authors claim is more accurate, does not indicate either the possibility or the basis for why it is the ensemble of two components and not simply a structure with a shorter distance than the crystal structure.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this possibility and alternative interpretation of our DEER data. In the revised version, we will show that our DEER data are consistent with (and do not exclude) asymmetry and rephrase to be inclusive of other possibilities. Importantly, this additional possibility does not affect the current interpretation of the data in our manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Membrane-bound pyrophosphatases (mPPases) are homodimeric proteins that hydrolyze pyrophosphate and pump H+/Na+ across membranes. They are attractive drug targets against protist pathogens. Non-hydrolysable PPi analogue bisphosphonates such as risedronate (RSD) and pamidronate (PMD) serve as primary drugs currently used. Bisphosphonates have a P-C-P bond, with its central carbon can accommodate up to two substituents, allowing a large compound variability. Here the authors solved two TmPPase structures in complex with the bisphosphonates etidronate (ETD) and zoledronate (ZLD) and monitored their conformational ensemble using DEER spectroscopy in solution. These results reveal the inhibition mechanism of these compounds, which is crucial for developing future small molecule inhibitors.

Strengths:

The authors show that seven different bisphosphonates can inhibit TmPPase with IC50 values in the micromolar range. Branched aliphatic and aromatic modifications showed weaker inhibition.

High-resolution structures for TmPPase with ETD (3.2 Å) and ZLD (3.3 Å) are determined. These structures reveal the binding mode and shed light on the inhibition mechanism. The nature of modification on the bisphosphonate alters the conformation of the binding pocket.

The conformational heterogeneity is further investigated using DEER spectroscopy under several conditions.

Weaknesses:

The authors observed asymmetry in the TmPPase-ELD structure above the hydrolytic center. The structural asymmetry arises due to differences in the orientation of ETD within each monomer at the active site. As a result, loop5-6 of the two monomers is oriented differently, resulting in the observed asymmetry. The authors attempt to further establish this asymmetry using DEER spectroscopy experiments. However, the (over)interpretation of these data leads to more confusion than any further understanding. DEER data suggest that the asymmetry observed in the TmPPase-ELD structure in this region might be funneled from the broad conformational space under the crystallization conditions.

See also the response below - We respectfully disagree with the reviewer. The asymmetry was previously established using serial time crystallography (Strauss et al., EMBO Rep, 2024) and biochemical assays (e.g. Malinen et al., Prot. Sci., 2022; Artukka et al., Biochem J, 2018; Luoto et al., PNAS, 2013) and also partially seen in one static structure (Vidilaseris et al., Sci Adv 2019). DEER data only show that the previously proposed asymmetry could also be present within the conformational ensemble in solution conditions. Indeed, our data do not (and cannot) exclude this possibility.

DEER data for position T211R1 at the enzyme entrance reveal a highly flexible conformation of loop5-6 (and do not provide any direct evidence for asymmetry, Figure EV8).

Please see relevant response above. We acknowledge that T211 is indeed situated on a highly dynamic loop, which is important for gating and our DEER data confirm its high flexibility. Given we have not observed oscillations of this site, leading to broad distributions, we have stated in the original manuscript that we will not establish the presence of any asymmetry in solution on the basis of T211, rather relying on the S525 site, for which we have acquired high-quality DEER data, as was also pointed out and have been commented on by all reviewers.

Similarly, data for position S521R1 near the exit channel do not directly support the proposed asymmetry for ETD.

The reviewer appears to suggest that we hold the S525R1 DEER data as direct proof of asymmetry; this is combative on the grounds that to directly prove asymmetry would require time-resolved DEER measurements, far beyond the scope of this work. Rather, we have applied DEER measurements to explore whether asymmetry (observed previously via time-resolved X-ray crystallography) is also present (or indeed a possibility) in solution. We simply state that the DEER data are consistent with asymmetry (i.e., that the mean distance increases in the presence of ETD compared to the apo-state). This is a restrained interpretation of the data.

Despite the high quality of the data, they reveal a very similar distance distribution. The reported changes in distances are very small (+/- 0.3 nm), which can be accommodated by a change of spin label rotamer distribution alone. Further, these spin labels are located on a flexible loop, thereby making it difficult to directly relate any distance changes to the global conformation

We thank the reviewer for recognising the high quality of our DEER data for the S525R1, where visual oscillations in the raw traces, as in our case, reportedly lead to highly accurate and reliable distributions, able to separate (in fortuitous cases) helical movements of only a few Angstroms. The ability of DEER/PELDOR offering near Angstrom resolution was previously demonstrated by the acquisition and solution of high resolution multi-subunit spin-labelled membrane protein structures (Pliotas at al., PNAS, 2012; Pliotas et al., Nat Struct Mol Biol, 2015; Pliotas, Methods Enzymol, 2017) as well as it ability in detecting small (and of similar to mPPase magnitude) conformational changes in different integral membrane proteins systems (Kapsalis et al., Nature Comms, 2019; Kubatova et al., PNAS, 2023; Schmidt et al., JACS, 2024; Lane et al., Structure, 2024; Hett et al., JACS, 2021; Zhao et al., Nature, 2024), occurring under different conditions and/or stimuli in solution and/or lipid environment. The changes here are not very small (e.g. ~ 7 Angstroms between the two mean distance extremes (Ca vs IDP)) for DEER’s proven detection sensitivity, and with all other conditions showing changes between those extremes.

These changes are relatively small, but they are expected for membrane ion pumps. Indeed, none of the mPPase structures show helical movements of greater than a half a turn, and that only in helices 6 and 12. There appear to be larger-scale loop closing motions of the 5-6 loop that includes T211, due to the presence of E217 which binds to one of the Mg2+ ions that coordinate the leaving group phosphate. (This is, inter alia, the reason that this loop is so flexible: it can not order before substrate is bound.) Here we have the resolution to detect such subtle differences by DEER, given there are clear shifts in our time domain data and these are reflected in the mean distances in the distributions. Therefore, our study demonstrates the sensitivity and resolution DEER offers in detecting subtle conformational transitions, key in membrane proteins pathways. To further belabour this point, we do not quantify the DEER data (for instance through parametric fitting) to extract populations of different conformational states and we appreciate that to do so would be highly prone to error; however we do (and can, we feel without overinterpretation) assert that the mean distances shift.

The interpretations listed below are not supported by the data presented:

(1) 'In the presence of Ca2+, the distance distribution shifts towards shorter distances, suggesting that the two monomers come closer at the periplasmic side, and consistent with the predicted distances derived from the TmPPase:Ca structure.' Problem: This is a far-stretched interpretation of a tiny change, which is not reliable for the reasons described in the paragraph above.

While the authors overall agree with the reviewer assessment that ±0.3 nm is a small (not a minor) change, there are literature examples quantifying (or using for quantification) distribution peaks separated by similar Δr. (Kubatova et al., PNAS, 2023; Schmidt et al., JACS, 2024; Hett et al., JACS, 2021; Zhao et al., Nature, 2024). In particular, none of the mPPase structures show helical movements of greater than a half a turn (in helices 6 and 12 in particular). There appear to be larger-scale loop closing motions of the 5-6 loop that includes T211, due to the presence of E217 which binds to one of the Mg2+ ions that coordinate the leaving group phosphate. (This is, inter alia, the reason that this loop is so flexible: it can not order before substrate is bound.)

Importantly, we have fitted Gaussians to the experimental distance distributions of 525R1 output by the Comparative Deer Analyzer 2.0 and observed a change in the distribution width in presence of Ca2+, implying the rotameric freedom of the spin label is restricted. However, the CW-EPR for 525R1 indicate that the rotational correlation time of the spin label is highly consistent between conditions (the spectra are almost identical); this cannot be explained simply by rotameric preference of the spin label (as asserted by the reviewer 3), as there is no (further) immobilisation observed from the CW-EPR of apo-state (Figure EV9) to that in presence of Ca2+. Furthermore, in the absence of conformational changes, it is reasonable to assume (and demonstrable from the CW-EPR data) that the rotamer cloud should not significantly change between conditions. However, Gaussian fits of the two extreme cases yielding the longest (i.e., in presence of IDP) and shortest (in presence of ZTD) mean distances for the 525R1 DEER data indicated significant (i.e., above the noise floor after Tikhonov validation) probability density for the IDP condition at 50 Å (P(r) = 0.18). This occurs at four standard deviations above the mean of the ZTD condition, which by random chance should occur with <0.007% probability. Indeed, one can say that to observe 18% probability density at four standard deviations above the mean by random chance would occur on the order of one in 4 x 10^6.

As in previous response the method can detect changes of such magnitude which are not small, but physiologically relevant and expected for integral membrane proteins, such as mPPases. Indeed, even in equal (or more) complex systems such as heptameric mechanosensitive channel proteins DEER provided sub-Angstrom accuracy, when a spin labelled high resolution XRC structure was solved (Pliotas et al., PNAS, 2012; Pliotas et al., Nat Struct Mol Biol, 2015). Despite this is ideal case where DEER accuracy was experimentally validated another high resolution structural method on modified membrane protein and is not very common it demonstrates the power of the method , especially when strong oscillations are present in the raw DEER data (as here for mPPase 525R1), even when multiple distances are present, Angstrom resolution is achievable in such challenging protein classes.

(2) 'Based on the DEER data on the IDP-bound TmPPase, we observed significant deviations between the experimental and the in silico distances derived from the TmPPase:IDP X-ray structure for both cytoplasmic- (T211R1) and periplasmic-end (S525R1) sites (Figure 4D and Figure EV8D). This deviation could be explained by the dimer adopting an asymmetric conformation under the physiological conditions used for DEER, with one monomer in a closed state and the other in an open state.'

Problem: The authors are trying to establish asymmetry using the DEER data. Unfortunately, no significant difference is observed (between simulation and experiment) for position 525 as the authors claim (Figure 4D bottom panel). The observed difference for position 112 must be accounted for by the flexibility and the data provide no direct evidence for any asymmetry.

Reviewer 3 is wrong in suggesting that we are trying to prove asymmetry through the DEER data. That is a well-known fact in the literature (eg Vidilaseris et al, Sci Adv 2019 where we show (1) that the exit channel inhibitor ATC (i.e., close to 525) binds better in solution to the TmPPase:PPi complex than the TmPPase:PPi2 complex, and (2) that ATC binds in an asymmetric fashion to the TmPPase:IDP2 complex with just one ATC dimer on one of the exit channels. We merely use the DEER data to support this well-established fact.

However, we agree that the DEER data in presence of IDP does not provide direct proof for asymmetry; particularly mutant T211R1 yields in silico distributions too short for measurement by DEER. It is possible that the deviations observed (and particularly likely for T211R1) arise from conformational heterogeneity in solution. We will rephrase this paragraph accordingly: “Owing to the broad nature of the T211R1 (cytoplasmic site) distance distributions, we refrain from interpreting shifts in this data. For the 525R1 (periplasmic site) for which we obtained data of high quality (as also pointed out by both reviewers 2 and 3) we observed deviations between the experimental and the in-silico distances derived from the TmPPase:IDP X-ray structure. While this deviation is less pronounced than for the +ZTD condition, the deviation is consistent with an asymmetric conformation in solution.”

(3) 'Our new structures, together with DEER distance measurements that monitor the conformational ensemble equilibrium of TmPPase in solution, provide further solid experimental evidence of asymmetry in gating and transitional changes upon substrate/inhibitor binding.'

Problem: See above. The DEER data do not support any asymmetry.

We feel that the reviewer comments here are somewhat unfounded. The DEER data (and we will limit discussion only to the 525R1 mutant in this regard) satisfy relevant criteria of the white paper (Schiemann et al., 2021, JACS) from the EPR community (signal-to-noise ratio w.r.t modulation depth of > 20 in all cases; replicates have been performed and will be added into the main-text or supplementary; near quantitative labelling efficiency (evidenced by lack of free spin label signal in the CW-EPR spectra); analysed using the CDA (now Figure EV10, this data we will promote to the main-text) to avoid confirmation bias).

While the DEER data do not prove asymmetry, we do not claim proof of asymmetry in the above sentence. We concede to rephrase the offending sentence above as: “Our new structures, together with DEER distance measurements that monitor the conformational ensemble of TmPPase in solution, do not exclude asymmetry in gating and transitional changes upon substrate/inhibitor binding and are consistent with our proposed model.” We feel that this reframed conjecture of asymmetry is well founded; indeed, comparing the experimental apo-state 525R1 distance distribution with in-silico modelling performed on the hybridised asymmetric structure (i.e., comprised of one monomer bound to Ca2+ and another bound to IDP) yields an overlap coefficient (Islam and Roux, JPC B, 2015) of >0.97. This implies the envelope of the modelled distance distribution is quantitatively inside the envelope of the experimental distance distribution. Thus, the DEER data do not exclude asymmetry (previously observed by time-resolved XRC) in solution. While we appreciate that ideally one would measure time-resolved DEER to directly correlate kinetics of conformational changes within the ensemble to the catalytic cycle of mPPase,(and this is something we aim to do in the future), it is beyond the the scope of this study.

Indeed, half-of-the-sites reactivity has been demonstrated in at least the following papers (Vidilaseris et al, Sci Acv. ,2019, Strauss et al, EMBO Rep. 2024, Malinen et al Prot Sci, 2022, Artukka et al Biochem J, 2018; Luoto et al, PNAS, 2013). Half-of-the sites activity requires asymmetry in the mechanism, and therefore asymmetric motions in the active site (viz 211) and exit channel (viz 525). As mentioned above, we have demonstrated this for other inhibitors (Vidilaseris et al 2019) and as part of a time-resolved experiment (Strauss et al 2024). In fact, given the wealth of evidence showing that the symmetrical crystal structures sample a non- or less-productive conformation of the protein, it would be quixotic to propose the DEER experiments - in solution - do not generate asymmetric conformations. It certainly doesn’t obey Occam’s razor of choosing the simplest possible explanation that covers the data.

(4) Based on these observations, and the DEER data for +IDP, which is consistent with an asymmetric conformation of TmPPase being present in solution, we propose five distinct models of TmPPase (Figure 7).

Problem: Again, the DEER data do not support any asymmetry and the authors may revisit the proposed models.

We respectfully disagree with the reviewer. Please see our detailed response above. However, in the revised version, we will clarify that the proposed models are not solely based on the DEER data but are grounded in both current and previously solved structures, with the DEER data providing additional consistency with these models.

(5) 'In model 2 (Figure 7), one active site is semi-closed, while the other remains open. This is supported by the distance distributions for S525R1 and T211R1 for +Ca/ETD informed by DEER, which agrees with the in silico distance predictions generated by the asymmetric TmPPase:ETD X-ray structure'

Problem: Neither convincing nor supported by the data

We respectfully disagree with the reviewer. However, owing to the conformational heterogeneity of T211R1, in the revised version, we will exclude it in the above sentence, to the effect: Please see our detailed response above.

Author Response:

Thank you for your interest in our paper. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their critical and constructive comments. Although the reviewers found our work interesting, they raised several important concerns about our study. To address these concerns, mostly we will perform new experiments as following.

1. Examine whether antioxidant-NAC can block SFN-induced TFEB-nuclear translocation in NPC cells;

2. Examine whether calcineurin inhibitor (FK506+CsA) or Ca 2+ inhibitor (Bapta-AM) can block SFN-induced TFEB-nuclear translocation in NPC cells.

3. Investigate whether cholesterol was cleared by activation of TFEB by SFN in vivo tissues.

4. Investigate whether SFN-evoked the lysosomal exocytosis is TFEB-dependent by using TFEB-KO cells.

5. Examine the effect of NPC1 deficiency on dextran trafficking by studying the localization of CF- dex and Lamp1.

6. Perform cytotoxicity experiments to examine whether SFN used in this study is cytotoxic in various cell lines

In addition, according to the reviewers’ suggestions, we will make clarifications and corrections wherever appropriate in the manuscript. Below please find our point-by-point responses and plans to the reviewers’ comments.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors are trying to determine if SFN treatment results in dephosphorylation of TFEB, subsequent activation of autophagy-related genes, exocytosis of lysosomes, and reduction in lysosomal cholesterol levels in models of NPC disease.

Strengths:

(1) Clear evidence that SFN results in translocation of TFEB to the nucleus.

(2) In vivo data demonstrating that SFN can rescue Purkinje neuron number and weight in NPC1-/- animals.

Thank you for the support!

Weaknesses:

(1) Lack of molecular details regarding how SFN results in dephosphorylation of TFEB leading to activation of the aforementioned pathways. Currently, datasets represent correlations.

Thank you for this constructive comment. The reviewer is right that in this manuscript the molecular mechanism of SFN-activated TFEB has not been discussed in details. Because previously we have shown that SFN induces TFEB nuclear translocation via a Ca 2+ - dependent but MTOR (mechanistic target of rapamycin kinase)-independent mechanism through a moderate increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS). And calcineurin-mediated TFEB dephosphorylation underlies SFN-induced TFEB activation. These data have been published in 2021 autophagy (Li, Shao et al. 2021) . Therefore, in this study we did not mention this part. We will add the molecular mechanism of TFEB activation by SFN in the discussion part. And to further confirm this mechanism in NPC cells, we will also perform experiments including: 1) examine whether antioxidant-NAC can block SFN-induced TFEB-nuclear translocation in NPC cells; 2) examine whether calcineurin inhibitor (FK506+CsA) can block SFN-induced TFEB-nuclear translocation in NPC cells.

(2) Based on the manuscript narrative, discussion, and data it is unclear exactly how steady-state cholesterol would change in models of NPC disease following SFN treatment. Yes, there is good evidence that lysosomal flux to (and presumably across) the plasma membrane increases with SFN. However, lysosomal biogenesis genes also seem to be increasing. Given that NPC inhibition, NPC1 knockout, or NPC1 disease mutations are constitutively present and the cell models of NPC disease contain lysosomes (even with SFN) how could a simple increase in lysosomal flux decrease cholesterol levels? It would seem important to quantify the number of lysosomes per cell in each condition to begin to disentangle differences in steady state number of lysosomes, number of new lysosomes, and number of lysosomes being exocytosed.

Thank you for the suggestion. It is important to define the three states 1) original number of lysosomes, 2) number of new lysosomes, and 3) number of lysosomes being exocytosis. However, we have checked literature, so far it seems that there is no good method that could clearly differentiate the three states of lysosomes.

(3) Lack of evidence supporting the authors' premise that "SFN could be a good therapeutic candidate for neuropathology in NPC disease".

Suggestion was taken! We will investigate whether cholesterol was reduced by activation of TFEB by SFN in vivo to strength the point that SFN could be a potential therapeutic compound for NPC treatment. And to avoid confusion, we have removed this sentence.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study presents a valuable finding that the activation of TFEB by sulforaphane (SFN) could promote lysosomal exocytosis and biogenesis in NPC, suggesting a potential mechanism by SFN for the removal of cholesterol accumulation, which may contribute to the development of new therapeutic approaches for NPC treatment.

Strengths:

The cell-based assays are convincing, utilizing appropriate and validated methodologies to support the conclusion that SFN facilitates the removal of lysosomal cholesterol via TFEB activation.

Weaknesses:

(1) The in vivo experiments demonstrate the therapeutic potential of SFN for NPC. A clear dose-response analysis would further strengthen the proposed therapeutic mechanism of SFN. Additional data supporting the activation of TFEB by SFN for cholesterol clearance in vivo would strengthen the overall impact of the study

We understand the reviewer’s point. We examined two doses of SFN-30 and 50mg/kg. As shown in Fig.6, SFN (50mg/kg), but not 30mg/kg prevents a degree of Purkinje cell loss in the lobule IV/V of cerebellum, suggesting a dose-correlated preventive effect of SFN. In vivo experiments with higher concentrations of SFN and optimized dosage form of SFN were planned in the future study, but will not be included in this study.

We will investigate whether cholesterol was cleared by activation of TFEB by SFN in vivo.

(2) In Figure 4, the authors demonstrate increased lysosomal exocytosis and biogenesis by SFN in NPC cells. Including a TFEB-KO/KD in this assay would provide additional validation of whether these effects are TFEB-dependent.

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We will investigate whether SFN-evoked the lysosomal exocytosis is TFEB-dependent by using TFEB-KO cells.

(3) For lysosomal pH measurement, the combination of pHrodo-dex and CF-dex enables ratiometric pH measurement. However, the pKa of pHrodo red-dex (according to Invitrogen) is ~6.8, while lysosomal pH is typically around 4.7. This discrepancy may account for the lack of observed lysosomal pH changes between WT and U18666A-treated cells. Notably, previous studies (PMID: 28742019) have reported an increase in lysosomal pH in U18666A-treated cells.

We understand the reviewer’s point. But we used pHrodo™ Green-Dextran (P35368, Invitrogen), but not pHrodo red-dex to measure the lysosomal luminal acidity. According to the product information from Invitrogen, pHrodo Green-dex conjugates are non-fluorescent at neural pH, but fluorescence bright green at acidic pH ranges 4-9, such as those in endosomes and lysosomes. Therefore, pHrodo Green-dex can be used to monitor the acidity of lysosome (Hu, Li et al. 2022) . We also used LysoTracker Red DND-99 (Thermo Scientific, L7528) to measure lysosomal pH (Fig. 4G, H), which is consistent with results of pHrodo Green/CF measurement. Overall, in our hands, we have not detected pH change of lysosomes in U18666A-treated NPC1 cell models.

(4) The authors are also encouraged to perform colocalization studies between CF-dex and a lysosomal marker, as some researchers may be concerned that NPC1 deficiency could reduce or block the trafficking of dextran along endocytosis.

Suggestion was taken! We will examine the effect of NPC1 deficiency on dextran trafficking by studying the localization of CF-dex and Lamp1.

(5) In vivo data supporting the activation of TFEB by SFN for cholesterol clearance would significantly enhance the impact of the study. For example, measuring whole-animal or brain cholesterol levels would provide stronger evidence of SFN's therapeutic potential.

We really appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions. We will investigate whether cholesterol was cleared by activation of TFEB by SFN in vivo.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors demonstrate that activation of TFEB facilitates cholesterol clearance in cell models of Niemann-Pick type C (NPC). This is done through a variety of approaches including activation of TFEB by sulforaphane (SFN), a naturally occurring small-molecule TFEB agonist. SFN induces TFEB nuclear translocation and promotes lysosomal exocytosis. In an NPC mouse model, SFN dephosphorylates/activates TFEB in the brain and rescues the loss of Purkinje cells.

Strengths:

NPC is a severe disease and there is little in the way of treatment. The manuscript points towards some treatment options. However, the title, the title "Small-molecule activation of TFEB Alleviates Niemann-Pick Disease..." is far too strong and should be changed.

Weaknesses:

(1) The manuscript is extremely hard to read due to the writing; it needs careful editing for grammar and English.

We will thoroughly check grammar to improve the manuscript.

(2) There are a number of important technical issues that need to be addressed.

We will address the technical issues mentioned in the following.

(3) The TFEB influence on filipin staining in Figure 1A is somewhat subtle. In the mCherry alone panels there is a transfected cell with no filipin staining and the mCherry-TFEBS211A cells still show some filipin staining.

We understand the reviewer’s point. We will investigate whether cholesterol is cleared by activation of TFEB by SFN in vivo.

(4) Figure 1C is impressive for the upregulation of filipin with U18666A treatment. However, SFN is used at 15 microM. This must be hitting multiple pathways. Vauzour et al (PMID: 20166144) use SFN at 10 nM to 1microM. Other manuscripts use it in the low microM range. The authors should repeat at least some key experiments using SFN at a range of concentrations from perhaps 100 nM to 5 microM. The use of 15 microM throughout is an overall concern.

We understand the reviewer’s point. See RESPONSE #1, previously we have shown that SFN (10–15 μM, 2–9 h) induces robust TFEB nuclear translocation in a dose- and time-dependent manner in HeLa GFP-TFEB stable cells as well as in other human cell lines without cytotoxicity (Li, Shao et al. 2021) . According to previous results, in this study, we chose SFN (15 μM) to examine its effect on cholesterol clearance. We will add the information in the discussion part. In this study, we will perform dose-response TFEB nuclear translocation in NPC model cells as well as cytotoxicity experiments to examine whether the concentrations of SFN used in various cell lines are toxic.

References:

Hu, M. Q., P. Li, C. Wang, X. H. Feng, Q. Geng, W. Chen, M. Marthi, W. L. Zhang, C. L. Gao, W. Reid, J. Swanson, W. L. Du, R. Hume and H. X. Xu (2022). "Parkinson's disease-risk protein TMEM175 is a proton-activated proton channel in lysosomes.” Cell 185(13): 2292-+.

Li, D., R. Shao, N. Wang, N. Zhou, K. Du, J. Shi, Y. Wang, Z. Zhao, X. Ye, X. Zhang and H. Xu (2021). “Sulforaphane Activates a lysosome-dependent transcriptional program to mitigate oxidative stress.” Autophagy 17(4): 872-887.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The work from Petazzi et al. aimed at identifying novel factors supporting the differentiation of human hematopoietic progenitors from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). The authors developed an inducible CRISPR-mediated activation strategy (iCRISPRa) to test the impact of newly identified candidate factors on the generation of hematopoietic progenitors in vitro. They first compared previously published transcriptomic data of iPSCderived hemato-endothelial populations with cells isolated ex vivo from the aorta-gonadmesonephros (AGM) region of the human embryo and they identified 9 transcription factors expressed in the aortic hemogenic endothelium that were poorly expressed in the in vitro differentiated cells. They then tested the activation of these candidate factors in an iPSCbased culture system supporting the differentiation of hematopoietic progenitors in vitro. They found that the IGF binding protein 2 (IGFBP2) was the most upregulated gene in arterial endothelium after activation and they demonstrated that IGFBP2 promotes the generation of functional hematopoietic progenitors in vitro.

Strengths:

The authors developed an extremely useful doxycycline-inducible system to activate the expression of specific candidate genes in human iPSC. This approach allows us to simultaneously test the impact of 9 different transcription factors on in vitro differentiation of hematopoietic cells, and the system appears to be very versatile and applicable to a broad variety of studies.

The system was extensively validated for the expression of 1 transcription factor (RUNX1) in both HeLa cells and human iPSC, and a detailed characterization of this test experiment was provided.

The authors exhaustively demonstrated the role of IGFBP2 in promoting the generation of functional hematopoietic progenitors in vitro from iPSCs. Even though the use of IGFBP2interacting proteins IGF1 and IGF2 have been previously reported in human iPSC-derived hematopoietic differentiation in vitro (Ditadi and Sturgeon, Methods 2016; Ng et al., Nature Biotechnology 2016), and IGFBP-2 itself has been shown to promote adult HSC expansion ex vivo (Zhang et al., Blood 2008), its role on supporting in vitro hematopoiesis was demonstrated here for the first time.

Weaknesses:

Although the authors performed a very thorough characterization of the system in proof-ofprinciple experiments activating a single transcription factor, the data provided when 9 independent factors were used is not sufficient to fully validate the experimental strategy. Indeed, in the current version of the manuscript, it is not clear whether the results presented in both the scRNAseq analysis and the functional assays are the consequence of the simultaneous activation of all 9 TF or just a subset of them. This is essential to establish whether all the proposed factors play a role during embryonic hematopoiesis, and a more complete analysis of the scRNAseq dataset could help clarify this aspect.

Similarly, the data presented in the manuscript are not sufficient to clarify at what stage of the endothelial-to-hematopoietic transition (EHT) the TF activation has an impact. Indeed, even though the overall increase of functional hematopoietic progenitors is fully demonstrated, the assays proposed in the manuscript do not clarify whether this is due to a specific effect at the endothelial level or to an increased proliferation rate of the generated hematopoietic progenitors. Similar conclusions can be applied to the functional validation of IGFBP2 in vitro.

The overall conclusions are sometimes vague and not always supported by the data. For instance, the authors state that the CRISPR activation strategy resulted in transcriptional remodeling and a steer in cell identity, but they do not specify which cell types are involved and at what level of the EHT process this is happening. In the discussion, the authors also claim that they provided evidence to support that RUNX1T1 could regulate IGFBP2 expression. However, this is exclusively based on the enrichment of RUNX1T1 gRNA in cells expressing higher levels of IGFBP2 and it does not demonstrate any direct or indirect association of the two factors.

We thank the reviewer for the positive comments about the importance of our work and have now addressed the points raised as weaknesses by performing additional analysis and experiments, adding a new schematic of the mechanism, and rewording our claims.

We have clarified the different effects mediated by the activation and the IGFBP2 addition in a summary section at the end of the results and added Figure 6, showing this in visual form. We have also clearly stated the limitations related to the correlation between RUNX1T1 and IGFBP2 in the discussion and toned down our claims regarding this throughout the entire paper. We have also reworded the text to clarify the specific cell types identified in the sequencing data that we refer to.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

To enable robust production of hematopoietic progenitors in-vitro, Petazzi et al examined the role of transcription factors in the arterial hemogenic endothelium. They use IGFBP2 as a candidate gene to increase the directed differentiation of iPSCs into hematopoietic progenitors. They have established a novel induced-CRISPR mediated activation strategy to drive the expression of multiple endogenous transcription factors and show enhanced production of hematopoietic progenitors through expansion of the arterial endothelial cells. Further, upregulation of IGFBP2 in the arterial cells facilitates the metabolic switch from glycolysis to oxidative phosphorylation, inducing hematopoietic differentiation. While the overall study and resources generated are good, assertions in the manuscript are not entirely supported by the experimental data and some claims need further experimental validation.

We thank the reviewer for the positive comments, and we have provided new data and analysis to make sure that all our assertations are clearly supported and also reworded those where limitations were identified by the reviewers.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewing Editor (Recommendations For The Authors):

The assessment could change from "incomplete" to "solid" if the authors: i) improve data analysis (for both scRNAseq and functional assays) by providing additional information that could strengthen their conclusions, as suggested in the specific comments by both reviewers; ii) either provide new functional evidence supporting their mechanistic conclusion or alternatively tone down the claims that are not fully supported by data and acknowledge the limitations raised by reviewers in the discussion; (iii) the issue of paracrine signaling to expand only hematopoietic progenitors needs to be addressed.

We have now improved the data analysis and provided additional functional tests to strengthen our conclusions and toned down those that were identified by the reviewers as not supported enough and included a discussion on these limitations. We have also reworded the section about the paracrine signaling throughout the paper.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Figure 1 contains exclusively published data. It might be more appropriate to use it as a supplementary figure or as part of a more exhaustive figure (maybe combining Figures 1 and 2 together?).

Figure 1 contained novel bioinformatic analyses that represent the base of our research and it has a different content and focus to figure 2, which is already a large figure. We therefore believe it is better to keep it as a separate figure, containing a new panel now too. 

It seems there is an issue with Figure S3 labelling:

• In line 112, Figure S2A-B does not display genomic PCR and sequencing results;

• In line 123, Figure S3D-E does not show viability and proliferation data;

• In line 127, Figure S3G does not show mCherry expression in response to DOX;

We apologies for the confusion with the numbers, we have now correctly labelled the figures.

It would be more informative to include gates and frequency on flow cytometry plots in Figure S3, to be able to evaluate the extent of the reduction in mCherry expression.

We have now included the gating and frequency of mCherry-expressing cells in Supplementary Figure 3D.

It is not clear from the text and figures whether the SB treatment was maintained throughout the hematopoietic differentiation protocol (line 122):

• If so, it would be important to confirm that HDAC treatment does not affect EHT cultures

• If not, can the authors provide some evidence that transgene silencing is not occurring during hematopoietic differentiation?

We have clarified that we decided to treat the cells with SB exclusively in maintenance condihons because HDACs have been shown to be essenhal for the EHT (lines 138-142). We have now also included addihonal data showing the high expression of the mCherry tag reporhng the iSAM expression on day 8 (Supplementary Figure 4F).

Can the authors provide a simple diagram summarizing the experimental strategy for each differentiation experiment in the respective supplementary figure? For instance, at what stage of the protocol was DOX added in Figure 3? Or at what stage IGFBP2 was added in Figure 5? It would be a very useful addition to the interpretation of the results.

We have now included three schemahcs for all the experiments in the manuscript in supplementary figure 4 A-C.

In Figure 3, the authors should provide more detailed information about the data filtering of the scRNAseq experiment, and more specifically:

• How many cells were included in the analysis for each library after QC and filtering?

• How "cells in which the gRNAs expression was detected" were selected? Do they include only cells showing expression of gRNAs for all 9 TF?

This informahon is now included in the method sechon lines 773-781; the detailed code is available on the GitHub link provided in the same sechon. We have filtered the cells expressing one gRNA for the non-targehng gRNA (iSAM_NT) control and more than one for the iSAM_AGM sample. 

In Figure 3A, it is not clear whether the expression of the 9 factors is consistently detected in all cells or just a subset of them, and the heatmap in Figure 3A does not provide this information. It would be more accurate to provide expression on a per-cell basis, for instance, as a violin plot displaying single dots representing each cell. 

We have now included this violin plot in Supplementary Figure 4G as requested. However, this visualisation is difficult to interpret because some of the target genes’ expression seems variable in both experimental and control conditions. We had envisaged that this could have been the case and so this is why we had included the three different controls.  For this reason we chose to show the normalised expression which takes all the different variables into account (Figure 3A). 

In Figure 3B-C, it seems that clusters EHT1 and EHT2 do not express endothelial markers anymore. Are these fully differentiated hematopoietic cells rather than cells undergoing EHT? In general, it would be quite important to provide evidence of expressed marker genes characterizing each cluster (eg. heatmap summarizing top DEG in the supplementary figure?). 

We have now provided a spreadsheet containing the clusters’ markers that we used in

Supplementary Table 1) a heatmap in Figure 3E. Furthermor,e we have now edited Figure 3C to include Pan Endothelial markers (PECAM1 and CDH5). These data show that the EHT1 and EHT2 cluster both express endothelial markers but are progressively downregulated as expected during endothelial to hematopoietic transition. We have also included and discussed this in the manuscript lines 192-195 and a schematic for the mechanism in Figure 6.

In Figure 3E, displaying the proportion of clusters within each sample/library would be a more accurate way of comparing the cell types present in each library (removing potential bias introduced by loading different numbers of cells in each sample).

We have now included the requested data in Supplementary Figure 4I and it confirms again the expansion of arterial cells in the activated cells.    

In Figure 3G, by plating 20,000 total CD34+, the assay does not account for potential differences in sample composition. It is then hard to discriminate between the increased number of progenitors in the input or an enhanced ability of HE to undergo EHT. This is an important aspect to consider to precisely identify at what level the activation of the 9 factors is acting. A proper quantification of flow cytometry data summarizing the % of progenitors, arterial cells, etc. would be useful to interpret these results.

Lines 204-205 reworded. We are very much aware of the fact that the CD34+ cell population consists of a range of cells across the EHT process and this is precisely why we carried out this single cell sequencing analyses.  We purposely tested the effect of the observed changes in composition by colony assays

In Figure 3G, it seems that NT cells w/o DOX have very little CFU potential (if any). Can the authors provide an explanation for this?

We think that the limited CFU potential is due to the extensive genetic manipulation and selection that the cells underwent for the derivation of all the iSAM lines but this did not impede us from observing an effect of gene activation on CFU numbers. This is one of the primary reasons that we then validated our overall findings using the parental iPSC line in control condition and with the addition of IGFBP2. We show that the parental iPSC line gives rise to hematopoietic progenitor, both immunophenotypically (Figure 4D) and functionally, at expected levels (Figure 4B left column).

Figure 4A shows an upregulation of IGFBP2 in arterial cells as a result of TF activation. However, from the data presented here, it is not possible to evaluate whether this is specific to the arterial cluster, or it is a common effect shared by all cell types regardless of their identity. 

Data has now been included in Supplementary Figure 4H, which shows that all the cells show an increase in IGFBP2, but arterial cells show the highest increase. We have now edited the text to reflect this, in lines 228-230.

In Figure 5A-B only a minority of arterial cells express RUNX1 in response to IGFBP2 treatment. Is this sufficient to explain the very significant increase in the generation of functional hematopoietic progenitors described in Figure 4? Quantification and statistical analysis of RUNX1 upregulation would strengthen this conclusion.

We have now provided the statistical analysis showing significant upregulation of RUNX1 upon IGFBP2 addition. The p values are now provided in the figure 5 legend.

In Figure 5 the authors conclude that IGFBP2 remodels the metabolic profile of endothelial cells. However, it is not clear which cell types and clusters were included in the analysis of Figure 5C-G. Is the switch from Glycolysis to Oxidative Phosphorylation specific to endothelial cells? Or it is a more general effect on the entire culture, including hematopoietic cells? 

We based this conclusion on the fact that the single-cell RNAseq allows to verify that the metabolic differences are obtained in the endothelial cells. Given that we sorted the adherent cells, the majority of these are endothelial cells as shown in Figure 5A. The Seahorse pipeline includes a number of washing steps resulting in the analyses being performed on the adherent compartment which we know consists primarily of endothelial cells. We cannot exclude some contamination from non-endothelial cells but we highlight to this reviewer that the initial observation of the metabolic changes was identified in endothelial cells in the single cell sequencing data. Taken together, we believe that this implies that metabolic changes are specific to this population. We have clarified this in the line 317.

In the discussion, the authors conclude that they "provide evidence to support the hypothesis that RUNX1T1 could regulate IGFBP2 expression". To further support this conclusion, the authors could provide a correlation analysis of the expression of the two genes in the cell type of interest. 

Following the observation of the IGFBP2 high expression across clusters, we have now reworded this sentence in lines 382-385  We have tried to perform the correlation analysis but we believe this not to be appropriate due to the detection level of the gRNA, we have now included this as a limitation point in the discussion lines 416-427, and also toned down the conclusion we did draw about RUNX1T1 throughout the whole manuscript.

As mentioned by the authors, IGFBP2 binds IGF1 and IGF2 modulating their function. Both IGF1 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2015.10.001) and IGF2 (doi:10.1038/nbt.3702) have been used in iPSC differentiation into definitive hematopoietic cells. It would be relevant to discuss/reference this in the discussion.

We have now included the suggested reference in the section where we discuss the role of IGFBP2 in binding IGF1 and IGF2.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) Figure 1 compares the transcriptome of human AGM and in-vitro derived hemogenic endothelial cells (HECs). It is not clear why only the genes downregulated in the latter were chosen. Are there any significantly upregulated genes, knockdown/knockout which could also serve a similar purpose? Single-cell transcriptome database analysis is very preliminary. A detailed panel with differences in cluster properties of HECs between the two systems should be provided. A heatmap of all differentially expressed genes between the two samples must be generated, along with a logical explanation for choosing the given set of genes. 

We have now included another panel in figure 1 to better clarify the logic behind the strategy used to identify our target genes (Figure 1A).

(2) Figure 2 - a panel describing the workflow of gRNA design and targeting for the 9 candidate genes, along with lentiviral packaging and transduction would make it easier to follow. 

We have now included three schematics for all the experiments in the manuscript in supplementary figure 4 A-C. 

(3) Figure 3- to assess the effect of arterial cell expansion on the emergence of hematopoietic progenitors, CD34+ Dll4+ cells should be sorted for OP9 co-culture assay.

Using only CD34+ cells does not answer the question raised. Also, the CFU assay performed does not fully support the claim of enhanced hematopoietic differentiation since only CFU-E and CFU-GM colonies are increased in Dox-treated samples, with no effect on other colony types. OP9 co-culture assay with these cells would be required to strengthen this claim. 

We wanted to clarify that the effect on the methylcellulose coming from the activated cells was not limited to CFU-E, as the reviewer reported; instead, it also affected CFU-GM and CFU-M. 

We have now performed additional experiments where we sorted the CD34+ compartment into DLL4- and DLL4+ in Supplementary Figure 5D-E, which we discussed in lines 250-258. 

(4) In Figure 3F, there appears to be a lot of variation in the DLL4% fold change values for

DOX treated iSAM_AGM sample, which weakens the claim of increased arterial expansion.

Can the authors explain the probable reason? It is suggested that the two other controls (iSAM_+DOX and iSAM_-DOX) should be included in this analysis. It is imperative to also show % populations rather than just fold change to gain confidence.

We agree that there is a lot of variability. That is because differentiation happens in 3D in embryoid bodies, which contain many different cell types that differentiate in different proportions across independent experiments. We have now included the raw data in Supplementary Figure 4 D, with additional statistical analysis to show the expansion of arterial cells including also the suggested additional controls.

(5) How does activation of these target genes cause increased arterialization? Is the emergence of non-HE populations suppressed? Or is it specific to the HE? The data on this should be clarified and also discussed. ANTO/Lesley text

We have provided additional data clarifying the connection between increased arterialisation and hemogenic potential. We showed that the activation induces increased arterialisation and that IGFBP2 acts by supporting the acquisition of hemogenic potential. We have discussed this in lines 326-348 and provided a new figure to explain this in detail (figure 6)

(6) Considering that IGFBP2 was chosen from the activated target gene(s) cluster, can the authors explain why the reduced CFU-M phenomenon observed in Figure 3G does not appear in the MethoCult assay for IGFBP2 treated cells (Figure 4B)?

The difference could be explained by the fact that in Figure 3G, the cells underwent activation of multiple genes, while in Figure 4B, they were only exposed to IGFBP2. Our results show that IGFBP2 could at least partially explain the phenotype that we see with the activation, but we believe that during the activation experiments, there might be other signals available that might not be induced by IGFBP2 alone. We have also added a summary section and a figure to clarify the different mechanisms of action of the gene activation and IGFBP2.

(7) Figure 4- while the experiments conducted support the role of IGFBP2 in increasing hematopoietic output, there is no experimental evidence to prove its function through paracrine signalling in HECs. The authors need to provide some evidence of how IGFBP2 supplementation specifically expands only the hematopoietic progenitors. Experimental strategies involving specifically targeting IGFBP2 in hemogenic/arterial endothelial cells are required to prove its cell type specific function. Additionally, assessing the in vivo functional potential of the hematopoietic cells generated in the presence of IGFBP2, by bone-marrow transplantation of CD34+ CD43+ cells, is essential. 

The role of IGFBP2 in the context of HSC production and expansion was not the topic of our research, and we have not claimed that IGFBP2  affects the long-term repopulating capacity of HSPCs. Therefore, we believe that the requested experiments are not required to support the specific claims that we do make. We have now provided more experiments and bioinformatic analysis that support the role of IGFBP2 in inducing the progression of EHT from arterial cells to hemogenic endothelium, and to avoid misunderstandings, we have toned down our claims by editing the text regarding its paracrine effect s. 

(8) Figure 4C-D -It is recommended to plot % populations along with fold change value. As this is a key finding, it is important to perform flow cytometry for additional hematopoietic markers- CD144, CD235a and CD41a to demonstrate whether this strategy can also expand erythroid-megakaryocyte progenitors. Telma

Figure 4C already shows the percentage values; we have now added the percentage for Figure 4D in SF5C. We have also performed additional analysis as requested and added the data obtained to Supplementary Figure 5D.

(9) In Figure 5, analysis showing the frequency of cells constituting different clusters, between untreated and IGFBP2-treated samples in the single-cell transcriptome analysis is essential. Additional experiments are required to validate the function of IGFBP2 through modulation of metabolic activity. Inhibition of oxidative phosphorylation in the IGFBP2treated cells should reduce the hematopoietic output. Authors should consider doing these experiments to provide a stronger mechanistic insight into IGFBP2-mediated regulation of hematopoietic emergence.

We have now included the requested cluster composition in Supplementary Figure 5F. We decided not to include further tests on the metabolic profile of IGFBP2 as we already discussed in other papers that showed, using selective inhibitors, that the EHT coincides with a glycol to OxPhos switch. 

(10) It is very striking to see that IGFBP2 supplementation changes the transcriptional profile of developing hematopoietic cells by increasing transcription of OXPHOS-related genes with concomitant reduction of glycolytic signatures, particularly at Day 13. However, the mitochondrial ATP rate measurements do not seem convincing. The bioenergetic profiles show that when mitochondrial inhibitors are added, both groups exhibit decreased OCR values and, on the other hand, higher ECAR. This indicates that both groups have the capability to utilize OXPHOS or glycolysis and may only differ in their basal respiration rates.

Differences in proliferation rate can cause basal respiration to change. There is no information on how the bioenergetic profile was normalized (cell no./protein amount). Given that IGFBP2 has been shown to increase proliferation, it is very likely that the cells treated with IGFBP2 proliferated faster and therefore have higher OCR. The data needs to be normalized appropriately to negate this possibility.

We have previously tested whether IGFBP2 causes an increase in proliferation by analysing the cell cycle of cells treated with it, as we initially thought this could be a mechanism of action. We have now provided the quantification of the cell cycle in the cells treated with IGFBP2, showing no effect was observed in cell cycle Supplementary Figure 4E. Following this analysis, we decided to plate the same number of cells and test their density under the microscope before running the experiment; each experiment was done in triplicate for each condition. We have now added this info to the method sections lines 806-813.  We did not comment on the basal difference, which we agree might be due to several factors, but we only compared the difference in response to the inhibitors, which isn’t affected by the basal level but exclusively by their D values. We have also included the formulas used to calculate the ATP production rate.

Overall, it appears that IGFBP2 does not seem to primarily cause metabolic changes, but simply accelerates the metabolic dependency on OXPHOS. Hence, the term 'metabolic remodelling' must be avoided unless IGFBP2 depletion/loss of function analysis is shown.

We thank the reviewer for suggesting how to interpret the data about the dependency on OXPHOS. We have now changed the conclusions and claims about the effect of IGFBP2. We have also included a cell cycle analysis of the hematopoietic cells derived upon IGFBP2 addition to show that they don’t show differences in proliferation that could cause the increase in colony formation we observed. Regarding the assay, we have plated the same number of cells for each group to make sure we were comparing the same number of cells, which we also assessed in the microscope before the test, and we eliminated the suspension cells during the washes that preceded the measurement. The review is correct in indicating that there is a basal difference in the value of OCR and ECAR where the IGFBP2 is lower at the start and not higher, which would not conceal higher proliferation. Finally, the ATP production rate is calculated on the variation of OCR and ECAR upon the addition of inhibitors, which normalizes for the basal differences.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the molecular mechanism of interaction of daptomycin (DAP) with bacterial membrane phospholipids has been explored by fluorescence and CD spectroscopy, mass spectrometry, and RP-HPLC. The mechanism of binding was found to be a two-step process. A fast reversible step of binding to the surface and a slow irreversible step of membrane insertion. Fluorescence-based titrations were performed and analysed to infer that daptomycin bound simultaneously two molecules of PG with nanomolar affinity in the presence of calcium. Conformational change but not membrane insertion was observed for DAP in the presence of cardiolipin and calcium.

Strengths:

The strength of the study is skillful execution of biophysical experiments, especially stoppedflow kinetics that capture the first surface binding event, and careful delineation of the stoichiometry.

Weaknesses:

The weakness of the study is that it does not add substantially to the previously known information and fails to provide additional molecular details. The current study provides incremental information on DAP-PG-calcium association but fails to capture the complex in mass spectrometry. The ITC and NMR studies with G3P are inconclusive. There are no structural models presented. Another aspect missing from the study is the reconciliation between PG in the monomer, micellar, and membrane forms.

Besides the two-stage process, another important finding in the current work is the stable complex that plays a critical role in the drug uptake both in vitro and in B. subtilis. This complex has been shown to be a stable species in HPLC and its binding stoichiometry and affinity have been quantitatively characterized. The complex may not be stable enough in gas phase to be detected in the MS analysis, which was designed to detect the phospholipid and Dap components, not the complex itself. The structural model of this complex is clearly proposed and presented in Figure 6. 

The NMR and ITC studies have a very clear conclusion that Dap has a weak interaction with the PG headgroup alone, which is unable to account for the Dap-PG interaction observed in the fluorescence studies. Thus, the whole PG molecule has to be involved in the interaction, leading to the discovery of the stable complex.  

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) I appreciate and agree with the comment that there are stages of daptomycin insertion, and these might involve the formation of different complexes with different binding partners (e.g. pre-insertion vs quaternary vs bactericidal). However, it seems like lipid II is an apparent participant in daptomycin membrane dynamics (Grein et al. Nature Communications 2020). It's not clear why this was excluded from analysis by the authors, or what basis there is for the discussion statement that the quaternary complex can shift into the bactericidal complex by exchanging 1 PG for lipid II. 

We agree that lipid II and other isoprenyl lipids may be involved in the uptake and insertion of daptomycin into membrane according to the results of the Nat. Comm. paper. However, these isoprenyl lipids are very small components of the membrane in comparison to PG and their contribution to the drug uptake is thus expected to be much less significant. Nonetheless, we included farnesyl pyrophosphate (FPP) as an analog of bactoprenol pyrophosphate (C55PP), which was reported to have the same promoting effect as lipid II in the previous study, in our study but found no promoting effect in the fluorescence assay (Fig. 2B). In addition, no complex was formed when FPP replaced PG in our preparation and analysis of the drug-lipid complex. In consideration of these negative results and the expected small contribution, other isoprenyl lipids or their analogs were not included in the study.

The statement of forming the proposed bactericidal complex from the identified complex is a speculation that is possible only when lipid II has a higher affinity for Dap than a PG ligand. To avoid confusion, we deleted the sentence’ in the revision. 

(2) The detailed examination of daptomycin dynamics, particularly on the millisecond scale, in this paper is ideal for characterizing the effect of lipid II on daptomycin insertion. It would be helpful to either include lipid II in some analyses (micelle binding, fluorescence shifts, CD) or at least address why it was excluded from the scope of this work.

As mentioned in the response to the first comment, we did not exclude isoprenyl lipids in our study but used some of their analogs in the fluorescence assay. Besides FPP mentioned above, we also tested geranyl pyrophosphate and geranyl monophosphate but obtained the same negative results. Lipid II was not directly used because it is one of the three isoprenyl lipids reported to have the same promoting effects in the Nat. Comm. paper and also because its preparation is not easy. Even if lipid II were different from other isoprenyl lipids in promoting membrane binding, its contribution is likely negligible at the reversible stage compared to the phospholipids because of its minuscule content in bacterial membrane. This is the main reason we did not use the isoprenyl lipids in the fast kinetic study (this stage only involves reversible binding, not insertion). 

(3) Grein et al. 2020 saw that PG did not have a strong effect on daptomycin interaction with membranes. I believe this discrepancy is more likely due to the complex physical parameters of supported bilayers versus micelles/vesicles or some other methodological variable, but if the authors have more insight on this, it would be valuable commentary in the discussion.

We totally agree that the discrepancy is likely due to the different conditions in the assays. It is hard to tell exactly what causes the difference. Thus, we did not attempt to comment on the cause of this difference in the discussion.

(4) Isolation of the daptomycin complex from B. subtilis cells clearly had different traces from the in vitro complex; is it possible that lipid II is present in the B. subtilis complex? If not, a time-course extraction could be useful to support the model that different complexes have different activities. Isolates from early-stage incubation with daptomycin may lack lipid II but isolates from longer incubations may have lipid II present as the complex shifts from insertion to bactericidal.

From the day we isolated the complex from B. subtilis, we have been looking for evidence for the previously proposed lipid complexes containing lipid II or other isoprenyl lipids but have not been successful. We did not see any sign of lipid II or other isoprenyl lipids in the MALDI or ESI mass spectroscopic data. The minute peaks in the HPLC traces are not the expected complexes in separate LC-MS analysis. However, this does not mean that such complexes are not present in the isolated PG-containing complex because: (1) the amount of such complexes may be too small to be detected due to the low content of the isoprenyl lipids; (2) the isoprenyl lipids, particularly lipid II, are not easily ionizable due to their size and unique structure for detection in mass spectrometry. 

We don’t think the drug treatment time is the reason for the failure in detecting lipid II or other isoprenyl lipids. In our reported experiment, the cells were treated with a very high dose of Dap for 2 hours before extraction. In a separate experiment done recently, we treated B. subtilis at 1/3 of the used dose under the same condition and found all treated cells were dead after 1 hour in a titration assay, consistent with the results from reported time-killing assays in the literature. From this result, the proposed bactericidal lipid-containing complex should have been formed in the treated cells used in our extraction and isolated along with the PG-containing complex. It was not detected likely due to the reasons discussed above. To avoid the interference of the PG-containing complex, a large amount of bacterial cells might have to be treated at a low dose to isolate enough amount of the lipid II-containing complex for identification. However, isolation or identification of the lipid II-containing complex is outside the scope of the current investigation and is therefore not pursued. 

(5) Part of the daptomycin mechanism of interacting with bacterial membranes involves the flipping of daptomycin from one leaflet to another. There was some mentioned work on the consistency of results between micelles and vesicles, but the dynamics or existence of a flipping complex in the bilayer system wasn't addressed at all in this paper.

The current investigation makes no attempt to solve all problems in the daptomycin mode of action and is limited to the uptake of the drug, up to the point when Dap is inserted into the membrane. Within this scope, flipping of the complex is not yet involved and is thus irrelevant to the study. How the complex is flipped and used to kill the bacteria is what should be investigated next.  

(6) The authors mention data with phosphatidylethanolamine in the text, but I could not find the data in the main or supplemental figures. I recommend including it in at least one of the figures.

It is much appreciated that this error is identified. The POPE data was lost when the graphic (Fig. 2B) was assembled in Adobe to create Figure 2. We re-draw the graphic and reassemble the figure to solve this problem. Fig. 2B has also been modified to use micromolar for the concentration of the lipids.

(7) Readability point: I'd suggest some consistency in the concentrations mentioned. Making the concentrations either all molar-based or all percentage-based would make comparison across figures easier.

As suggested, we have changed the % into micromolar concentrations in Fig. 2B and also in Fig. 3A. 

(8) The model figure is quite difficult to interpret, particularly the final stage of the tail unfolding. I recommend the authors use a zoomed-in inset for this stage, or at least simplify the diagram by removing the non-participating lipid structures. The figure legend for the model figure should also have a brief description of the events and what the arrows mean, particularly the POPS PG arrow in the final panel of the figure. I am assuming here the authors are implying that daptomycin can transiently interact with one lipid species and move to another, but the arrow here suggests that daptomycin is moving through the lipid headgroup space.

We really appreciate the suggestions. As suggested, we put an inset to show the preinsertion complex more clearly. In addition, we have removed the green arrows originally intended to show the re-organization/movement of the phospholipids. Moreover, the legend is changed to ‘Proposed mechanism for the two-phased uptake of Dap into bacterial membrane. In the first phase, Dap reversibly binds to negative phospholipids with a hidden tail in the headgroup region, where it combines with two PG molecules to form a pre-insertion complex. In the second phase, the hidden tail unfolds and irreversibly inserts into the membrane. The inset shows the headgroup of the pre-insertion complex with the broad arrow showing the direction for the unfolding of the hidden tail. The red dots denote Ca2+.’  

(9) The authors listed the Kd for daptomycin and 2 PG as 7.2 x 10-15 M2. Is this correct? This is an affinity in the femtomolar range.

Please note that this Kd is for the simultaneous binding of two PG molecules, not for the binding of a single ligand that we usually refer to. Assuming that each PG contributes equally to this interaction, the binding affinity for each ligand is then the squared root of 7.2 x 10-15 M2, which equals to 8.5 x 10-8 M. This is equivalent to a nanomolar affinity for PG and is a reasonably high affinity.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) The authors reported an increase in daptomycin intensity with the increasing amount of negatively charged DMPG. A similar observation has been reported for GUVs, however, the authors did not refer to this paper in their manuscript: E. Krok, M. Stephan, R. Dimova, L. Piatkowski, Tunable biomimetic bacterial membranes from binary and ternary lipid mixtures and their application in antimicrobial testing, Biochim. Biophys. Acta - Biomembr. 1865 (2023) [1]. This paper is also consistent with the authors' observation that there is negligible fluorescence detected for the membranes composed of PC lipids upon exposure to the Dap treatment.

As suggested, this paper is cited as ref. 29 in the revision by adding the following sentence at the end of the section ‘Dependence of Dap uptake on phosphatidylglycerol.’: ‘PG-dependent increase of the steady-state fluorescence was also observed in giant unilamellar vesicles (GUVs).29’. The numbering is changed accordingly for the remaining references.  

(2) Please include the plot of the steady-state Kyn fluorescence vs the content of POPA (Figure 2C shows traces for DMPG, CL, and POPS). Both POPA and POPS lipids are negatively charged, however, POPS seems to interact with Dap, while POPA does not. In my opinion, this observation is really interesting and might deserve a more thorough discussion. The authors might want to describe what could be the mechanism behind this lipid-specific mode of binding.

As suggested, a plot is now added for POPA in Fig. 2C, which is basically a flat line without significant increase for the Kyn fluorescence. Indeed, the different effect of the negative phospholipids is very interesting, indicating that the reversible binding of Dap to the lipid surface is dependent not only on the Ca2+-mediated ionic interaction but also the structure of the headgroup. In other words, Dap recognizes the phospholipids at the surface binding stage. Considering this headgroup specificity, the last sentence in the second paragraph in “Discussion’ is changed from ‘In addition, due to the low lipid specificity, this reversible binding likely involves Ca2+-mediated ionic interaction between Dap and the phosphoryl moiety of the headgroups.’ to ‘In addition, due to the specificity for negative phospholipids (Fig. 2B and 2C), this reversible binding of Dap likely involves both a nonspecific Ca2+-mediated ionic interaction and a specific interaction with the remaining part of the headgroups.’

(3) The authors write that they propose a novel mechanism for the Ca2+-dependent insertion of Dap to the bacterial membrane, however, they rather ignored the already published findings and hypotheses regarding this process. In fact the role of Ca2+, as well as the proposed conformational changes of Dap, which allow its deeper insertion into the membrane are well known:

The role of Ca2+ ions in the mechanism of binding is actually three-fold: (i) neutralization of daptomycin charge [2], (iii) creating the connection between lipids and daptomycin and (iii) inducing two daptomycin conformational changes. It should be noted that the interactions between calcium ions and daptomycin are 2-3 orders of magnitude stronger than between daptomycin and PG lipids [3,4]. Thus, upon the addition of CaCl2 to the solution, the divalent cations of calcium bind preferentially to the daptomycin, rather than to the negatively charged PG lipids, which results in the decrease of daptomycin net negative charge but also leads to its first conformational change [4]. Upon binding between calcium ions and two aspartate residues, the area of the hydrophobic surface increases, which allows the daptomycin to interact with the negatively charged membrane. In the next step, Ca2+ acts as a bridge connecting daptomycin with the anionic lipids. This event leads to the second conformational change, which enables deeper insertion of daptomycin into the lipid membrane and enables its fluorescence [4]. The overall mechanism has a sequential character, where the binding of daptomycin-Ca2+ complex to the negatively charged PG (or CA) occurs at the end.

The authors should focus on emphasizing the novelty of their manuscript, keeping in mind the already published paper.

We agree with the comments on the three general roles of calcium ion in the Dap interaction with membrane. The current investigation does not ignore the previous findings, which involve many more works than mentioned above, but takes these findings as common knowledge. Actually, the role of calcium ion is not the focus of current work. Instead, the current work focuses on how the drug is taken up and inserted into the membrane in the presence of the ion and how its structure changes in this process. With the known roles of calcium ion in mind, we propose an uptake mechanism (Fig. 6) that shows no conflict with the common knowledge.

We would like to point out that the ‘deeper insertion into the membrane’ in the comment is different from the membrane insertion referred to in our manuscript. This ‘deeper insertion’ still remains in the reversible stage of binding to the membrane surface because all negative phospholipids can do this (causing a conformational change and fluorescence increase, as quantified in Fig.2C) but now we know that only PG can enable irreversible membrane insertion because of our work. In addition, the comment that calcium binding to daptomycin causes first conformational change is not supported by our finding that no conformational change is found for Dap in the presence of calcium in a lipid-free environment (Fig. 3B). One important aspect of novelty and contribution of our work is to clear up some of these ambiguities in the literature. Another contribution of our work is to demonstrate the formation of a stable complex between Dap and PG with a defined stoichiometry and its crucial role in the drug uptake. 

(4) One paragraph in the section "Ca2+- dependent interaction between Dap and DMPG" is devoted to a discussion of the formation of precipitate upon extraction of DMPG-containing micelles, exposed to Dap in the calcium-rich environment. Contrary, in the absence of Dap, no precipitate was detected. The authors did not provide any visual proof for their statement. Please include proper photographs in the supplementary information.

The precipitate formed upon extraction of the DMPG-containing micelles was too little to be visually identifiable but could be collected by centrifugation and detected by fluorescence or HPLC after dissolving in DMSO. For visualization, we show below the precipitate formed using higher amount of Dap and DMPG. The Dap-DMPG-Ca2+ complex (left tube) was formed by mixing 1 mM Dap, 2 mM DMPG and 1 mM Ca2+ and the control (right tube) was a mixture of 2 mM DMPG and 1 mM Ca2+. This is now added as Fig. S7 in the supplementary information (the index is modified accordingly) and cited in the main text.

(5) The authors wrote that it is not clear how many calcium ions are bound to Dap-2PG complex (page 11, Discussion section). There are already reports discussing this issue. I recommend citing the paper discussing that exactly two Ca2+ ions bind to a single Dap molecule: R. Taylor, K. Butt, B. Scott, T. Zhang, J.K. Muraih, E. Mintzer, S. Taylor, M. Palmer, Two successive calcium-dependent transitions mediate membrane binding and oligomerization of daptomycin and the related antibiotic A54145, Biochim. Biophys. Acta - Biomembr. 1858, (2016) 1999-2005 [5]

We were aware of the cited work that shows binding of two Ca2+ but also noted that there are more works showing one Ca2+ in the binding, such as the paper in [Ho, S. W., Jung, D., Calhoun, J. R., Lear, J. D., Okon, M., Scott, W. R. P., Hancock, R. E. W., & Straus, S. K. (2008), Effect of divalent cations on the structure of the antibiotic daptomycin. European Biophysics Journal, 37(4), 421–433.]. That was the reason we said ‘it is not clear how many calcium ions are bound to Dap-2PG complex’. Now, both papers are cited (as Ref. #33, 34) to support this statement.

(6) The authors wrote two contradictory statements:

-  PG cannot be found in mammalian cell membranes:

"Moreover, the complete dependence of the membrane insertion on PG also explains why Dap selectively attacks Gram-positive bacteria without affecting mammalian cells, because PG is present only in bacterial membrane but not in mammalian membrane. " (Page 10, Discussion section, last sentence of the first paragraph)

"However, Dap absorbed on bacterial surface is continuously inserted into the acyl layer via formation of complex with PG in a time scale of minutes, whereas no irreversible insertion of Dap occurs on mammalian membrane due to the absence of PG while the bound Dap is continuously released to the circulation as the drug is depleted by the bacteria." (Page 13, Discussion section)

-  PG in trace amounts is present in mammalian membranes:

"The proposed requirement of the pre-insertion quaternary complex increases the threshold of PG content for the membrane insertion to happen and thus makes it impossible on the surface of mammalian cells even if their plasma membrane contains a trace amount of PG." (Page 13, Discussion section).

In fact, phosphatidylglycerol comprises 1-2 mol% of the mammalian cell membranes. Please, correct this information, which in this form is misleading to the readers.

We appreciate the comments about the PG content in mammalian cells. Changes are made as listed below:

(1) p10, the sentence is changed to ‘Moreover, the complete dependence of the membrane insertion on PG also explains why Dap selectively attacks Gram-positive bacteria without affecting mammalian cells, because PG is a major phospholipid in bacterial membrane but is a minor component in mammalian membrane.’ 

(2) p13, the sentence is changed to ‘However, Dap absorbed on bacterial surface is continuously inserted into the acyl layer via formation of complex with PG in a time scale of minutes, whereas little irreversible insertion of Dap occurs on mammalian membrane due to the low content of PG while the bound Dap is continuously released to the circulation as the drug is depleted by the bacteria.’

(3) p13, another sentence is modified to ‘The proposed requirement of the pre-insertion quaternary complex increases the threshold of PG content for the membrane insertion to happen and thus makes it less likely on the surface of mammalian cells that contain PG at a low level in the membrane.’ 

(7) Please include information that Dap is effective only against Gram-positive bacteria and does not show antimicrobial properties against Gram-negative strains. The authors focused on emphasizing that Dap does not affect mammalian membranes, most likely due to the low PG content, however even membranes of Gram-negative bacteria are not susceptible to the Dap, despite the relatively high content of negatively charged PG in the inner membrane (e.g. inner cell membrane of E. coli has ~20% PG).

The requested information is already included in ‘Introduction’. In this part, Dap is introduced to be only active against Gram-positive bacteria, implicating that it is not active against Gram-negative bacteria. The reason Dap is inactive against E. coli or other Gramnegative bacteria is because the outer membrane prevents the antibiotic from accessing the PG in the inner membrane to cause any harm. When the outer membrane is removed, Dap will also attack the plasma membrane of Gram-negative bacteria. 

Literature cited in the comments:

(1) E. Krok, M. Stephan, R. Dimova, L. Piatkowski, Tunable biomimetic bacterial membranes from binary and ternary lipid mixtures and their application in antimicrobial testing, Biochim. Biophys. Acta - Biomembr. 1865 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.12.528174.

(2) S.W. Ho, D. Jung, J.R. Calhoun, J.D. Lear, M. Okon, W.R.P. Scott, R.E.W. Hancock, S.K. Straus, Effect of divalent cations on the structure of the antibiotic daptomycin, Eur. Biophys. J. 37 (2008) 421-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00249-007-0227-2/METRICS.

(3) A. Pokorny, P.F. Almeida, The Antibiotic Peptide Daptomycin Functions by Reorganizing the Membrane, J. Membr. Biol. 254 (2021) 97-108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00232-02100175-0.

(4) L. Robbel, M.A. Marahiel, Daptomycin, a bacterial lipopeptide synthesized by a nonribosomal machinery, J. Biol. Chem. 285 (2010) 2750127508. https://doi.org/10.1074/JBC.R110.128181.

(5) R. Taylor, K. Butt, B. Scott, T. Zhang, J.K. Muraih, E. Mintzer, S. Taylor, M. Palmer, Two successive calcium-dependent transitions mediate membrane binding and oligomerization of daptomycin and the related antibiotic A54145, Biochim. Biophys. Acta - Biomembr. 1858 (2016) 1999-2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BBAMEM.2016.05.020.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This work used a comprehensive dataset to compare the effects of species diversity and genetic diversity within each trophic level and across three trophic levels. The results showed that species diversity had negative effects on ecosystem functions, while genetic diversity had positive effects. These effects were observed only within each trophic level and not across the three trophic levels studied. Although the effects of biodiversity, especially genetic diversity across multi-trophic levels, have been shown to be important, there are still very few empirical studies on this topic due to the complex relationships and difficulty in obtaining data. This study collected an excellent dataset to address this question, enhancing our understanding of genetic diversity effects in aquatic ecosystems.

Strengths:

The study collected an extensive dataset that includes species diversity of primary producers (riparian trees), primary consumers (macroinvertebrate shredders), and secondary consumers (fish). It also includes the genetic diversity of the dominant species at each trophic level, biomass production, decomposition rates, and environmental data.

The conclusions of this paper are mostly well supported by the data and the writing is logical and easy to follow.

Weaknesses:

(1) While the dataset is impressive, the authors conducted analyses more akin to a "meta-analysis," leaving out important basic information about the raw data in the manuscript. Given the complexity of the relationships between different trophic levels and ecosystem functions, it would be beneficial for the authors to show the results of each SEM (structural equation model).

We understand the point raised by the reviewer. We now provide individual SEMs (Figure 3), although we limit causal relationships to those for which the p-value was below 0.2 for the sake of graphical clarity. We also provide the percentage of explained variance for each ecosystem function. We detail the graph in the Results section (see l. 317-328) and discuss them (see l. 387-398). Note that we do not detail each function separately as this would (in our opinion) result in a long descriptive paragraph from which it might be difficult to get some key information. Rather, we summarize the percentage of explained variance for each function and discuss the strength of environmental vs biodiversity effects for some examples. In the Discussion, we explain why environmental effects (on functions and biodiversity) are relatively weak. We mainly attribute this to the sampling scheme that follows an East-West gradient (weak altitudinal range) rather than an upstream-downstream gradient as it is traditionally done in rivers. The reasoning behind this sampling scheme is explained in our companion paper (Fargeot et al. Oikos 2023) to which we now refer more explicitly in the MS. Briefly, using an upstream-downstream gradient would have certainly push up the effects of the environment, but this would have made extremely complex the inference of biodiversity effects due to strong collinearity among environmental and biodiversity parameters.

(2) The main results presented in the manuscript are derived from a "metadata" analysis of effect sizes. However, the methods used to obtain these effect sizes are not sufficiently clarified. By analyzing the effect sizes of species diversity and genetic diversity on these ecosystem functions, the results showed that species diversity had negative effects, while genetic diversity had positive effects on ecosystem functions. The negative effects of species diversity contradict many studies conducted in biodiversity experiments. The authors argue that their study is more relevant because it is based on a natural system, which is closer to reality, but they also acknowledge that natural systems make it harder to detect underlying mechanisms. Providing more results based on the raw data and offering more explanations of the possible mechanisms in the introduction and discussion might help readers understand why and in what context species diversity could have negative effects.

(We now provide more details. However, we are unfortunately not sure that this helped reaching some stronger explanation regarding underlying mechanisms. To be frank, we did not succeed in improving mechanistic inferences based on the outputs of the SEM models. We explored visually some additional relationships (e.g. relationships between the biomass of the focal species and that of other species in the assemblage) that we now discuss a bit more, but again, this did not really help in better understanding processes. We realize this is a limitation of our study and that this can be frustrating for readers. Nonetheless, as said in the Discussion, field-based study must be taken for what they are; observational studies forming the basis for future mechanistic studies. Although we failed to explain mechanisms, we still think that we provide important field-base evidence for the importance of biodiversity (as a whole) for ecosystem functions.

3) Environmental variation was included in the analyses to test if the environment would modulate the effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functions. However, the main results and conclusions did not sufficiently address this aspect.

This is now addressed, see our response to your first comment. We now explain (result section) and discuss environmental effects. As explained in the MS, environmental effects are similar in strength to those of biodiversity and are not that high, which is partly explained by the sampling scheme (see Fargeot et al. 2023). This is a choice we’ve made at the onset of the experiment, as we wanted to focus on biodiversity effects and avoid strong collinearity as it is generally the case in rivers (which impedes any proper and strong statistical inferences).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Fargeot et al. investigated the relative importance of genetic and species diversity on ecosystem function and examined whether this relationship varies within or between trophic-level responses. To do so, they conducted a well-designed field survey measuring species diversity at 3 trophic levels (primary producers [trees], primary consumers [macroinvertebrate shredders], and secondary consumers [fishes]), genetic diversity in a dominant species within each of these 3 trophic levels and 7 ecosystem functions across 52 riverine sites in southern France. They show that the effect of genetic and species diversity on ecosystem functions are similar in magnitude, but when examining within-trophic level responses, operate in different directions: genetic diversity having a positive effect and species diversity a negative one. This data adds to growing evidence from manipulated experiments that both species and genetic diversity can impact ecosystem function and builds upon this by showing these effects can be observed in nature.

Strengths:

The study design has resulted in a robust dataset to ask questions about the relative importance of genetic and species diversity of ecosystem function across and within trophic levels.

Overall, their data supports their conclusions - at least within the system that they are studying - but as mentioned below, it is unclear from this study how general these conclusions would be.

Weaknesses:

(4) While a robust dataset, the authors only show the data output from the SEM (i.e., effect size for each individual diversity type per trophic level (6) on each ecosystem function (7)), instead of showing much of the individual data. Although the summary SEM results are interesting and informative, I find that a weakness of this approach is that it is unclear how environmental factors (which were included but not discussed in the results) nor levels of diversity were correlated across sites. As species and genetic diversity are often correlated but also can have reciprocal feedbacks on each other (e.g., Vellend 2005), there may be constraints that underpin why the authors observed positive effects of one type of diversity (genetic) when negative effects of the other (species). It may have also been informative to run SEM with links between levels of diversity. By focusing only on the summary of SEM data, the authors may be reducing the strength of their field dataset and ability to draw inferences from multiple questions and understand specific study-system responses.

We have addressed this remark and we ask the reviewers and the readers to refer to our response to comment 1 from reviewer 1. Regarding co-variation among biodiversity estimates (SGDCs according to Vellend’s framework), we have addressed these issues in a companion paper that we now cite and expand further in the MS (Fargeot et al. Oikos, 2023). Given the size of the dataset and its complexity (and associated analyses), we have decided to focus on patterns of species and genetic biodiversity in a first paper (Oikos paper) and then on the link between biodiversity and functions (this paper). As it can be read in the Oikos’s paper, there are no co-variation in term of biodiversity estimates; species diversity is not correlated to genetic diversity, and within facet, there are not co-variation among species. In addition, environmental predictors are highly estimate-specific (i.e. environmental predictors sustaining species and genetic estimates are idiosyncratic). As a result (see the new Figure 3), environmental effects are relatively weak (the same intensity that those of biodiversity) and collinearity among parameters is relatively weak. The second point is important, as this permit to better infer parameters from models, and this allows to discuss direct relationships (as observed in Figure 3, indirect environmental effects are relatively rare). We provide in the Discussion a bit more explanation about the absence of co-variation among biodiversity estimates (see l. 433-440).

(5) My understanding of SEM is it gives outputs of the strength/significance of each pathway/relationship and if so, it isn't clear why this wasn't used and instead, confidence intervals of Z scores to determine which individual BEFs were significant. In addition, an inclusion of the 7 SEM pathway outputs would have been useful to include in an appendix.

We now provide p-values (Table S2) and the seven models (Figure 3).

(6) I don't fully agree with the authors calling this a meta-analysis as it is this a single study of multiple sites within a single region and a specific time point, and not a collection of multiple studies or ecosystems conducted by multiple authors. Moreso, the authors are using meta-analysis summary metrics to evaluate their data. The authors tend to focus on these patterns as general trends, but as the data is all from this riverine system this study could have benefited from focusing on what was going on in this system to underpin these patterns. I'd argue more data is needed to know whether across sites and ecosystems, species diversity and genetic diversity have opposite effects on ecosystem function within trophic levels.

We agree. “Meta-regression” would perhaps be more adequate than “meta-analyses”. We changed the formulation.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The manuscript by Fargeot and colleagues assesses the relative effects of species and genetic diversity on ecosystem functioning. This study is very well written and examines the interesting question of whether within-species or among-species diversity correlates with ecosystem functioning, and whether these effects are consistent across trophic levels. The main findings are that genetic diversity appears to have a stronger positive effect on function than species diversity (which appears negative). These results are interesting and have value.

However, I do have some concerns that could influence the interpretation.

(7) Scale: the different measures of diversity and function for the different trophic levels are measured over very different spatial scales, for example, trees along 200 m transects and 15 cm traps. It is not clear whether trees 200 m away are having an effect on small-scale function.

Trees identification and invertebrate (and fish) sampling are done on the same scale. Trees are spread along the river so that their leaves fall directly in the river. Traps have been installed all along the same transect in various micro-habitats. Diversity have been measured at the exact same scale for all organisms. We have modified the MS to make this clear.

(8) Size of diversity gradients: More information is needed on the actual diversity gradients. One of the issues with surveys of natural systems is that they are of species that have already gone through selection filters from a regional pool, and theoretically, if the environments are similar, you should get similar sets of species, without monocultures. So, if the species diversity gradients range from say, 6 to 8 species, but genetic diversity gradients span an order of magnitude more, you can explain much more variance with genetic diversity. Related to this, species diversity effects on function are often asymptotic at high diversity and so if you are only sampling at the high diversity range, we should expect a strong effect.

Fish species number varies from 1 to 11, invertebrate family number varies from 15 to 42 and the tree species number varies from 7 to 20 (see Fargeot et al. 2023 for details). We have added this information in the M&M. The gradients are hence relatively large and do not cover a restricted set of values. There is a variance in species number among sites, even if sites are collected along a relatively weak altitudinal gradient. This is obviously complex to compare to SNP (genomic) diversity. Genetic and species effects are similar in effect sizes (percentage of explained variance), so it does not seem we have biased one of the two gradients of biodiversity.

(9) Ecosystem functions: The functions are largely biomass estimates (expect decomposition), and I fail to see how the biomass of a single species can be construed as an ecosystem function. Aren't you just estimating a selection effect in this case?

The biomass estimated for a certain area represents an estimate of productivity, whatever the number of species being considered. Obviously, productivity of a species can be due to environmental constraints; the biomass is expected to be lower at the niche margin (selection effect). But if these environmental effects are taken into account (which is the case in the SEMs), then the residual variation can be explained by biodiversity effects. We provide an explanation (l. 217-219).

(10) Note that the article claims to be one of the only studies to look at function across trophic levels, but there are several others out there, for example:

Thanks, we now cite some of these studies (Li et al 2020, Moi et al. 2021, Seibold et al. 2018).

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

Introduction:

The introduction of the manuscript is generally well-structured, and the scientific questions are clearly presented. However, in each paragraph where specific aspects are introduced, the authors do not focus sufficiently on the given points. The current introduction discusses the weaknesses of previous studies extensively but lacks detailed explanations of mechanisms and a clear anticipation of this study's contributions.

For example:

L72-77: The authors mention that "genetic diversity may functionally compensate for a species loss," but this point is not highly relevant to the main analyses of this study, which focus on comparing the relative effects of species diversity and genetic diversity.

Yes true, we understand the point made by the reviewers. We deleted this part of the sentence.

L87-95: As previously noted, "whether environmental variation decreases or enhances the relative influence of genetic and species diversity on ecosystem functions" was not addressed in this study. Additionally, the last sentence seems unnecessary here, as it does not relate to "environmental variation." The phrase "generate insightful knowledge for future mechanistic models" is vague. It would be helpful to specify what kind of knowledge and what types of future mechanistic models are being referred to.

We modified these two sentences. We now posit the prediction that what has been observed under controlled conditions (that genetic and species have effects of similar magnitude) might not be the norm under fluctuating environments (because it has been shown that environmental variation modulates the strength of interspecific BEFS and create huge variance).

L96-116: The use of "for instance" three times in this paragraph makes the structure seem scattered, as only examples are provided. Improving the transition words can help the text focus better on the main point.

We have modified some parts of this section to better reflect predictions

L115-116: Again, it would be beneficial to specify what kind of insightful information can be provided.

We have modified this sentence by making more explicit some of the information that may be gained.

L117-134: Stating clear expectations can help the introduction focus on the mechanisms and assist readers in following the results.

We now provide some predictions. We were reluctant to make predictions in the first version of the MS as we have the feeling that predictions can go on very different direction depending on how we set the scene. We therefore stick to predictions that we think are the most logical (the simplest ones). This illustrates the lack of theoretical papers on these issues.

Methods:

L287-293: The method for estimating the standard effect size is unclear. I assume it was derived from the SEM models? This needs further clarification.

Yes, it is derived from the standardized estimate from each pSEM. This is now explained in the MS.

Results:

As mentioned in the public review, it is very important to show the results of analyzing raw data.

Done, see Figure 3 and Results section.

Table 1: The font and format of the PCA table are different from other tables and appear vague, resembling a picture rather than a table.

Changed.

Table 2 (and supplementary table): "D.f." is not explained in the table legend. Is 1 the numerator df and 30 the denominator df? Is the denominator the residual? Additionally, the table legend mentions "magnitude and direction." ANOVA only tests if the biodiversity effects are significantly different between species or genetic diversity, but not the magnitude. For example, -0.5 and 0.5 are very different, but their effect magnitudes are the same.

This is a mistake; sorry the format of the Table was from a previous version of the MS in which we used linear models rather that linear mixed models (both lead to the same results). The ANOVA used to test the significance of fixed terms in linear mixed model are based on Wald chi-sqare tests, and it should have been read “Chi-value” rather than “F-value” in both tables and the only degree of freedom in this test is the one at the numerator. This has been changed. We have changed the caption of the Table (“ANOVA table for the linear mixed model testing whether the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functions measured in a riverine trophic chain differ between the biodiversity facets (species or genetic diversity) and the types of BEF (within- or between-trophic levels)”)

Minor:

There should always be a space between a number and a unit. In the manuscript, spaces are inconsistently used between numbers and units.

Corrected

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) In the introduction, the authors could focus more and build out what they predicted/hypothesized as well as what has been found in the manipulated experiments that examined the role of species and genetic diversity. That would enhance the background information for a more general audience, and highlight expected results and why.

We modified the Introduction according to comments made by reviewer 1 and clarified the predictions as best as we can.

(2) Similarly, the discussion is fairly big picture, but this dataset focused exclusively on this 3-trophic interaction in a riverine system. It could be beneficial to dig into the ecology to find out why the opposite effects of species and genetic diversity are seen within trophic levels in this system.

We have added some explanations based on the specific pSEM (see our responses to the public reviews for details). But as said in the responses to the public reviews, even with mode detailed models, it is hard to tease apart mechanisms. One important point is that genetic and species diversity do not correlate one to each other (they do not co-vary over space), which means the effect of one facet is independent from the other. However, apart from that, we can’t really tell more without more mechanistic approaches. We understand this is frustrating, but this is the nature of field-based data. This does not mean they are useless. On the contrary, they confirm and expand patterns found under controlled conditions (which for ecologists is quite important as nature is our playground), but they are limited in inferences of mechanisms.

(3) It would also be informative if the authors specified what positive and negative Z scores mean. It seems counterintuitive in Figure 3. For example, in the upper left, it's denoted as a larger intraspecific effect - which I'd assume is higher genetic (within species) diversity - but is this not where species diversity effects are higher? In theory this figure could be similar to Figure 1 from Des Roches et al. 2018 - where showing the 1:1 line of where species and genetic diversity effects are similar and then how some are more impacted by SD or GD as that links to the overall question, right?

For example: Figure 3 makes it seem that GD effects are stronger (more positive) for within trophic responses (which is reflected in the text), but in that quadrant, it states that the interspecific effect is larger?

yes, you’re true Figure 3 (now Figure 4) is not ideal. We added an explicit explanation for interpreting Zr in the main text. In addition, we modified the text in the quadrat as this was not correct. Note that it cannot be directly be compared to that of DesRoches et al. In DesRoches et al., there is a single effect size (ES) per situation (which is roughly expressed as “ES = effect of species - effect of genotypes”). Here, there are two ES per situation, one for the species effect, the other for the genetic effect, which makes the biplot more complex (as species and genetic can be similar in magnitude, but opposite in direction, e.g., 0.5 and -0.5). We may have done as DesRoches et al. (“ES = effect of species - effect of genotypes”), but as we don’t have absolute ES (as in DesRoches) the resulting signs of the ES are non sensical…Not easy for us to find a clever solution (or said differently, we were not clever enough to find an easy solution).  Nonetheless, we tried another visualization by including “sub-quadrats” into the four main quadrats. We hope this will be clearer

(4) It's unclear why authors included both a simplified linear mixed model with diversity type and biodiversity facet as fixed factors, and then a second linear model that included trophic level (with those other 2 factors and interactions), but only showed results of trophic level from that more complex model. It is unclear why they include two models when the more complex one would have evaluated all aspects of their research question and shown the same patterns.

You’re true, the more complex model evaluates both aspects. Nonetheless, as the hypotheses were strictly separated, we thought it is simpler to associate one model to one hypothesis. We agree that this duplicates information, but we would like to keep the two models to make the text more gradual.

Author response:

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

Reviewer 1:

- The manuscript needs comprehensive proofreading for language and formatting. In many instances, spaces are missing or not required.

Thank you for your comments. The manuscript has been thoroughly proofread for errors in language and formatting.

- Could the authors explore correlation network analyses to get additional insights into the structure of different clusters? 

We have added a co-occurrence analysis (at species taxonomic level) based on SparCC to the manuscript (Figure 2).

This is described on Page 9 line 141-148

- The GitHub link is not correct. 

The github repository has now been made public.

- It is not possible to access the dataset on ENA. 

We have changed the ENA study PRJEB57401 status to open.

- Add the graphs obtained with decontam analysis as a supplementary figure. 

We have added the outputs of decontam (.csv files with feature lists of ASVs that were filtered based on the prevalence and frequency tests) to the github repository.

- There is nothing about the RPL group in the results section, while the authors discuss this issue in the introduction. What about the controls with proven fertility? 

Thank you. We have amended the manuscript to compare characteristics between the RPL, unexplained subfertility and controls groups.

Line 1279-130 page 8:  

“The study group represented 85% of samples with high sperm DNA fragmentation, 85% of samples with elevated ROS and 79% of samples with oligospermia. Rates of abnormal seminal parameters including low sperm concentration, reduced progressive motility and ROS concentrations were found to be highest in the MFI group (Supplementary Figure 1). Baseline characteristics between the RPL, unexplained subfertility and controls groups were similar.

Line 150-154 Page 9: 

“Bacterial richness, diversity and load were similar between all patient groups examined in the study (Supplementary Figure 4).

- While correctly stated in the title, the term microbiota should be used throughout the manuscript instead of "microbiome" 

Thank you. This misnomer has been amended throughout the manuscript.

Minor corrections:

Line 25: provoke is not a good term here. 

Thank you. The term ‘provoke’ has been removed

Line 26: why does semen culture have a limited scope? 

Thank you. Line 40-41 Page 3 has been amended:

“It is therefore plausible that asymptomatic seminal infections may be associated with impaired reproductive function in some men. Since semen culture has a limited scope for studying the seminal microbiota due to its inability to identify all present microbiota next generation sequencing (NGS) approaches have been reported recently by a growing number of investigators (13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)”.

Line 68: write μl correctly

Thank you. This has been corrected

Line 131: several organisms at the genus level. 

Thank you. This has been corrected

Line 136: what are the relative abundances of these genera? Is this relevant? 

The mean relative abundances for the key taxa mention in each cluster are all above 20%. This information has been added to the manuscript text on page 9, line 153.

Line 173: Molina et al. 

Thank you. This has been corrected

Line 173: the contaminations are referred to the low biomass nature of testicular samples. If present, bacteria of accessory gland secretions are an integral part of the seminal microbiota itself. Please review these sentences. 

Thank you. This had been reworked to highlight the important of urethral contamination, which you later allude to as a limitation of our study is the failure to provide paired urine and semen samples.

Page 11 line 194-196

“Molina et al report that 50%-70% of detected bacterial reads may be environmental contaminants in a sample from extracted testicular spermatozoa (35); with the addition of passage along the urethra it is likely that contamination of ejaculated semen would be much higher.”

Table 1: remove results interpretation from table caption. 

Thank you this has been acted upon.

Table 1: why in some cases, like in DNA fragmentation index, the total is not equal to n=223? 

This is due to missing data/ analysis not possible for some men due to the requirement of a minimum number of sperm in the ejaculate to perform DNA fragmentation testing.

Table 1: "frag" is not defined. 

Thank you, this has been amended

Tables 2, 3 & 4: bacterial genera in italics. 

Thank you, this has been amended

Figure 1A: add the fertility status information above the cluster colors. 

Thank you, this has been amended in Figure 1.

Figure 1C: the color code is confusing. Use different colors for each cluster. 

Figure 1 legend: bacterial genera in italics. 

Figures 1 & 2: the authors should use similar chart formatting in the two tables. 

Thank you, this has been amended

Reviewer 2:

(1) The patient groups have different diagnoses and should be handled as different groups, and not fused into one 'patient' group in analyses. <br /> Why are the data in tables presented as controls and cases? I would consider men from couples with recurrent pregnancy loss, unexplained infertility, and male factor infertility to have different seminal parameters (not to fuse them into one group). This means, that the statistical analyses should be performed considering each group separately, and not to fuse 3 different infertility diagnoses into one patient group. 

We have conducted detailed analyses, requested by the reviewer, comparing seminal DNA, ROS and microbiota characteristics between each individual patient groups (Supplimental figures 1 and 4). No specific taxa (at either genera or species-level) were found to differ in relative abundance between the diagnostic groups. However, we expect associations between parameters such as reactive oxygen species, or DNA fragmentation, and relative abundance of bacterial species, to be general and not restricted to or specific to each diagnostic group. Therefore, we also conducted further analyses aggregating data from all patient groups to investigate relationships common to these different forms of male reproductive dysfunction.

(2) Were any covariables included in the statistical analyses, e.g. age, BMI, smoking, time of sexual abstinence, etc? 

Covariates were not included in the statistical analyses. This has been added in the manuscript to the limitations.

Page 14 line 267-268

“Additionally, we did not have other covariables such as smoking status with which to include in further analyses”.

(3) Furthermore, it is known that 16S rRNA gene analysis does not provide sensitive enough detection of bacteria on the species level. How much do the authors trust their results on the species level? 

The limitations of taxonomic assignment using 16S rRNA gene metataxonomics are well documented. However, the capacity to assign sequence amplicons at species level depends on the sequence variability of the 16S rRNA gene for each of the taxa reported and the specific gene region chosen. In this study, amplification of the V1-V2 region was performed using a mixed 28f primer set (see methods for details) that enables resolution and assignment of several bacterial species highly relevant to the reproductive tract including Lactobacillus spp., such as L. crispatus and L. iners, (e.g. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2021.641921, https://doi.org/10.1128/msystems.01039-23, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-023-01702-2). In this study, we report the presence of L. iners, but not L. crispatus in semen samples, and we have also identified a specific association/co-occurrence between Gardnerella vaginalis and Lactobacillus iners, similar to that observed in vaginal bacterial communities.

(4) Were the analyses of bacterial genera and species abundances with seminal quality parameters controlled for diagnosis and other confounders? 

As stated in point 2, no adjustment was made for co-variates. No differences in microbiome composition were observed among the three diagnostic groups, so no adjustments were made to our analysis.

(5) The authors stress that their study is the biggest on the microbiome in semen. However, when considering that the study consists of 4 groups (with n=46-63), it does not stand out from previous studies. 

Our study is overall the largest investigating interactions between the seminal microbiome and male reproductive dysfunction. Other studies have included greater numbers of men with infertility.

(6) Weaknesses: There is a lack of paired seminal/urinal samples. 

Thank you. This limitation has been added.

Page 14 line 266-267

“A further limitation of this study, and others, is the lack of reciprocal genital tract microbiota testing of the female partners, or paired seminal and urinary samples from male participants”.

Recommendation for authors to consider:

Including previous classical reviews in the introduction: DOI:10.1097/MOU.0000000000000742 <br /> DOI: 10.1038/s41585-019-0250-y 

Thank you. This has been added.

Mentioning in the M&M section that there is a supplementary text with a more detailed M&M part. 

Thank you. This has been added. Further methodological detail can be found in supplementary text.

Revising the use of 'microbiota' and 'microbiome', they are not synonyms. When talking of 16S rRNA gene analysis, we consider 'microbiome' analysis. 

Thank you. This misnomer has been amended throughout the manuscript.

Revising the text, there are several erratas (e.g. verb missing, etc). 

Thank you for your comments. The manuscript has been thoroughly proofread for errors in language and formatting.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews: 

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary: 

In the manuscript entitled "Magnesium modulates phospholipid metabolism to promote bacterial phenotypic resistance to antibiotics", Li et al demonstrated the role of magnesium in promoting phenotypic resistance in V. alginolyticus. Using standard microbiological and metabolomic techniques, the authors have shown the significance of fatty acid biosynthesis pathway behind the resistance mechanism. This study is significant as it sheds light on the role of an exogenous factor in altering membrane composition, polarization, and fluidity which ultimately leads to antimicrobial resistance. 

Strengths: 

(1) The experiments were carried out methodically and logically. 

(2) An adequate number of replicates were used for the experiments. 

Weaknesses: 

(1) The introduction section needs to be more informative and to the point.  

Thank you so much for your suggestion. We have revised the introduction to make it more informative and to the point as following:

“Non-inheritable antibiotic or phenotypic resistance represents a serious challenge for treating bacterial infections. Phenotypic resistance does not involve genetic mutations Phenotypic resistance does not involve genetic mutations and is transient, allowing bacteria to resume normal growth. Biofilm and bacterial persisters are two phenotypic resistance types that have been extensively studied (Brandis et al., 2023; Corona & Martinez, 2013). Biofilms have complex structures, containing elements that impede antibiotic diffusion, sequestering and inhibiting their activity (Ciofu et al., 2022). Biofilm-forming bacteria and persisters also have distinct metabolic states that significantly reduce their antibiotic susceptibility (Yan & Bassler, 2019). These two types of phenotypic resistance share the common feature in their retarded or even cease of growth in the presence of antibiotics (Corona & Martinez, 2013). However, specific factors that promote phenotypic resistance and allow bacteria to proliferate in the presence of antibiotics remain poorly defined.

Metal ions have a diverse impact on the chemical, physical, and physiological processes of antibiotic resistance  (Booth et al, 2011; Lu et al, 2020; Poole, 2017). This includes genetic elements that confer resistance to metals and antibiotics (Poole, 2017) and metal cations that directly hinder (or enhance) the activity of specific antibiotic drugs (Zhang et al., 2014). The metabolic environment can also impact the sensitivity of bacteria to antibiotics (Jiang et al., 2023; Lee & Collins, 2012; Peng et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2021). Light metal ions, such as magnesium, sodium, and potassium, can behave as cofactors for different enzymes (Du et al., 2016) and influence drug efficacy. Heavy metal ions, including Cu2+ and Zn2+, confer resistance to antibiotics (Yazdankhah et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2018). Recent reports suggest that sodium negatively regulates redox states to promote the antibiotic resistance of Vibrio alginolyticus (Yang et al., 2018), while actively growing Bacillus subtilis cope with ribosome-targeting antibiotics by modulating ion flux (Lee et al, 2019). In Gram-negative bacteria, by contrast, zinc enhances antibiotic efficacy by potentiating carbapenem, fluoroquinolone, and β-lactam-mediated killing (Isaei et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2014). Magnesium influences bacterial structure, cell motility, enzyme function, cell signaling, and pathogenesis (Wang et al., 2019). This mineral also modulates microbiota to harvest energy from the diet (Garcia-Legorreta et al., 2020), allowing Bacillus subtilis to cope with ribosome-targeting antibiotics by modulating ion flux (Lee et al., 2019). However, the role of magnesium in promoting phenotypic resistance is less well understood.

Vibrios inhabit seawater, estuaries, bays, and coastal waters, regions full of metal ions such as magnesium (Kumarage et al., 2022). Magnesium is the second most dissolved element in seawater after sodium. At a salinity of 3.5% seawater, the magnesium concentration is about 54 mM (Potis, 1968), and in deep seawater, can be as high as 2,500 mM (Wang et al., 2024). Vibrio parahaemolyticus and V. alginilyticus are two representative Vibrio pathogens that infect humans and aquatic animals, resulting in illness and economic loss, respectively (Grimes, 2020). (Fluoro)quinolones such as balofloxacin are used to treat Vibrio infection, however, resistance has emerged due to overuse (Suyamud et al., 2024). Indeed, (fluoro)quinolones are one of China's two primary residual chemicals associated with aquaculture (Liu et al., 2017). Vibrio can develop quinolone resistance through mutations in the DNA gyrase gene or through plasmid-mediated mechanisms (Dutta et al., 2021). Thus, the use of V. parahaemolyticus and V. alginilyticus as bacterial representatives, and balofloxacin as a quinolone-based antibacterial representative, can help to define novel magnesiumdependent phenotypic resistance mechanisms of pathogenic Vibrio species. 

The current study evaluated whether magnesium induces phenotypic resistance in Vibrio species and defined the molecular/genetic basis for this resistance. Genetic approaches, GC-MS analysis of metabolite and membrane remodeling upon antibiotic exposure, membrane physiology, and extensive antimicrobial susceptibility testing were used for the evaluations.”

(2) The weakest point of this paper is in the logistics through the results section. The way authors represented the figures and interpreted them in the results section (or the figure legends) does not match. The figures are difficult to interpret and are not at all self-explanatory. 

Thank you so much for your suggestion. We have followed your suggestion to check the match between result and figures. They are now revised. 

(3) There are too many mislabeling of the figure panels in the main text which makes it difficult to find out which figures the authors are explaining. There should be more explanation on why and how they did the experiments and how the results were interpreted. 

Thank you so much for your suggestion. We have checked the figures and main text to ensure that we make every figure clearly stated.  

Reviewer #2 (Public Review): 

Summary: 

In this study, the authors aimed to identify if and how magnesium affects the ability of two particular bacteria species to resist the action of antibiotics. In my view, the authors succeeded in their goals and presented a compelling study that will have important implications for the antibiotic resistance research community. Since metals like magnesium are present in all lab media compositions and are present in the host, the data presented in this study certainly will inspire additional research by the community. These could include research into whether other types of metals also induce multi-drug resistance, whether this phenomenon can be observed in other bacterial species, especially pathogenic species that cause clinical disease, and whether the underlying molecular determinants (i.e. enzymes) of metal-induced phenotypic resistance could be new antimicrobial drug targets themselves. 

Strengths: 

This study's strengths include that the authors used a variety of methodologies, all of which point to a clear effect of exogenous Mg2+ on drug resistance in the targeted species. I also commend the authors for carrying out a comprehensive study, spanning evaluation of whole cell phenotypes, metabolic pathways, genetic manipulation, to enzyme activity level evaluation. The fact that the authors uncovered a molecular mechanism underlying Mg2+-induced phenotypic resistance is particularly important as the key proteins should be studied further.

Weaknesses: 

I believe there are weaknesses in the manuscript, however. The authors take for granted that the reader is familiar with all the assays utilized, and do not properly explain some experiments, and thus I highly suggest that the authors add a brief statement in each situation describing the rationale for each selected methodology (more details are in the private review to the authors). The Results section is also quite long and bogs down at times, and I suggest that the authors reduce its length by 10 to 20%. In contrast, the Introduction is sparse and lacks key aspects, for example, there should be mention of the study's main purpose and approaches, plus an introduction to the authors' choice of species and their known drug resistance properties, as well as the drug of choice (balofloxacin). Another notable weakness is that the authors evaluated Mg2+-induced phenotypic resistance only against two closely related species, and thus the generalizability of this mechanism of drug resistance is not known. The paper would be strengthened if the authors could demonstrate this type of phenotypic resistance in at least one more Gram-negative species and at least one Gram-positive species (antimicrobial susceptibility evaluations would suffice), each of which should be pathogenic to humans. Demonstrating magnesium-induced phenotypic drug resistance in the WHO Priority Bacterial Pathogens would be particularly important. 

In general, the conclusions drawn by the authors are justified by the data, except for the interpretation of some experiments. Importantly, this paper has discovered new antimicrobial resistance mechanisms and has also pointed to potential new targets for antimicrobials. 

Thank you so much for your suggestion! We followed your idea the revise the manuscript as following:

(1) We added a brief statement in the situation to explain the result and methodology according to your suggestion in the private review.

(2) To make the streamline of the story more logic, we moved the whole second result to supplementary text and supplementary figure. 

(3) We revised the introduction part by adding additional information to make it informative and to the point as following:

“Non-inheritable antibiotic or phenotypic resistance represents a serious challenge for treating bacterial infections. Phenotypic resistance does not involve genetic mutations Phenotypic resistance does not involve genetic mutations and is transient, allowing bacteria to resume normal growth. Biofilm and bacterial persisters are two phenotypic resistance types that have been extensively studied (Brandis et al., 2023; Corona & Martinez, 2013). Biofilms have complex structures, containing elements that impede antibiotic diffusion, sequestering and inhibiting their activity (Ciofu et al., 2022). Biofilm-forming bacteria and persisters also have distinct metabolic states that significantly reduce their antibiotic susceptibility (Yan & Bassler, 2019). These two types of phenotypic resistance share the common feature in their retarded or even cease of growth in the presence of antibiotics (Corona & Martinez, 2013). However, specific factors that promote phenotypic resistance and allow bacteria to proliferate in the presence of antibiotics remain poorly defined.

Metal ions have a diverse impact on the chemical, physical, and physiological processes of antibiotic resistance  (Booth et al, 2011; Lu et al, 2020; Poole, 2017). This includes genetic elements that confer resistance to metals and antibiotics (Poole, 2017) and metal cations that directly hinder (or enhance) the activity of specific antibiotic drugs (Zhang et al., 2014). The metabolic environment can also impact the sensitivity of bacteria to antibiotics (Jiang et al., 2023; Lee & Collins, 2012; Peng et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2021). Light metal ions, such as magnesium, sodium, and potassium, can behave as cofactors for different enzymes (Du et al., 2016) and influence drug efficacy. Heavy metal ions, including Cu2+ and Zn2+, confer resistance to antibiotics (Yazdankhah et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2018). Recent reports suggest that sodium negatively regulates redox states to promote the antibiotic resistance of Vibrio alginolyticus (Yang et al., 2018), while actively growing Bacillus subtilis cope with ribosome-targeting antibiotics by modulating ion flux (Lee et al, 2019). In Gram-negative bacteria, by contrast, zinc enhances antibiotic efficacy by potentiating carbapenem, fluoroquinolone, and β-lactam-mediated killing (Isaei et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2014). Magnesium influences bacterial structure, cell motility, enzyme function, cell signaling, and pathogenesis (Wang et al., 2019). This mineral also modulates microbiota to harvest energy from the diet (Garcia-Legorreta et al., 2020), allowing Bacillus subtilis to cope with ribosome-targeting antibiotics by modulating ion flux (Lee et al., 2019). However, the role of magnesium in promoting phenotypic resistance is less well understood.

Vibrios inhabit seawater, estuaries, bays, and coastal waters, regions full of metal ions such as magnesium (Kumarage et al., 2022). Magnesium is the second most dissolved element in seawater after sodium. At a salinity of 3.5% seawater, the magnesium concentration is about 54 mM (Potis, 1968), and in deep seawater, can be as high as 2,500 mM (Wang et al., 2024). Vibrio parahaemolyticus and V. alginilyticus are two representative Vibrio pathogens that infect humans and aquatic animals, resulting in illness and economic loss, respectively (Grimes, 2020). (Fluoro)quinolones such as balofloxacin are used to treat Vibrio infection, however, resistance has emerged due to overuse (Suyamud et al., 2024). Indeed, (fluoro)quinolones are one of China's two primary residual chemicals associated with aquaculture (Liu et al., 2017). Vibrio can develop quinolone resistance through mutations in the DNA gyrase gene or through plasmid-mediated mechanisms (Dutta et al., 2021). Thus, the use of V. parahaemolyticus and V. alginilyticus as bacterial representatives, and balofloxacin as a quinolone-based antibacterial representative, can help to define novel magnesiumdependent phenotypic resistance mechanisms of pathogenic Vibrio species. 

The current study evaluated whether magnesium induces phenotypic resistance in Vibrio species and defined the molecular/genetic basis for this resistance. Genetic approaches, GC-MS analysis of metabolite and membrane remodeling upon antibiotic exposure, membrane physiology, and extensive antimicrobial susceptibility testing were used for the evaluations.”

(4) We examined the effect of magnesium in WHO listed priority strains, which confirmed the results as following:

“Importantly, exogenous MgCl2 also increased MICs of clinic isolates, carbapenemresistant Escherichia coli, carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae, carbapenemresistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii to balofloxacin (Fig 1G).”

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

(1) There are many grammatical mistakes to point out. The manuscript needs proofreading and editing.

We appreciate this comment! The manuscript has been revised by a native speaker.

(2) The introduction could be more informative. A little more description of magnesium - such as what it does to antibiotics and how it's known to affect the microbiome - might be helpful for the general readers. The question remains why out of all the metal ions that might affect antibiotic resistance (many of them are less explored), authors particularly decided to work on the effect of magnesium. The introduction should cover the rationale of their hypothesis. Also, the authors might want to briefly talk about the model organisms (V. algonolyticus and V. parahemolyticus) describing how threatening they are and how they are becoming resistant to antibiotics. 

We appreciate this comment! We revise the introduction by providing additional information as following:

“In Gram-negative bacteria, by contrast, zinc enhances antibiotic efficacy by potentiating carbapenem, fluoroquinolone, and β-lactam-mediated killing (Isaei et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2014). Magnesium influences bacterial structure, cell motility, enzyme function, cell signaling, and pathogenesis (Wang et al., 2019). This mineral also modulates microbiota to harvest energy from the diet (Garcia-Legorreta et al., 2020), allowing Bacillus subtilis to cope with ribosome-targeting antibiotics by modulating ion flux (Lee et al., 2019). However, the role of magnesium in promoting phenotypic resistance is less well understood.

Vibrios inhabit seawater, estuaries, bays, and coastal waters, regions full of metal ions such as magnesium (Kumarage et al., 2022). Magnesium is the second most dissolved element in seawater after sodium. At a salinity of 3.5% seawater, the magnesium concentration is about 54 mM (Potis, 1968), and in deep seawater, can be as high as 2,500 mM (Wang et al., 2024). Vibrio parahaemolyticus and V. alginilyticus are two representative Vibrio pathogens that infect humans and aquatic animals, resulting in illness and economic loss, respectively (Grimes, 2020). (Fluoro)quinolones such as balofloxacin are used to treat Vibrio infection, however, resistance has emerged due to overuse (Suyamud et al., 2024). Indeed, (fluoro)quinolones are one of China's two primary residual chemicals associated with aquaculture (Liu et al., 2017). Vibrio can develop quinolone resistance through mutations in the DNA gyrase gene or through plasmid-mediated mechanisms (Dutta et al., 2021). Thus, the use of V. parahaemolyticus and V. alginilyticus as bacterial representatives, and balofloxacin as a quinolone-based antibacterial representative, can help to define novel magnesiumdependent phenotypic resistance mechanisms of pathogenic Vibrio species. 

The current study evaluated whether magnesium induces phenotypic resistance in Vibrio species and defined the molecular/genetic basis for this resistance. Genetic approaches, GC-MS analysis of metabolite and membrane remodeling upon antibiotic exposure, membrane physiology, and extensive antimicrobial susceptibility testing were used for the evaluations. ”

(3) Figure 1C is mislabeled as 1B (line 100). Line 101: The sentence is not clear and very confusing. What is meant by 15.6mM - 62.4 mM? Are they talking about the concentration of BLFX (though in the figure the concentration was shown in µg)? Please rewrite the sentence in a simplified way. Also, the zone of inhibition was decreased with increasing MgCl2, not increased. 

We appreciate this comment! These have been revised, including that Fig 1B is now corrected as Fig. 1C. Line 101, which is now Line 122. The sentence was revised as following:

“At balofloxacin doses of 1.56, 3.125, 6.25, and 12.5 µg, the zone of inhibition decreased with increasing MgCl2 (Fig 1D)”

(4) In the western blot images, it would be nice to indicate the MW of the protein bands shown. The loading control used for the experiments should be clearly mentioned in the figure legends. 

We appreciate this comment! The MWs are indicated in the western-blot image throughout the manuscript. 

The loading control is clearly stated in the figure legend as following:

“Whole cell lysates resolved by SDS-PAGE gel was stained with Coomassie brilliant blue as loading control.”. 

(5) Figures 2 B and C: the figure legend does not explain what the authors wanted to show. It's not clear how they plotted the inhibitory curve, or the binding efficacy. These panels need an explanation of how the analysis was done.

We appreciate this comment! The figure 2 is now removed to Suppl. Fig 2, and the description of figure 2 is moved to Suppl. Text. We revise the description of the result as following, which is in Suppl. Text:

“Prior studies suggest that the chelation of antibiotics by magnesium ions inhibits antibiotic uptake (Deitchman et al., 2018; Lunestad and Goksøyr, 1990). To investigate whether magnesium binds to balofloxacin, balofloxacin was pre-incubated with magnesium, and zone of inhibition (ZOI) analysis was conducted. Six different concentrations of balofloxacin were separately incubated with six different concentrations of MgCl2, and then spotted on filter paper so that a defined amount of balofloxacin could be used for ZOI. While lower concentrations of MgCl2, (0.78, 3.125, or 12.5 mM) did not alter the ZOI, higher concentrations, including 50 and 200 mM MgCl2, decreased the ZOI (Suppl. Fig 2A), suggesting that even high doses of magnesium had only a partial effect on balofloxacin through direct binding. For example, at 200 mM MgCl2 and 5 or 10 μg/mL balofloxacin, the balofloxacin ZOI was 53.2 and 70.3% of the ZOI at 0 mM MgCl2, suggesting that  50% of the antibiotics were still functional. Intracellular BLFX also decreased with increasing MgCl2 (Suppl. Fig 2B), while exogenous Mg2+ increased intracellular Mg2+ levels in a dose-dependent manner. For example, exogenous 50 and 200 mM MgCl2 increased intracellular Mg2+ levels to 1.21 and 1.31 mM, respectively (Suppl. Fig 2C). The relationship between TolC, an efflux pump that transports quinolones from bacterial cells, and Mg2+ was also assessed (Kobylka et al., 2020; Song et al., 2020). The expression of TolC/tolC was unaffected by Mg2+ (Suppl. Fig 2D). Magnesium is critical for LPS stability. LPS levels increased at 200 mM Mg2+ (Suppl. Fig 2E), however, the loss of waaF, lpxA, and lpxC, three key genes involved in LPS biosynthesis, did not influence balofloxacin sensitivity/resistance in the presence of Mg2+ (Suppl. Fig 2F). These findings suggest that magnesium-induced LPS biosynthesis does not contribute directly to BLFX resistance and demonstrate that Mg2+ influx is involved in balofloxacin resistance.”

(6) For the metabolomics results, it will help immensely if the authors provide a volcano plot of the identified metabolites and plot the heat map according to the -log2 metabolite intensities. In Figure 3A, it's not clear what information is conveyed through Euclidean distance calculations of the heat map. In Figure 3 B, the authors mentioned that the OPLS-DA test was conducted, although the figure shows a PCA plot, so it's not clear how these two are connected. Figure 3 E: the figure legend says scattered plot, but the panel represents color-coded numerical values, not a scattered plot. Also, it's not clear how they got those values. 

We appreciate this comment! We quite agree with you that if the differential metabolites could be shown as volcano plot. However, we didn’t adopt volcano plot in this study because this is a magnesium concentration-dependent metabolomes that includes 6 groups in parallel. Volcano plots may give a complex view of the comparison among different groups. We also tried to plot the heat map according to the -log2 metabolite intensities. Although this analysis cluster 200 mM and 50 mM groups better, the data of low magnesium concentrations was not consistent, which may be due to the minor metabolic change of low concentrations magnesium. Thank you for your understanding. 

For Euclidean distance calculations, we explain in the figure legend as following:

“Euclidean distance calculations were used to generate a heatmap that shows clustering of the biological and technical replicates of each treatment.” 

In Figure 2B, which was Figure 3B in previous version, it has been replaced with OPLS-DA analysis in the revised version. 

In Figure 2E, which was Figure 3E in previous version, it is revised as following:

“E. Areas of the peaks of palmitic acid and stearic acid generated by GC-MS analysis.” 

(7) In Figure 4, the figure legends (as well as the in the text) are not properly referred to. Please make sure to refer to the correct panel. 

We appreciate this comment! The figure legends have been corrected to match the panel and text. 

Figure 4F: how was the synergy analysis done? In the methods section, the authors described the antibiotic bactericidal assay protocol, but there was no clear indication of how they generated the isobologram. 

We appreciate this comment! We provide additional information in the Figure 3F legend, which was Figure 4F in previous version,  as following: 

“Synergy analysis for BFLX with palmitic acid for V. alginolyticus. Synergy was performed by comparing the dose needed for 50% inhibition of the synergistic agents (white) and non-synergistic (i.e., additive) agents (purple).”

(8) Figure 5 A: the scatter plot is plotted according to the area along the Y axis: which "area" is represented here? There is absolutely no explanation, neither in the results nor in the figure legends. Using box plots might be a better option than using a scattered plot.

We appreciate this comment! “Area” has been noted in the revised manuscript as following:

“The area indicates the area of the peak of the metabolite in total ion chromatography of GC-MS.” 

(9) In Figure 6 A, the heat map is plotted according to the column Z scores. What is meant by "column Z score"? The corresponding figure legend says, "heat map showing differential abundance of lipid". Z scores do not represent an abundance of a variable, so the conclusion might not be appropriate here. 

We appreciate this comment! In Figure 5A, which was Figure 6A in previous version, column Z score shows the abundance of metabolites analyzed, which is automatically generated in the heat map analysis to give a sign of these metabolites tested. The legend has been revised as following: 

“Heatmap showing changes in differential lipid levels at the indicated concentration of MgCl2.”  

(10) Line 313-314: it should be Figure EV6C.  

We appreciate this comment! The citation has been corrected.

(11) The authors have shown that Mg+2 does not alter the LPS transport system, however, there was some significant increase in LPS expression at 200mM MgCl2. It would be interesting if the authors could also check if Mg+2 has any effect on the outer membrane protein (OMP) integrity (by checking OMP components BamA and LptD).  

We appreciate this comment!  We have carefully examined the membrane permeability in Figure 7. We thus didn’t perform additional experiment here to see the change of BamA and LptD. Thank you very much for your understanding.

(12) I wonder if the authors could check the effect of extracellular Mg+2 during the co-treatment of palmitic acid, linoleic acid, and balofloxacin. Will there still be the antagonistic effect or the presence of Mg+2 could change the phenotype? 

We appreciate this comment! Additional experiments is performed as following:

“Furthermore, magnesium had a minimal effect on the antagonistic effect of palmitic acid, linolenic acid, and balofloxacin (Fig 4G), suggesting that this mineral functions through lipid metabolism.” 

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

(1) As mentioned in the Public Review, I strongly believe that the impact of this study will be more significant if magnesium-induced phenotypic drug resistance could be demonstrated in at least one other Gram-negative and one other Grampositive species, both of which should be human pathogens. The full suite of experiments would not be necessary for this suggestion; evaluation of the effect of Mg concentration in growth media on the drug resistance of other species, testing the different antibiotic types used in this study, would be sufficient. 

We appreciate this comment! Additional experiments have performed to test this idea. Mg2+ has the similar effect on carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli, carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii as the similar as on the Vibrio species in shown in Figure 1G. These have been described following as

“Importantly, exogenous MgCl2 also increased MICs of clinic isolates, carbapenemresistant Escherichia coli, carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae, carbapenemresistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii to balofloxacin (Fig 1G).”

(2) I recommend that the Introduction section be expanded. I recommend one or two sentences introducing the two Vibrio species selected for study. I.e. why did the authors choose these two species? What is known about their phenotypic drug resistance in the literature? Why did the authors select balofloxacin for their studies, is it a common antimicrobial used vs Vibrios? As well, the end of the Introduction section ends abruptly with no transition to the present study itself. The end of the introduction should include one or two sentences introducing the main purpose of the study, its approach, and the techniques undertaken. For example, "In this study, we evaluated whether magnesium induces phenotypic resistance in Vibrio species and the molecular/genetic basis for such resistance. We used genetic approaches, GC-MS analysis of metabolite and membrane remodeling upon antibiotic exposure, membrane physiology, and extensive antimicrobial susceptibility evaluations." 

We appreciate this comment! We revise the introduction by providing additional information as following:

“In Gram-negative bacteria, by contrast, zinc enhances antibiotic efficacy by potentiating carbapenem, fluoroquinolone, and β-lactam-mediated killing (Isaei et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2014). Magnesium influences bacterial structure, cell motility, enzyme function, cell signaling, and pathogenesis (Wang et al., 2019). This mineral also modulates microbiota to harvest energy from the diet (Garcia-Legorreta et al., 2020), allowing Bacillus subtilis to cope with ribosome-targeting antibiotics by modulating ion flux (Lee et al., 2019). However, the role of magnesium in promoting phenotypic resistance is less well understood.

Vibrios inhabit seawater, estuaries, bays, and coastal waters, regions full of metal ions such as magnesium (Kumarage et al., 2022). Magnesium is the second most dissolved element in seawater after sodium. At a salinity of 3.5% seawater, the magnesium concentration is about 54 mM (Potis, 1968), and in deep seawater, can be as high as 2,500 mM (Wang et al., 2024). Vibrio parahaemolyticus and V. alginilyticus are two representative Vibrio pathogens that infect humans and aquatic animals, resulting in illness and economic loss, respectively (Grimes, 2020). (Fluoro)quinolones such as balofloxacin are used to treat Vibrio infection, however, resistance has emerged due to overuse (Suyamud et al., 2024). Indeed, (fluoro)quinolones are one of China's two primary residual chemicals associated with aquaculture (Liu et al., 2017). Vibrio can develop quinolone resistance through mutations in the DNA gyrase gene or through plasmid-mediated mechanisms (Dutta et al., 2021). Thus, the use of V. parahaemolyticus and V. alginilyticus as bacterial representatives, and balofloxacin as a quinolone-based antibacterial representative, can help to define novel magnesiumdependent phenotypic resistance mechanisms of pathogenic Vibrio species. 

The current study evaluated whether magnesium induces phenotypic resistance in Vibrio species and defined the molecular/genetic basis for this resistance. Genetic approaches, GC-MS analysis of metabolite and membrane remodeling upon antibiotic exposure, membrane physiology, and extensive antimicrobial susceptibility testing were used for the evaluations. ”

(3) The authors introduce the acronym AWST but never use it again in the paper, instead they use SWT. The authors should introduce SWT only for consistency. 

We appreciate this comment! We have corrected all the “SWT” to “ASWT”

(4) Line 76 is not clear: what is meant by "some of which could influence drug efficacy" - the enzymes that utilize light metal ions are co-factors? Or the metals directly?  

We appreciate this comment! The information we wanted to deliver is that light metal ions can serve as cofactors to catalyze biochemical reaction. Such chemical reaction would alter the drug efficacy, e.g. the Fe-S cluster are metallocofactor for proteins which regulates redox chemistry including antibioticinduced redox change. However, this information is not appropriate for this manuscript, so we delete this sentence. 

(5) Line 90: add a reference corroborating that this chemical composition is a mimic of marine water. The NaCl concentration used in particular looks quite low. 

We appreciate this comment! It was a typo error. The NaCl concentration was 210 mM as shown in Suppl. Table 1. We also provide details of the chemical composition of the marine water as following:

“Marine environments and agriculture, where antibiotics are commonly used, are rich in magnesium. To investigate whether this mineral impacts antibiotic activity, the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of V. alginolyticus ATCC33787 and V. parahaemolyticus VP01, which we referred as ATCC33787 and VP01 afterwards, isolated from marine aquaculture, to balofloxacin (BLFX) in Luria-Bertani medium

(LB medium) plus 3% NaCl as LBS medium and “artificial seawater” (ASWT) medium that included the major ion species in marine water (Wilson, 1975) (LB medium plus 210 mM NaCl, 35 mM Mg2SO4, 7 mM KCl, and 7 mM CaCl2) were assessed”

(6) Line 98 and Figure 1B. M9 is indicated in the text but does not appear in the figure, the figure only shows SWT. This should be checked. Line 99: based on Figure 1C, the authors are adding MgCl2 to SWT, SWT should be mentioned in this line. Line 100: I believe this is referring to Figure 1C, which should be checked. 

We appreciate this comment! 

Line 98, which is now Line 118: We have corrected M9 to ASWT as following:

“However, the MIC for BLFX was higher in ASWT medium supplemented with Mg2SO4 or MgCl2 than in LB medium (Fig 1B).”

Line 99, which is now Line 133: the sentence is corrected as following:

“The MIC for BLFX increased at higher concentrations of MgCl2 in ASWT”

Line 100, which is now Line 135: we have corrected Fig 1B to Fig. 1C.

(7) Line 101: text and Figure 1D are not consistent, as Figure 1D does not show this level of precision in added MgCl2 as indicated in the text (15.6 - 62.4 mM).  

We appreciate this comment! The sentence has been corrected as following: “At balofloxacin doses of 1.56, 3.125, 6.25, and 12.5 µg, the zone of inhibition decreased with increasing MgCl2 (Fig 1D)””.  

(8) MgCl2 clearly induces increasing levels of BLFX resistance, and to high levels, but not for every antibiotic. For example, the level of increased resistance to blactams is low (ceftriaxone) and plateaus (ceftazidime). As well, resistance to gentamicin plateaus at a lower level than the other aminoglycosides. These observations do not take away from the conclusion that Mg induces multi-drug resistance, but since the behaviour of the MICs for these drugs is different than the other drugs, they should be mentioned. Also, Figure 1F - tetracyclines (plural) is used for vertical axis label - does this refer to the tetracycline itself or the class itself, and if the class, which one was tested? 

We appreciate this comment! We revise the description as following: “Notably, magnesium had a reduced effect on ceftriaxone and gentamicin than other antibiotics.”

The tetracyclines is labeled as “Oxytetracycline” in the revised manuscript. 

- The magnesium chelation experiments presented in Figure 2 are not clear. The authors should briefly mention how this was done around line 128, and what data underlies the values in Figure 2C. Figure 2B is also not clear to me at all. Similarly, how the authors measured intracellular balofloxacin and Mg2+ is not clear and should be mentioned briefly around lines 130-132. 

We appreciate this comment! These have been rewritten following as  “To investigate whether magnesium binds to balofloxacin, balofloxacin was preincubated with magnesium, and zone of inhibition (ZOI) analysis was conducted. Six different concentrations of balofloxacin were separately incubated with six different concentrations of MgCl2, and then spotted on filter paper so that a defined amount of balofloxacin could be used for ZOI. While lower concentrations of MgCl2, (0.78, 3.125, or 12.5 mM) did not alter the ZOI, higher concentrations, including 50 and 200 mM MgCl2, decreased the ZOI (Suppl. Fig 2A), suggesting that even high doses of magnesium had only a partial effect on balofloxacin through direct binding. For example, at 200 mM MgCl2 and 5 or 10 μg/mL balofloxacin, the balofloxacin ZOI was 53.2 and 70.3% of the ZOI at 0 mM MgCl2, suggesting that  50% of the antibiotics were still functional. Intracellular BLFX also decreased with increasing MgCl2 (Suppl. Fig 2B), while exogenous Mg2+ increased intracellular Mg2+ levels in a dose-dependent manner. For example, exogenous 50 and 200 mM MgCl2 increased intracellular Mg2+ levels to 1.21 and 1.31 mM, respectively (Suppl. Fig 2C). The relationship between TolC, an efflux pump that transports quinolones from bacterial cells, and Mg2+ was also assessed (Kobylka et al., 2020; Song et al., 2020). The expression of TolC/tolC was unaffected by Mg2+ (Suppl. Fig 2D). Magnesium is critical for LPS stability. LPS levels increased at 200 mM Mg2+ (Suppl. Fig 2E), however, the loss of waaF, lpxA, and lpxC, three key genes involved in LPS biosynthesis, did not influence balofloxacin sensitivity/resistance in the presence of Mg2+ (Suppl. Fig 2F). These findings suggest that magnesium-induced LPS biosynthesis does not contribute directly to BLFX resistance and demonstrate that Mg2+ influx is involved in balofloxacin resistance.”

- Line 135: LPS cannot be "expressed", as the authors word it here. This should be corrected. Also, the inspection of Figure 2G actually shows the levels of LPS increase with increased Mg2+. The authors should re-evaluate these results and change their description around this area of the Results. 

We appreciate this comment! We have removed the whole Figure 2 to Supplementary Text and Supplementary Figure 2. We rewrite this part as following: “The relationship between TolC, an efflux pump that transports quinolones from bacterial cells, and Mg2+ was also assessed (Kobylka et al., 2020; Song et al., 2020). The expression of TolC/tolC was unaffected by Mg2+ (Suppl. Fig 2D). Magnesium is critical for LPS stability. LPS levels increased at 200 mM Mg2+ (Suppl. Fig 2E), however, the loss of waaF, lpxA, and lpxC, three key genes involved in LPS biosynthesis, did not influence balofloxacin sensitivity/resistance in the presence of Mg2+ (Suppl. Fig 2F). These findings suggest that magnesium-induced LPS biosynthesis does not contribute directly to BLFX resistance and demonstrate that Mg2+ influx is involved in balofloxacin resistance.”

- Section: MgCl2 affects bacterial metabolism. Authors switched to M9 medium - why? This contrasts with other sections using SWT and should be explained. Also, I cannot evaluate whether the statistical analysis of the data here was performed correctly and was appropriate for this type of experiment. I advise the authors to move the details in lines 166-169 to the Materials and Methods and replace this section instead with a more accessible description of the statistical analysis that a non-expert would be able to appreciate. Furthermore, analysis of Figure 3A indicates that the levels of asparagine, 4-hydroxybutyric acid, uracil, cystathionine, fumaric acid, and aminoethanol have significantly changed at high MgCl2, but these are not mentioned in the text. I suggest the authors mention these if they are relevant to the 12 enriched pathways, especially the biosynthesis of fatty acids. 

We appreciate this comment! 

We indicate the reason we use M9 medium as following:

“To better understand how magnesium affects bacterial metabolism” for explaining why the M9 medium was used.”

The information lines 166-169 indicated has been removed to M &M. 

We have carefully examined the abundance of the metabolites and the enriched pathway. Among the listed metabolites, only fumarate is within the enriched pathways. We mention this point in our revised manuscript as following:

“The increase in fatty acid biosynthesis could be partially explained by an imbalanced pyruvate cycle/TCA cycle, in which fumarate levels increased at higher Mg2+ while succinate levels increased at lower Mg2+ (Suppl. Fig 5B). These findings indicated that glycolysis fluxes into fatty acid biosynthesis rather than the pyruvate cycle/TCA cycle. The relevance of fatty acids and BLFX was demonstrated by the observation that exogenous palmitic acid increased bacterial resistance to balofloxacin (Fig 2F). These results suggest that fatty acid metabolism may be critical to magnesium-based phenotypic resistance.”

- Line 211 appears to refer to Figure 4F and should be checked. Similarly in line 216 - appears this should be Figure 4H, and line 218 should be Figure 4H. Line 226: add a reference to Fig 4I (after arcA was decreased). Line 227: what are genes N646_1004 and N646_1885? Based on Fig 4J these are crp - authors should add to line 227. Line 228 appears to refer to Figure 4J, not Figure 4I. Line 229 - should be Figure 4K, not Figure 4I. Line 231 - should be 4L, not 4K. Line 239 - should be 4M.

We appreciate this comment! The text and figure is now matched. 

- Line 312: the descriptions of "11 lipids, 32 lipids, and 53", and then "26 lipids, 52 lipids, and 107 lipids" are not clear at all and should be corrected. 

We appreciate this comment! The sentence is revised as following:

“The abundance of 11, 32, and 53 lipids was increased in 3.125, 50, and 200 mM MgCl2-treated bacteria, respectively, while the abundance of 26, 52, and 107 lipids was decreased in 3.125, 50, and 200 mM MgCl2-treated bacteria, respectively (Suppl. Fig 7C)”

- Line 340. What is the assay the authors are using to measure the levels of the PGS and PSS enzymes? This is not mentioned or clear in this part of the Results.  

We appreciate this comment!  We provide the information in the manuscript as following:

“Levels of PGS and PSS were quantified by ELISA kits according to manufacture’s instruction (Shanghai Fusheng Industrial Co., Ltd., China)”

- Line 372: What is the assay for measuring membrane depolarization? This is not mentioned and I suggest it should be. Line 374: Figure 7B does not show time dependence, only dose dependence, this should be corrected, it is assumed the authors are referring to Fig 7C for the time dependence data. 

We appreciate this comment! We provide the information in the result as following:  

“The voltage-sensitive dye, DiBAC4(3) showed that 12.5–200 mM MgCl2 promoted membrane depolarization in a dose-dependent manner (Fig 6A)”

We also explain how DiBAC4(3) can be used to measure membrane depolarization in the Materials and Methods section as following:

“DiBAC4(3) is a s voltage-sensitive probe that penetrates depolarized cells, binding intracellular proteins or membranes exhibiting enhanced fluorescence and red spectral shift.”

To make it clear the specific figure, we revise the sentence as following:

“Meanwhile, MgCl2 had a dose-dependent (Fig 6B) and time-dependent (Fig 6C) effect on proton motive force (PMF).”

- Line 384: mention how FM5-95 measures membrane permeability. The authors should also clarify how this reagent is used to measure membrane fluidity, and it is not clear if the data for this is presented in Figure 7 - please clarify. Regarding SYTO9 dye experiment: the authors should briefly explain the experimental design - how SYTO9 dye operates and why FACS was chosen. What is labeled with FITC?  

We appreciate this comment! We clarify the reason we use FM5-95 in the Methods and Materials section as following:

“Measurement of fluidity by fluorescence microscopy

Measurement of membrane fluidity is performed as previously described (Wen et al., 2022). Briefly, ATCC33787 were cultured in medium with indicated concentrations of MgCl2, collected and then adjusted to OD 0.6. Aliquot of 100 μL bacteria cells of each sample were diluted to 1 mL and 10 μL (10 mg/mL) FM5-95 (Thermo Fisher

Scientific, USA) was added. FM5-95 is a lipophilic styryl dye that insert into the outer leaflet of bacterial membrane and become fluorescence. This dye preferentially bind to the microdomains with high membrane fluidity(Wen et al., 2022). After incubated for 20 min at 30 ℃ at vibration without light, the sample was centrifuged for 10 min at 12,000 rpm. The pellets were resuspended with 20 μL of 3% NaCI. Aliquot of 2 μL sample was dropped on the agarose slide, and take photos under the inverted fluorescence microscope.”

This data is presented as micrographs in Fig. 6D, which shows the decreased FM5-95 staining with increasing concentrations of MgCl2. We make this description clear with the following revision:

“FM5-95 staining decreased with increasing concentrations of Mg2+, and no staining was observed in the presence of 200 mM Mg2+ (Fig 6D).”

We explain the reason why we use SYTO9 as following:

“SYTO9, a green fluorescent dye that binds to nucleic acid, enters and stains bacteria cells when there is an increase in membrane permeability (Lehtinen et al., 2004; McGoverin et al., 2020). Staining decreased with increasing MgCl2, indicating that bacterial membrane permeability declined in an Mg2+ dose-dependent manner (Fig 6E).”

We didn’t use FACS in this study, while we only analyze the fluorescence distribution with the equipment. To make it clear, we revise the sentence as following:

“After incubated for 15 min at 30 ℃ at vibration without light, the mixtures were filtered and measured by flow cytometry (BD FACSCalibur, USA).”

- Lines 391-397. The statement that palmitic acid shifts the peaks in Figure 7F is not supported by the data. There is essential no change in the major peak position within each MgCl2 concentration set with increasing palmitic acid. For the linolenic acid data, it is clear that linolenic acid increases permeability only at 50 mM MgCl2-this should be mentioned in the text. 

We appreciate this comment! We revise the sentence as following:

“Exogenous palmitic acid also shifted the fluorescence signal peaks to the left in an MgCl2-dependent manner while palmitic acid only slightly shifted the peaks (Fig 6F). In contrast, exogenous linolenic acid shifted the peak to the right in a dose-dependent manner at 50 mM MgCl2 (Fig 6G).” 

- Line 404-405 - as mentioned earlier, the assay for the update of BLFX should be mentioned (if it is done so earlier in the text, then it does not need to be here).  

We appreciate this comment! It has been mentioned in the introduction.  

- Discussion: CpxA/R-OmprF pathway is mentioned here for the first time. Is this one of the pathways modified by MgCl2 as determined during the course of the study? If so, this should be reworded to mention that. If not, the relevance of this particular pathway as it relates to light metals and phenotypic resistance should be discussed.

We appreciate this comment! Since it is not relevant to the discussion of Mg2+ and fatty acid biosynthesis, we delete this sentence in the revised manuscript.  

-The following grammatical errors should be corrected:

-line 55 change to: "genetic mutations; instead, this type of resistance is transient, and bacteria resume normal growth"

-line 57: change to "resistance types are biofilm" 

-line 61: change to "states that significantly" 

-line 63: change to "resistance share the common feature in they retard or even cease in the presence" 

-line 65: change to "resistance that allow bacteria to proliferate" 

-line 81: change "But whether" to "Whether" 

-line 178: change to "may be critical to the Mg-based phenotypic resistance"

-line 86: change to "Marine environments and agriculture are rich in magnesium, where..." 

-line 93: change in to vs

-line 154: insert space after metabolism 

-line 158: change 'identified" to "focused on the levels of" 

-line 160: change "The levels of forty-one metabolites" 

-line 198: change shared to share 

-line 310: increased is duplicated, delete one 

-line 451: add "the" before ratio 

-line 453: gram should be capitalized 

-line 462: "the regulation" should be reworded to "More importantly, the effect of exogenous MgCl targets the..." 

-line 469: add dash between Mg2+ and limited

-line 478: change "the crucial" to "a crucial" 

-there are numerous locations in the manuscript where the word "magnetism" is used when clearly the word is supposed to be magnesium - this should be corrected

We appreciate this comment! These have been corrected or revised. 

Editors comments:

Page 2 line 27; Page 25 line number 426; page 27 line number 481: In the abstract and discussion, only Vibrio alginolyticus was mentioned, even though two Vibrio species were used in the study. It would be helpful to understand the rationale behind the focus on this particular species.

We appreciate this comment! We have revised the introduction to provide additional information as following:

“Vibrios inhabit seawater, estuaries, bays, and coastal waters, regions full of metal ions such as magnesium (Kumarage et al., 2022). Magnesium is the second most dissolved element in seawater after sodium. At a salinity of 3.5% seawater, the magnesium concentration is about 54 mM (Potis, 1968), and in deep seawater, can be as high as 2,500 mM (Wang et al., 2024). Vibrio parahaemolyticus and V. alginilyticus are two representative Vibrio pathogens that infect humans and aquatic animals, resulting in illness and economic loss, respectively (Grimes, 2020). (Fluoro)quinolones such as balofloxacin are used to treat Vibrio infection, however, resistance has emerged due to overuse (Suyamud et al., 2024). Indeed, (fluoro)quinolones are one of China's two primary residual chemicals associated with aquaculture (Liu et al., 2017). Vibrio can develop quinolone resistance through mutations in the DNA gyrase gene or through plasmid-mediated mechanisms (Dutta et al., 2021). Thus, the use of V. parahaemolyticus and V. alginilyticus as bacterial representatives, and balofloxacin as a quinolone-based antibacterial representative, can help to define novel magnesium-dependent phenotypic resistance mechanisms of pathogenic Vibrio species.”

On Page 2, line 34: The abstract contains some undefined abbreviations, such as 'PE' and 'PG', which should be explained. 

We appreciate this comment! We explain the PE and PG in the revised abstract as following:

“phosphatidylethanolamine (PE) biosynthesis is reduced and phosphatidylglycerol (PG)”

On Page 2, line 31-32: For the statement "Exogenous supplementation of fatty acids confirm the role of fatty acids in antibiotic resistance…" it would be beneficial to specify whether the fatty acids were saturated or unsaturated. 

Response, We appreciate this comment! We revise the sentence as following:

“Exogenous supplementation of unsaturated and saturated fatty acids increased and decreased bacterial susceptibility to antibiotics, respectively, confirming the role of fatty acids in antibiotic resistance.”

The potential effects of the specific ions (SO4 and Cl2) present in the Mg2SO4 and MgCl2 compounds used in the study were not discussed. It would be useful to understand if these ions had any influence on the observed outcomes.

We appreciate this comment! We revise the sentence as following:

“However, the MIC for BLFX was higher in ASWT medium supplemented with Mg2SO4 or MgCl2 than in LB medium (Fig 1B). And Mg2SO4 or MgCl2 had no

difference on MIC, suggesting it is Mg2+ not other ions contribute to the MIC change.”

On Page 8, line 141: The heading of Figure 2, "Mg2+ elevates intracellular Mg2+," seems redundant and could be revised for clarity or modified. 

We appreciate this comment! Figure 2 is now moved to supplementary figure as Suppl. Fig 2. The title is revised as following:

“Figure 2. Mg2+ decreases balofloxacin uptake.”

On Page 4, line 91: some terms/abbreviations, such as 'LB' and 'M9,' require expansion or definition to ensure the reader's understanding.

We appreciate this comment! We include the expansion for LB and M9 in the  revised manuscript as following:

“Luria-Bertani medium (LB medium)” and “M9 minimal medium (M9 medium)”

Page 4, line 92: The real seawater composition used in the experiments should be supported by a reference.

We appreciate this comment! We provide the reference in the revised manuscript as following:

““artificial seawater” (ASWT) medium that included the major ion species in marine water (Wilson, 1975) (LB medium plus 210 mM NaCl, 35 mM Mg2SO4, 7 mM KCl, and 7 mM CaCl2)”

Page 4 line, number 93: the he full names of the bacterial strains (e.g., ATCC33787 and VP01) should be provided instead of just the strain numbers.

We appreciate this comment! We revised the sentence as following:

“To investigate whether this mineral impacts antibiotic activity, the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of V. alginolyticus ATCC33787 and V. parahaemolyticus VP01, which we referred as ATCC33787 and VP01 afterwards,”

Finally, there appears to be a potential contradiction between the statements on page 12, lines 211-212 and 214-216, regarding the effects of Mg2+ on the synthesis of unsaturated fatty acids. Further explanation may be needed to reconcile these seemingly contradictory points.

We appreciate this comment! For line 221-226, which was previously line 211-212, is about the gene expression for fatty acid biosynthesis. While, Line 228 and 233, which was previously line 214-216 is about the gene expression for fatty acid degradation. We agree that the previous description is a little bit confuse. We revise the sentence to emphasize that we focus on fatty acid degradation so that the readers can tell them apart. 

In the text, we revised it as following:

“In addition, we also quantified gene expression during fatty acid degradation to determine whether Mg2+ affects this process”  In the figure legend, we also indicate that 

“H. qRT-PCR for the expression of genes encoding fatty acid degradation in the absence or presence of the indicated concentrations of MgCl2”

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper Homan et al used mouse models of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease and different specific target deletions in cells to rule out the role of Complement 3a Receptor 1 in the pathogenesis of disease. They provided limited evidence and only descriptive results that despite C3aR being relevant in different contexts of inflammation, however, these tenets did not hold true.

Weaknesses:

(1) The results are based on readouts showing that C3aR is not involved in the pathogenesis of liver metabolic disease.

(2) The description of the mouse models they used to validate their findings is not clear. Lysm-cre mice - which are claimed to delete C3aR in (?) macrophages are not specific for these cells, and the genetic strategy to delete C3aR in Kupffer cells is not clear.

(3) Taking this into account, it is very challenging to determine the validity of these data, also considering that they are merely descriptive and correlative.

We generated 2 different cohorts of mice using LysM-Cre (Jackson Strain #004781) to drive deletion in all macrophages and Clec4f-Cre (Jackson Strain #033296) to specifically ablate C3ar1 in Kupffer cells. These experimental models have been clearly defined in the revised manuscript on pages 5 and 7 and in the methods section (page 10). The reviewer’s point is well taken that the LysM-Cre transgene can also be active in granulocytes and some dendritic cells. Even so, despite deletion of C3ar1 in macrophages and other granulocytes, we do not see a major effect on hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in this GAN diet induced model of MASLD/MASH. This was a somewhat surprising finding. We do not agree that our findings are correlative. We specifically ablated C3aR1 in macrophages or Kupffer cells and found no significant differences in the major readouts of steatosis and fibrosis for MASLD/MASH between control and knockout mice. It is possible that in other models of liver injury that we did not test (e.g., short-term treatment with a hepatotoxin such as carbon tetrachloride), there may be differences in liver injury in mice lacking C3ar1 in macrophages, but the GAN diet model has been shown to better parallel the gene expression changes in human MAFLD/MASH. This has been added to the discussion (page 9).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Homan et al. examined the effect of macrophage- or Kupffer cell-specific C3aR1 KO on MASLD/MASH-related metabolic or liver phenotypes.

Strengths:

Established macrophage- or Kupffer cell-specific C3aR1 KO mice.

Weaknesses:

Lack of in-depth study; flaws in comparisons between KC-specific C3aR1KO and WT in the context of MASLD/MASH, because MASLD/MASH WT mice likely have a low abundance of C3aR1 on KCs.

Homan et al. reported a set of observation data from macrophage or Kupffer cell-specific C3aR1KO mice. Several questions and concerns as follows could challenge the conclusions of this study:

(1) As C3aR1 is robustly repressed in MASLD or MASH liver, GAN feeding likely reduced C3aR1 abundance in the liver of WT mice. Thus, it is not surprising that there were no significant differences in liver phenotypes between WT vs. C3aR1KO mice after prolonged GAN diet feeding. It would give more significance to the study if restoring C3aR1 abundance in KCs in the context of MASLD/MASH.

GAN diet feeding resulted in higher liver C3ar1 compared to regular diet (Figure 1H). This thus became an impetus for studying the effects of C3ar1 deletion in macrophages or Kupffer cells, which are responsible for the majority of liver C3ar1 expression, in MASLD/MASH (Figures 2B and 3H). This point has been added to the text on page 5.

(2) Would C3aR1KO mice develop liver abnormalities after a short period of GAN diet feeding?

We did not assess if short term GAN diet feeding resulted in significant differences in liver abnormalities in the C3ar1 macrophage or Kupffer cell knockout mice. Perhaps the reviewer’s point is that perhaps with shorter periods of GAN diet feeding there may be a phenotype in the KO mice. We agree that this is entirely possible, though with shorter feeding timeframes what is typically seen is hepatic steatosis without fibrosis. Nevertheless, the most important element in our opinion for a disease preventing or modifying model lies with the longer-term GAN diet feeding. With long term GAN diet feeding that has been previously shown to model human MASLD/MASH, we did not observe significant differences in liver abnormalities with the KO mice. This has been added to the discussion (page 8).

(3) What would be the liver macrophage phenotypes in WT vs C3aR1KO mice after GAN feeding?

Similar to the above point, given the lack of a major MASLD/MASH phenotype in hepatic steatosis and fibrosis, we did not further profile the liver macrophage profiles of the macrophage or Kupffer cell C3ar1 KO mice with GAN feeding.

(4) In Fig 1D, >25wks GAN feeding had minimal effects on female body weight gain. These GAN-fed female mice also develop NASLD/MASH liver abnormalities?

We thank the reviewer for this question. In general, female GAN-fed mice develop milder MASLD/MASH abnormalities. We have included additional data in the revised manuscript in Figure S4. These results show no to minimal development of a MASLD/MASH gene signature.

(5) Would C3aR1KO result in differences in liver phenotypes, including macrophage population/activation, liver inflammation, lipogenesis, in lean mice?

We have provided additional data further characterizing liver inflammation, lipogenesis and macrophages in macrophage C3ar1 KO mice under lean/regular diet conditions in Figure 2K. These results show a potential trend but no substantial development of a MASLD/MASH gene signature.

(6) The authors should provide more information regarding the generation of KC-specific C3aR1KO. Which Cre mice were used to breed with C3aR1 flox mice?

Clec4f-Cre transgenic mice were used to generate Kupffer cell specific KO of C3ar1. This has been clarified and explicitly stated in the revised manuscript on page 7 and in the methods section.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

These data should be repeated using a more established model of Kupffer cell target deletion via Clec4-F mice.

Our data with Kupffer cell C3ar1 deletion is indeed done with Clec4f-Cre transgenic mice. This has been clarified in the revised manuscript on page 7 and in the methods section.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Typo: "iver" in the abstract

(2) Line 97, "GAN diet I" should be "GAN diet"?

These points have been corrected in the revised manuscript.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review): 

Summary: 

Recent years have seen spectacular and controversial claims that loss of function of the RNA splicing factor Ptbp1 can efficiently reprogram astrocytes into functional neurons that can rescue motor defects seen in 6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA)-induced mouse models of Parkinson's disease (PD). This latest study is one of a series that fails to reproduce these observations, but remarkably also reports that neuronal-specific loss of function of Ptbp1 both induces expression of dopaminergic neuronal markers in striatal neurons and rescues motor defects seen in 6-OHDA-treated mice. The claims, if replicated, are remarkable and identify a straightforward and potentially translationally relevant mechanism for treating motor defects seen in PD models. However, while the reported behavioral effects are strong and were collected without sample exclusion, other claims made here are less convincing. In particular, no evidence that Ptbp1 loss of function actually occurs in striatal neurons is provided, and the immunostaining data used to claim that dopaminergic markers are induced in striatal neurons is not convincing. Furthermore, no characterization of the molecular identity of Ptbp1-deficient striatal neurons is provided using single-cell RNA-Seq or spatial transcriptomics, making it difficult to conclude that these cells are indeed adopting a dopaminergic phenotype. 

Overall, while the claims of behavioral rescue of 6-OHDA-treated mice appear compelling, it is essential that these be independently replicated as soon as possible before further studies on this topic are carried out. Insights into the molecular mechanisms by which neuronalspecific loss of function of Ptbp1 induces behavioral rescue are lacking, however. Moreover, the claims of induction of neuronal identity in striatal neurons by Ptbp1 require considerable additional work to be convincing.

We thank the reviewer for the detailed analysis of our study. Please find our answers to the points raised by the reviewer below in blue.

Strengths of the study: 

(1) The effect size of the behavioral rescue in the stepping and cylinder tests is strong and significant, essentially restoring 6-OHDA-lesioned mice to control levels.

(2) Since the neurotoxic effects of 6-OHDA treatment are highly variable, the fact that all behavioral data was collected blinded and that no samples were excluded from analysis increases confidence in the accuracy of the results reported here. 

We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback and acknowledgement of the strengths of our study. We undertook several optimization steps in the surgery, post-operative care, and handling of the animals for behavior experiments to ensure high reproducibility of our experiments.

Weaknesses of the study:  

(1) Neurons express relatively little Ptbp1. Indeed, cellular expression levels as measured by scRNA-Seq are substantially below those of astrocytes and other non-neuronal cell types, and Ptbp1 immunoreactivity has not been observed in either striatal or midbrain neurons (e.g. Hoang, et al. Nature 2023). This raises the question of whether any recovery of Th expression is indeed mediated by the loss of function of Ptbp1 rather than by off-target effects. AAVmediated rescue of Ptbp1 expression could help clarify this.

In the original manuscript, we delivered control vectors that only express the ABE to 6-OHDAlesioned mice (labeled as AAV-ctrl) and did not detect TH positive cells in the midbrain or striatum of control mice or rescue of spontaneous motor skills. We can therefore exclude that the delivery procedure, AAV-PHP.eB capsid, or ABE expression caused adverse effects leading to induction of TH expression and functional rescue of spontaneous motor behaviors in PD mice. To further exclude that these effects were caused by off-target editing, we experimentally determined off-target binding sites of our sgRNA (sgRNA-ex3) using GUIDEseq and subsequently analyzed these sites in treated animals by NGS (Figure 3 – supplement 3). While two off-target sites were identified, it is unlikely that base editing at these sites caused the observed phenotypes. One off-target site was identified in the myopalladin (Mypn) gene, which encodes for a muscle-specific protein that plays a role in regulating the structure and growth of skeletal and cardiac muscle (Filomena et al., 2021, 2020).  The other site is not located in a coding region, but in an intron of the ankyrin-1 (Ank1) gene, encoding for an adaptor protein linking membrane proteins to the underlying cytoskeleton (Cunha and Mohler, 2009). Even though this gene is also expressed in neurons, base editing within this intronic region did not lead to changes in transcript levels (Figure 3 – supplement 3). Thus, the induction of TH expression upon adenine base editing with sgRNA-ex3 is likely a direct consequence of PTBP1 downregulation.

Further supporting this conclusion, in the revised manuscript we additionally show PTBP1 downregulation at the RNA and protein level in the SNc and striatum after base editor treatment (Figure 2 – figure supplement 5; figure 3 – supplement 2).

(2) It is not clear why dopaminergic neurons, which are not normally found in the striatum, are observed following Ptbp1 knockout. This is very similar to the now-debunked claims made in Zhou, et al. Cell 2020, but here performed using the hSyn rather than GFAP mini promoter to control AAV expression. While this is the most dramatic and potentially translationally relevant claim of the study, this claim is extremely surprising and lacks any clear mechanistic explanation for why it might happen in the first place.  

We agree with the reviewer that our study does not provide mechanistic insights into how Ptbp1 downregulation in neurons leads to the induction of dopaminergic markers in the striatum. As we believe that this is not within the scope of a revision, we discuss potential follow-up experiments in the discussion section of the revised manuscript.

This observation is even more surprising in light of reports that antisense oligonucleotidemediated knockdown of Ptbp1, which should have affected both neuronal and glial Ptbp1 expression, failed to induce expression of dopaminergic neuronal markers in the striatum (Chen, et al. eLife 2022). Selective loss of function of Ptbp1 in striatal and midbrain astrocytes likewise results in only modest changes in gene expression. 

Using 6-OHDA lesioned Aldh1l1-CreERT2;Rpl22lsl-HA mice, the Chen et al. study (eLife 2022) assessed potential astrocyte to neuron conversion by quantifying the presence of HA-labeled neurons after ASO-mediated knockdown of Ptbp1. Even though they did not detect HApositive neurons in the SNc, suggesting absence of astrocyte to neuron conversion, the images in Figure 4D reveal TH positive cells in the lesioned hemisphere, similar to our observations in Figure 2B-D. While it cannot be excluded that these TH positive cells are remnants from an incomplete 6-OHDA lesion, they could also be endogenous neurons with induced expression of dopaminergic markers after ASO-mediated knockdown of Ptbp1. Furthermore, Chen et al. performed the apomorphine test to assess changes in motor skills, which did not reveal an improvement in our study either.

It is critically important that this claim be independently replicated, and that additional data be provided to conclusively show that striatal neurons are indeed expressing dopaminergic markers.

Our behavior and immunofluorescence experiments involving mice injected into the striatum were performed with two independently generated cohorts of 6-OHDA mice. In detail, the 6OHDA mice were generated by two independent surgeons from different labs (>6 months between experiments of these cohorts), leading to comparable behavioral outcomes before and after treatment. Subsequent behavior and immunofluorescence experiments with each cohort were performed and analyzed by two independent and blinded researchers, showing comparable results.

(3) More generally, since multiple spectacular and irreproducible claims of single-step glial-toneuron reprogramming have appeared in high-profile journals in recent years, a consensus has emerged that it is essential to comprehensively characterize the identity of "transformed" cells using either single-cell RNA-Seq or spatial transcriptomics (e.g. Qian, et al. FEBS J 2021; Wang and Zhang, Dev Neurobiol 2022). These concerns apply equally to claims of neuronal subtype conversion such as those advanced here, and it is essential to provide these same datasets. 

In the revised version, we have analyzed the expression of additional neuronal markers in TH positive cells of the striatum using 4i imaging. Briefly, our results showed that the vast majority of TH-expressing cells also expressed the markers DAT and NEUN, further corroborating the neuronal and dopaminergic identity of these cells. Additional analysis revealed that this TH/DAT/NEUN expressing cell population expressed markers of GABAergic neurons, either of medium spiny neurons (~50%) and various types of interneurons (~50%). While our 4i analysis has allowed us to broadly classify these TH-expressing populations, we agree that detailed transcriptional analysis at the single cell level is required to understand the molecular mechanisms underlying the generation of TH positive cells. These analyses are, however, not within the scope of a revision and would require a thorough dedicated study. We have added these results and discussion points to the revised manuscript.

(4) Low-power images are generally lacking for immunohistochemical data shown in Figures 3 and 4, which makes interpretation difficult. DAPI images in Figure 3C do not appear nuclear. Immunostaining for Th, DAT, and Dcx in Figure 4 shows a high background and is difficult to interpret. 

We thank the reviewer for closely evaluating these images and suggestions for improvement. In the revised manuscript, we provide low power images and higher magnification insets as requested to allow for easier interpretation.

(5) Insights into the mechanism by which neuronal-specific loss of Ptbp1 function induces either functional recovery, or dopaminergic markers in striatal neurons, is lacking.

In the revised manuscript, we provide a more detailed discussion of mechanisms that could potentially be involved in the functional recovery or expression of dopaminergic markers. However, deciphering the exact molecular mechanisms underlying these observations requires thorough transcriptional analysis at the single cell level, which is out of scope of this revision.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary: 

The manuscript by Bock and colleagues describes the generation of an AAV-delivered adenine base editing strategy to knockdown PTBP1 and the behavioral and neurorestorative effects of specifically knocking down striatal or nigral PTBP1 in astrocytes or neurons in a mouse model of Parkinson's disease. The authors found that knocking down PTBP1 in neurons, but not astrocytes, and in striatum, but not nigra, results in the phenotypic reorganization of neurons to TH+ cells sufficient to rescue motor phenotypes, though insufficient to normalize responses to dopaminomimetic drugs.

Strengths: 

The manuscript is generally well-written and adds to the growing literature challenging previous findings by Qian et al., 2020 and Zhou et al., 2020 indicating that astrocytic downregulation of PTBP1 can induce conversion to dopaminergic neurons in the midbrain and improve parkinsonian symptoms. The base editing approach is interesting and potentially more therapeutically relevant than previous approaches.

Weaknesses: 

The manuscript has several weaknesses in approach and interpretation. In terms of approach, the animal model utilized, the 6-OHDA model, though useful to examine dopaminergic cell loss, exhibits accelerated neurodegeneration and none of the typical pathological hallmarks (synucleinopathy, Lewy bodies, etc.) compared to the typical etiology of Parkinson's disease, limiting its translational interpretation. 

We thank the reviewer for the detailed assessment of our study and pinpointing its current weaknesses. Please find our answers to all comments below in blue.

We agree with the reviewer that the 6-OHDA model lacks the typical pathological hallmarks of PD. Nevertheless, we chose this model for two reasons:

i) The 6-OHDA model was used by both Qian et al. (2020) and Zhou et al. (2020). To allow comparison of our results to these studies, it was crucial to use the same model. Notably, the 6-OHDA model was also used by Chen et al. (2022) and Hoang et al. (2023) for comparison to the two studies from 2020.

ii) The 6-OHDA model is straightforward to generate and displays robust motor impairments for evaluation of potential therapeutic effects of neuroregeneration treatment approaches. We therefore believe that the model is well-suited to analyze the cellular and behavioral effects (specifically motor skills) of PTBP1 downregulation. 

In future studies, it would be critical to include models that also display typical pathological hallmarks of the disease to further evaluate the therapeutic effect of this base editing approach. These experiments are, however, not within the scope of this study, which was aimed to focus on the cellular and behavioral effects of PTBP1 downregulation. 

In addition, there is no confirmation of a neuronal or astrocytic knockdown of PTBP1 in vivo; all base editing validation experiments were completed in cell lines. 

In the revised manuscript, we assess in vivo base editing efficiencies at the Ptbp1 target site in the SNc (AAV-hsyn, 15.6%) and striatum (AAV-hysn, 21.1%). Furthermore, we assessed in vivo Ptbp1 downregulation at the RNA and protein level to complement our in vitro data (Figure 2 – figure supplement 5; figure 3 – supplement 2).

Finally, it is unclear why the base editing approach was used to induce loss-of-function rather than a cell-type specific knockout, if the goal is to assess the effects of PTBP1 loss in specific neurons. 

We expressed base editors under cell-type specific promoter to induce a reliable loss-offunction mutation at the Ptbp1 exon-intron junction in neurons or astrocytes. Performing these mutations with Cas9 nucleases instead would have had potential limitations and risks, including i) indel mutations do not always lead to a frameshift and loss-of-function despite high indel formation at the targeted site, ii) nucleases induce DNA double strand breaks, which can have serious side effects (e.g. chromosomal rearrangements or translocations), and iii) ‘mosaicisms’ as edited cells contain different indel mutations, which may result in different effects and thus complicate analysis of the downstream effects. We discuss these points in the revised manuscript.  

In terms of interpretation, the conclusion by the authors that PTBP1 knockdown has little likelihood to be therapeutically relevant seems overstated, particularly since they did observe a beneficial effect on motor behavior. We know that in PD, patients often display negligible symptoms until 50-70% of dopaminergic input to the striatum is lost, due to compensatory activity of remaining dopaminergic cells. Presumably, a small recovery of dopaminergic neurons would have an outsized effect on motor ability and may improve the efficacy of dopaminergic drugs, particularly levodopa, at lower doses, averting many problematic side effects. Since striatal dopamine was assessed by whole-tissue analysis, which is not necessarily reflective of synaptic dopamine availability, it is difficult to assess whether the ~10% increase in TH+ cells in the striatum was sufficient to improve dopamine function. However, the improvement in motor activity suggests that it was.

As pointed out by the reviewer, it is difficult to estimate the therapeutic effect and importance of a ~10% increase in TH+ cells for PD patient. Guided by the reviewer’s suggestion, we have included a more in-depth discussion of our results and its potential therapeutic value as well as outstanding questions for future studies in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study explores the use of an adenine base editing strategy to knock down PTBP1 in astrocytes and neurons of a Parkinson's disease mouse model, as a potential AAV-BE therapy. The results indicate that editing Ptbp1 in neurons, but not astrocytes, leads to the formation of tyrosine hydroxylase (TH)+ cells, rescuing some motor symptoms.

Several aspects of the manuscript stand out positively. Firstly, the clarity of the presentation. The authors communicate their ideas and findings in a clear and understandable manner, making it easier for readers to follow. 

The Materials and methods section is well-elaborated, providing sufficient detail for reproducibility. 

The logical flow of the manuscript makes sense, with each section building upon the previous one coherently.

The ABE strategy employed by the authors appears sound, and the manuscript presents a coherent and well-supported argument.

Positively, some of the data in this study effectively counteracts previous work in line with more recent publications, demonstrating the authors' ability to contribute to the ongoing conversation in the field.

We thank the reviewer for appreciating the effort we have put into this study. Please find below a point-by-point reply to the weaknesses raised by the reviewer. 

However, while the in vitro data yields promising results, it may have been overly optimistic to assume that the efficiencies observed in dividing cells will directly translate to in vivo conditions. This consideration is important given the added complexities of vector optimization, different cell types targeted in vitro versus in vivo, as well as unknown intrinsic limitations of the base editing technology. 

We agree with the reviewer that in vitro base editing efficiencies might not directly translate to in vivo editing outcomes. We therefore assessed in vivo base editing efficiencies at the Ptbp1 locus and PTBP1 downregulation in the striatum and midbrain. Our data revealed that in vivo base editing activity was lower than in our in vitro setting (in vitro: Figure 1; figure 1 – figure supplement 2; in vivo: figure 2 – figure supplement 5; figure 3 – supplement 2). However, we believe that these rates are slightly underestimated since we sequenced DNA isolated from the whole tissue (striatum or SNc) and not from purified astrocytes or neurons. Moreover, we could demonstrate that editing led to a reduction of Ptbp1 transcript and PTBP1 protein level (Figure 2 – figure supplement 5; figure 3 – supplement 2).

In addition, certain aspects of the manuscript would benefit from a more in-depth and comprehensive discussion rather than being only briefly touched upon. Such a discussion would enhance the relevance of the obtained results and provide the foundation for improvement when using similar approaches.

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we included a more in-depth discussion of our results in the revised manuscript.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewing Editor (Recommendations for the Authors):

A summary of key recommendations that might improve the eLife assessment in a subsequent submission are provided below, as a guide to help the authors focus on changes that might enhance the strength of evidence (e.g., from "incomplete" to "solid").

(1) Provide further explanation of the mechanistic relationship between the downregulation of Ptbp1 and TH+ dopaminergic neuron reprogramming. Additional discussion of this topic should also be included.

(2) Demonstrate proof of editing in the intended targeted cells in vitro and/or in vivo.

(3) Show evidence of successful Base Editor delivery in vivo.

(4) Perform a deeper characterization of TH+ cells in vivo and provide a more thorough discussion of the identity of the targeted cells. This may include an exploration of whether TH+ cells detected are TH+ interneurons and/or establish their identity based on transcriptomics or a similar approach.

(5) Provide better-quality representative images supporting the quantitative data.

(6) Please include full statistical reporting including exact p-values wherever possible alongside the summary statistics (test statistic and df) and 95% confidence intervals. These should be reported for all key questions and not only when the p-value is less than 0.05 in the main manuscript.

In the revised manuscript, we provided 1) suggestions of the mechanistic relationship between Ptbp1 knockdown, dopamine synthesis, and the functional rescue of spontaneous behaviors, 2) proof of in vivo base editing and successful base editor delivery, 3) deeper characterization of TH-expressing cells in vivo using 4i imaging, 4) better quality images, and 5) full statistical reporting.  

Individual Reviewer recommendations for the authors are included below.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Confirm loss of Ptbp1 function in infected striatal neurons. Single-cell RNA-Seq or spatial transcriptomic analysis must be performed to characterize the identity of the edited striatal neurons. The quality of the immunostaining in Figures 3 and 4 needs to be improved, and lowpower images provided. Were eLife a conventional journal, I would have insisted on all these being included prior to publication. Please also arrange for independent replication of the behavioral rescue and induction of dopaminergic marker gene expression in the striatum. 

In the revised manuscript, we confirmed Ptbp1 downregulation at the tissue level in the SNc and striatum by RT-qPCR and western blot and included low-power images for easier interpretation. Additionally, we assessed expression of additional neuronal markers on striatal sections using 4i imaging and found that TH/DAT/NEUN positive populations either expressed markers of medium spiny neurons or interneurons. We have included these results in the revised manuscript.

Our behavioral and imaging experiments involving mice injected into the striatum were in fact performed with two independently generated cohorts of 6-OHDA mice. In detail, the 6OHDA mice were generated by two independent surgeons from different labs (>6 months between experiments of these two cohorts), leading to comparable behavioral outcomes before and after treatment. The experiments with each cohort were performed and analyzed by two independent and blinded researchers, yielding comparable results. 

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) In the introduction, lines 43-45: This statement is inaccurate. Current treatment strategies do not focus on slowing or halting disease progression. There is currently no accepted therapy that does this. Dopaminergic therapies and deep brain stimulation can compensate for circuitry dysfunction as a result of dopamine cell loss but do not slow the disease. The referenced paper used is older and does not refer to new treatments for PD and is a summary article for a special issue of the Disease Models and Mechanisms journal. Please ensure that all references used are appropriate for the statement they are attached to.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have rephrased this statement accordingly and provided an appropriate reference describing current treatment strategies.

(2) The number of TH+ cells in the intact nigra seems low compared to published data. Suggest a stereological approach may be better than the Abercrombie method.

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we re-quantified the number of TH positive cells using a stereological approach (Nv:Vref method). We have included these results in the revised manuscript. 

(3) Have the authors considered that the striatal TH+ cells could be TH+ striatal interneurons? 

In the revised manuscript, we performed additional 4i imaging experiments to further analyze the identity of the TH positive cells in the striatum. Briefly, we found that TH/DAT/NEUN positive populations either expressed markers of GABAergic medium spiny neurons or interneurons. We have added these results to the revised manuscript (Figure 4). 

(4) The Western blot shown in Figure 1 C for C8-D1A has some abnormalities and makes it difficult to judge the bands. Also, for 1B, the legends are difficult to see.

In the revised manuscript, we have repeated the respective western blot to make interpretation of the bands easier, and adapted the legends in Figure 1B for better visibility.

(5) Figure 2: Please show representative images for the GFAP-targeted editing.

Representative images of the GFAP-targeted groups can be found in Figure 2 – figure supplement 3.

(6) Figure 2, Supplement 3: Please include quantification.

The quantifications for these images can be found in Figure 2D and 2F. 

(7) Figure 1, Supplement 2: The gene name in A is misspelled.

Thank you for point this out. In the revised manuscript, we added the correct gene name.

(8) Line 267-276: As previously indicated, the statement here is overstated based on the data provided. In addition, the citation provided to justify this claim (Kannari et al., 2000) is an odd choice as the dosage of L-DOPA utilized was not therapeutically relevant (50 mg/kg). A better indication of efficacy would be the return to basal, unaffected levels rather than the fold increase in dopamine levels. A better comparison would be Lindgren et al., 2010 who showed that L-DOPA-treated animals with a physiologically relevant dose (6 mg/kg) that did not induce dyskinesia, showed a return to basal, non-lesioned dopamine levels in the striatum after LDOPA by microdialysis. To really support this claim, the authors would need to use an approach that could measure synaptic dopamine availability, rather than whole-tissue dopamine levels, such as microdialysis, fiber photometry, or an equivalent.

Following the reviewer’s suggestions, we replaced this reference with Lindgren et al. (2010) and provide a more detailed interpretation of our results and remaining questions for future studies.  

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Major and minor issues are discussed below by section.

INTRODUCTION and AIM - Lines 36-73

- The authors effectively contextualize the aim of their study by providing comprehensive background information on previous research regarding cell 'reprogramming' into dopaminergic neurons in the SNc. However, the introduction lacks contextualization of TH+ cells and PD. For readers who may not be well-versed in the Parkinson's field, understanding the importance of TH (Tyrosine Hydroxylase) may be challenging, since the term "TH+ cells" is mentioned only once by the end of the introduction (line 71), to then become a key element in the entire study.

- Providing a brief explanation of the role of Tyrosine Hydroxylase in the synthesis of L-DOPA would facilitate the reader's comprehension of why the presence of TH+ cells following Base Editing treatment is relevant.

- Further elaboration on the relationship between the downregulation of the general RNA binding protein, PTBP1, and the specific dopaminergic-related readout, TH, would improve coherence and strengthen the linkage between the introductory section and the results.

We thank the reviewer for the constructive suggestions. In the introduction of the revised manuscript, we describe the meaning and importance of TH in the context of dopamine synthesis and PD. Likewise, we briefly outlined the importance of the PTBP1/nPTBP regulatory loops during neuronal differentiation and maturation. 

RESULTS 

Result Section 1 - Line 75-109

- Thorough screening of sgRNAs targeting splice junctions across the Ptbp1 gene in HEPA cells, shows the achievement of high levels of editing (80-90%) with sgRNA-ex3 and sgRNAex7. 

- The data also indicates that editing translates into significant reductions in ptbp1 expression, along with an increase in the expression of genes repressed by PTBP1.

- Despite obtaining lower percentages of editing events in N2a neuroblastoma cells and the C8-D1A astroglial cell line, the differential expression levels of ptbp1 and the readout genes remain significant. However, the gRNA screening assay is performed in immortalized, dividing cells. 

- Providing proof that Adenosine Base Editing of Ptbp1 is successful in non-dividing cells (such as SNc and/or striatal primary neurons) would strengthen the case for the potential therapy in the intended cell type.

Following the reviewer’s comment, we show in vivo base editing rates in the SNc and striatum of treated PD mice in the revised manuscript (Figure 2 – figure supplement 5; figure 3 – supplement 2).

- Moreover, assessing the expression levels of tyrosine hydroxylase by qPCR after Ptbp1 base editing in vitro could help contextualize the use of TH+ detection as an in vivo readout and may help explain why the total number of TH+ cells is low after ABE treatment in vivo - as shown in following sections.

In the revised manuscript, we now provide quantifications of in vivo base editing efficiencies in the SNc (~15%) and striatum (~20%). As expected from these lower in vivo base editing rates, downregulation of Ptbp1 at the transcript and protein level was less pronounced compared to our in vitro experiments. It seems likely that higher base editing efficiency and more pronounced downregulation of Ptbp1 could lead to a larger population of TH expressing cells. We have added these results and interpretations to the revised manuscript.

- Furthermore, although ABEs are less prone to generating bystander and other nucleotide changes compared to CBEs, it is still possible. Figures 1 (line 811) and 1-supplement 2 (line 842) only show a brief window of the Sanger sequencing trace. Updating these figures to display a wider view of the sequencing trace would enhance transparency. If unwanted edits are detected, while they may not significantly alter the relevance, impact, or structure of the paper, they may become an important aspect of the discussion. 

Indeed, ABEs can induce bystander edits and we also detected such edits at the Ptbp1 target site. However, since our base editing strategy was designed to yield a loss of Ptbp1 function, bystander editing at the splice site was not a primary focus in our analysis. Nevertheless, we included CRISPResso output images showing the specific editing outcomes in a wider analysis window in the revised manuscript (Figure 3 – figure supplement 2). 

Result Section 2 - Lines 110-159

A split intein system is used in vivo with sgRNA-ex3, after updating the promoter to make it cell-specific: hSyn to restrict expression to neurons and GFAP to restrict expression to astrocytes. 

However, no other assay is performed to assess whether a) the promoter change and/or b) splitting Cas9 may affect the editing efficiency compared to their initial in vitro approach.

In the revised manuscript, we assessed the performance of the in vivo AAV vectors encoding the split intein ABE with sgRNA-ex3 in vitro in N2a and C8-D1A cells. Our results show that all vectors are functional and result in base editing at the target locus.

-  Addressing whether this is the case may explain the low number of TH+ cells observed in vivo. 

- The authors could also consider staining for Cas9 to address whether the low number of TH+cells could be attributed to a poor Cas9 delivery.

To confirm successful in vivo base editor delivery, we quantified in vivo base editing efficiencies in the SNc and striatum of PD mice. Our analysis revealed in vivo base editing efficiencies at both tissue sites, confirming that base editors were successfully delivered. Editing efficiencies were, however, substantially lower (Figure 2 – figure supplement 5; figure 3 – supplement 2).  than in our in vitro cell line setting (Figure 1; figure 1 – figure supplement 2). Even though tissue editing rates likely underestimate the cell type-specific editing rates in astrocytes or neurons, higher base editing rates would have likely resulted in a higher number of TH positive cells. We have added these results and their implications to the revised manuscript. 

-  Moreover, despite the presence of TH, in Figure 2 E,F authors examine the striatal innervation from newly generated TH+ cells in the SNc by Fluorescence Intensity (FI) to conclude that the edited cells do not form projections towards the striatum. Considering the low levels of TH+ positive cells obtained, the accumulation of gross FI might not be the most accurate way to assess the presence or absence of cell projections.

- Using another marker that stains the projections rather than the cell soma, and that is a marker of dopaminergic neurons, might be a better way to address this.

To address the reviewer’s comment, we analyzed the presence of potential dopaminergic fibers in the mfb, where projections are more concentrated (around the injection coordinates of 6-OHDA), using the dopaminergic marker DAT. In line with our previous observations in the striatum, we did not detect an increase in DAT fluorescence intensity upon treatment on the lesioned hemisphere (Figure 2 – figure supplement 4).  

Result Section 3 - Line 160-182

Minor issue

- The same dual split intein system is used in the striatum. However, in Figure 3 - Figure Supplement 1 - line 958 and in Figure 3 - Figure Supplement 4 - line 1000authors show the injection of 2x the viral genomes indicated along the manuscript. In previous experiments the SNc 2x108vg/animal was used whereas this figure shows 4x108vg/animal injected in the striatum. 

- The authors should clarify if the vg injected in the striatum was different from what they previously indicated.

Compared to injection in the SNc, the volume of vector injected in the striatum was doubled since the region is significantly larger. We clarified that the injected vector genomes were different between striatum and SNc in the revised manuscript.

Result Section 4- Line 183-220

In this section, the authors thoroughly examine the neuronal nature of TH+ cells through NeuN co-staining and iterative immunofluorescence imaging (4i). BrdU experiments are conducted to determine the origin of these cells, leading to the conclusion that TH+ cells derive from nondividing cells and express the neuronal marker DAT, characteristic of dopamine-producing neurons (DANs). Cell shape of the TH+ cells in the striatum and SNc is also evaluated measuring their Feret's diameter and their cell surface. Authors conclude there's heterogeneity in the TH+ cell population due to the presence of TH+/Neun- as well as differences in cell shape. 

However, their explanation of this heterogeneity is solely attributed to differences in the microenvironment and lacks further elaboration. Similarly, their observation that almost half the number of TH+ striatal cells after treatment express CTIP2 (Line 213 and Figure 4B), a marker for GABAergic medium spiny neurons, which they state as "interesting" (line 213) is not developed further. Delving deeper into these topics could strengthen the discussion.

In the revised manuscript, we provided a more in-depth discussion of the 4i imaging results and potential therapeutic implications. Additionally, we suggest follow-up experiments to analyze the identity, function, and molecular mechanisms underlying the expression of TH upon PTBP1 downregulation in future studies. 

Result Section 5- Line 221-243

Two drug-free and two drug-induced behavioral tests are conducted in control and treated animals to evaluate the restoration of motor functions following treatment. Consistent with their previous findings, only the treatment targeted to neurons resulted in the restoration of motor functions in drug-free behavioral tests. The rationale behind each test and its evaluation is clearly explained.

DISCUSSION 

- In the discussion section, the authors effectively re-examine their results contextualizing their data with previous studies in the field. However, it would be helpful at this point in the manuscript to reconsider the use of the term 'cell reprogramming,' as this study does not involve actual cell reprogramming. The concept "reprograming" entails the process of transforming adult cells into a stem cell-like state, to then differentiate them into a different cell type. As proven in section 4 by a BrdU proliferation assay, the targeted cells are differentiated neurons. Considering BrdU is administered 5 days after ABE treatment, if true cell reprogramming was taking place, there should be evidence of BrdU incorporation. Cell reprogramming or reprograming is mentioned 4 times in the manuscript (line 34, line 54, line 265, line 277). Therefore, using another terminology would be more accurate.

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we removed the term “cell reprograming” from the manuscript and rather describe it as induction of TH expression in endogenous neurons.

- As noted in the comments of section 4, a more thorough discussion about the various possibilities for heterogeneity would enhance the manuscript's contribution to the PD field.

In the revised manuscript, we provided a more in-depth discussion of the 4i imaging results and potential therapeutic implications. 

- Despite observing low numbers of TH+ cells, no significant rescue of drug-induced behaviors, and low levels of released dopamine, the authors merely state that these results make the therapy non-viable, but there is no further exploration or discussion. Whether the limitations lie in the ABE strategy itself, such as its efficiency in targeting and editing of differentiated neurons; or if the issues lie on the injection and delivery, is never discussed. A deeper argumentation on the possible underlying reasons for these challenges would greatly enhance the manuscript and contribute to the advancement of ABE therapies in the brain.

We believe that the efficacy of our base editing approach could be significantly enhanced by optimizing the delivery. Currently, we are using a dual AAV approach to deliver intein-split ABEs. Since this approach relies on the delivery of higher AAV doses to achieve cotransduction of a cell by two different AAVs, the efficiency could be significantly enhanced by using smaller Cas9 orthologues that can be delivered as a single AAV. Furthermore, in this study we performed a single injection into the dorsal striatum to deliver ABE-expressing AAVs. Performing multiple injections into the rostral, medial, and caudal regions of the striatum might allow us to transduce more cells and induce TH expression in a larger population of striatal neurons. We have included these points in the revised manuscript.

- While drug-induced behaviors are not recovered, the data demonstrates a rescue of spontaneous behaviors. Further discussion on the potential differences in circuitry underlying these variations in behavioral rescue would also enrich the manuscript's discussion.

In the revised manuscript, we provide suggestions for potential mechanisms involved in the rescue of spontaneous behavior vs. absence of rescue of drug-induced behaviors. 

FIGURES AND FIGURE SUPPLEMENTS

General minor issue - low magnification images in the following figures, make it difficult to visualize positive cells in tissue sections: Figure 2; Figure 2- supplement 1; Figure 2 - supplement 3, Figure 3- supplement 1. Adding a higher magnification imaging of positive cells in tissue sections of SNc and striatum might help with the visualization. 

As suggested by the reviewer, we included higher magnification images in the corresponding figures to improve interpretation of our results.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review): 

In the presented manuscript, the authors investigate how neural networks can learn to replay presented sequences of activity. Their focus lies on the stochastic replay according to learned transition probabilities. They show that based on error-based excitatory and balance-based inhibitory plasticity networks can selforganize towards this goal. Finally, they demonstrate that these learning rules can recover experimental observations from song-bird song learning experiments. 

Overall, the study appears well-executed and coherent, and the presentation is very clear and helpful. However, it remains somewhat vague regarding the novelty. The authors could elaborate on the experimental and theoretical impact of the study, and also discuss how their results relate to those of Kappel et al, and others (e.g., Kappel et al (doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003511))). 

We agree with the reviewer that our previous manuscript lacked comparison with previously published similar works. While Kappel et al. demonstrated that STDP in winner-take-all circuits can approximate online learning of hidden Markov models (HMMs), a key distinction from our model is that their neural representations acquire deterministic sequential activations, rather than exhibiting stochastic transitions governing Markovian dynamics. Specifically, in their model, the neural representation of state B would be different in the sequences ABC and CBA, resulting in distinct deterministic representations like ABC and C'B'A', where ‘A’ and ‘A'’ are represented by different neural states (e.g., activations of different cell assemblies). In contrast, our network learns to generate stochastically transitioning cell assemblies which replay Markovian trajectories of spontaneous activity obeying the learned transition probabilities between neural representations of states. For example, starting from reactivation from assembly ‘A’, there may be an 80% probability to transition to assembly ‘B’ and 20% to ‘C’. Although Kappel et al.'s model successfully solves HMMs, their neural representations do not themselves stochastically transition between states according to the learned model. Similar to the Kappel et al.'s model, while the models proposed in Barber (2002) and Barber and Agakov (2002) learn the Markovian statistics, these models learned a static spatiotemporal input patterns only and how assemblies of neurons show stochastic transition in spontaneous activity has been still unclear. In contrast with these models, our model captures the probabilistic neural state trajectories, allowing spontaneous replay of experienced sequences with stochastic dynamics matching the learned environmental statistics.

We have included new sentences for explain these in ll. 509-533 in the revised manuscript.

Overall, the work could benefit if there was either (A) a formal analysis or derivation of the plasticity rules involved and a formal justification of the usefulness of the resulting (learned) neural dynamics; 

We have included a derivation of our plasticity rules in ll. 630-670 in the revised manuscript. Consistent with our claim that excitatory plasticity updates the excitatory synapse to predict output firing rates, we have shown that the corresponding cost function measures the discrepancy between the recurrent prediction and the output firing rate. Similarly, for inhibitory plasticity, we defined the cost function that evaluates the difference between the excitatory and inhibitory potential within each neuron. We showed that the resulting inhibitory plasticity rule updates the inhibitory synapses to maintain the excitation-inhibition balance.

and/or (B) a clear connection of the employed plasticity rules to biological plasticity and clear testable experimental predictions. Thus, overall, this is a good work with some room for improvement. 

Our proposed plasticity mechanism could be implemented through somatodendritic interactions. Analogous to previous computational works (Urbanczik and Senn., 2014; Asabuki and Fukai., 2020; Asabuki et al., 2022), our model suggests that somatic responses may encode the stimulus-evoked neural activity states, while dendrites encode predictions based on recurrent dynamics that aim to minimize the discrepancy between somatic and dendritic activity. To directly test this hypothesis, future experimental studies could simultaneously record from both somatic and dendritic compartments to investigate how they encode evoked responses and predictive signals during learning (Francioni et al., 2022).

We have included new sentences for explain these in ll. 476-484 in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review): 

Summary: 

This work proposes a synaptic plasticity rule that explains the generation of learned stochastic dynamics during spontaneous activity. The proposed plasticity rule assumes that excitatory synapses seek to minimize the difference between the internal predicted activity and stimulus-evoked activity, and inhibitory synapses try to maintain the E-I balance by matching the excitatory activity. By implementing this plasticity rule in a spiking recurrent neural network, the authors show that the state-transition statistics of spontaneous excitatory activity agree with that of the learned stimulus patterns, which are reflected in the learned excitatory synaptic weights. The authors further demonstrate that inhibitory connections contribute to well-defined state transitions matching the transition patterns evoked by the stimulus. Finally, they show that this mechanism can be expanded to more complex state-transition structures including songbird neural data. 

Strengths: 

This study makes an important contribution to computational neuroscience, by proposing a possible synaptic plasticity mechanism underlying spontaneous generations of learned stochastic state-switching dynamics that are experimentally observed in the visual cortex and hippocampus. This work is also very clearly presented and well-written, and the authors conducted comprehensive simulations testing multiple hypotheses. Overall, I believe this is a well-conducted study providing interesting and novel aspects of the capacity of recurrent spiking neural networks with local synaptic plasticity. 

Weaknesses: 

This study is very well-thought-out and theoretically valuable to the neuroscience community, and I think the main weaknesses are in regard to how much biological realism is taken into account. For example, the proposed model assumes that only synapses targeting excitatory neurons are plastic, and uses an equal number of excitatory and inhibitory neurons. 

We agree with the reviewer. The network shown in the previous manuscript consists of an equal number of excitatory and inhibitory neurons, which seems to lack biological plausibility. Therefore, we first tested whether a biologically plausible scenario would affect learning performance by setting the ratio of excitatory to inhibitory neurons to 80% and 20% (Supplementary Figure 7a; left). Even in such a scenario, the network still showed structured spontaneous activity (Supplementary Figure 7a; center), with transition statistics of replayed events matching the true transition probabilities (Supplementary Figure 7a; right). We then asked whether the model with our plasticity rule applied to all synapses would reproduce the corresponding stochastic transitions. We found that the network can learn transition statistics but only under certain conditions. The network showed only weak replay and failed to reproduce the appropriate transition (Supplementary Fig. 7b) if the inhibitory neurons were no longer driven by the synaptic currents reflecting the stimulus, due to a tight balance of excitatory and inhibitory currents on the inhibitory neurons. We then tested whether the network with all synapses plastic can learn transition statistics if the external inputs project to the inhibitory neurons as well. We found that, when each stimulus pattern activates a non-overlapping subset of neurons, the network does not exhibit the correct stochastic transition of assembly reactivation (Supplementary Fig. 7c). Interestingly, when each neuron's activity is triggered by multiple stimuli and has mixed selectivity, the reactivation reproduced the appropriate stochastic transitions (Supplementary Fig. 7d).

We have included these new results as new Supplementary Figure 7 and they are explained in ll.215-230 in the revised manuscript.

The model also assumes Markovian state dynamics while biological systems can depend more on history. This limitation, however, is acknowledged in the Discussion. 

We have included the following sentence to provide a possible solution to this limitation: “Therefore, to learn higher-order stochastic transitions, recurrent neural networks like ours may need to integrate higher-order inputs with longer time scales.” in ll.557-559 in the revised manuscript. 

Finally, to simulate spontaneous activity, the authors use a constant input of 0.3 throughout the study. Different amplitudes of constant input may correspond to different internal states, so it will be more convincing if the authors test the model with varying amplitudes of constant inputs. 

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. In the revised manuscript, we have tested constant input with three different strengths. If the strength is moderate, the network showed accurate encoding of transition statistics in the spontaneous activity as we have seen in Fig.2. We have additionally shown that the weaker background input causes spontaneous activity with lower replay rate, which in turn leads to high variance of encoded transition, while stronger inputs make assembly replay transitions more uniform. We have included these new results as new Supplementary Figure 6 and they are explained in ll.211214 in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review): 

Summary: 

Asabuki and Clopath study stochastic sequence learning in recurrent networks of Poisson spiking neurons that obey Dale's law. Inspired by previous modeling studies, they introduce two distinct learning rules, to adapt excitatory-to-excitatory and inhibitory-to-excitatory synaptic connections. Through a series of computer experiments, the authors demonstrate that their networks can learn to generate stochastic sequential patterns, where states correspond to non-overlapping sets of neurons (cell assemblies) and the state-transition conditional probabilities are first-order Markov, i.e., the transition to a given next state only depends on the current state. Finally, the authors use their model to reproduce certain experimental songbird data involving highly-predictable and highly-uncertain transitions between song syllables. 

Strengths: 

This is an easy-to-follow, well-written paper, whose results are likely easy to reproduce. The experiments are clear and well-explained. The study of songbird experimental data is a good feature of this paper; finches are classical model animals for understanding sequence learning in the brain. I also liked the study of rapid task-switching, it's a good-to-know type of result that is not very common in sequence learning papers. 

Weaknesses: 

While the general subject of this paper is very interesting, I missed a clear main result. The paper focuses on a simple family of sequence learning problems that are well-understood, namely first-order Markov sequences and fully visible (nohidden-neuron) networks, studied extensively in prior work, including with spiking neurons. Thus, because the main results can be roughly summarized as examples of success, it is not entirely clear what the main point of the authors is. 

We apologize the reviewer that our main claim was not clear. While various computational studies have suggested possible plasticity mechanisms for embedding evoked activity patterns or their probability structures into spontaneous activity (Litwin-Kumar et al., Nat. Commun. 2014, Asabuki and Fukai., Biorxiv 2023), how transition statistics of the environment are learned in spontaneous activity is still elusive and poorly understood. Furthermore, while several network models have been proposed to learn Markovian dynamics via synaptic plasticity (Brea, et al. (2013); Pfister et al. (2004); Kappel et al. (2014)), they have been limited in a sense that the learned network does not show stochastic transition in a neural state space. For instance, while Kappel et al. demonstrated that STDP in winner-take-all circuits can approximate online learning of hidden Markov models (HMMs), a key distinction from our model is that their neural representations acquire deterministic sequential activations, rather than exhibiting stochastic transitions governing Markovian dynamics. Specifically, in their model, the neural representation of state B would be different in the sequences ABC and CBA, resulting in distinct deterministic representations like ABC and C'B'A', where ‘A’ and ‘A'’ are represented by different neural states (e.g., activations of different cell assemblies). In contrast, our network learns to generate stochastically transitioning cell assemblies that replay Markovian trajectories of spontaneous activity obeying the learned transition probabilities between neural representations of states. For example, starting from reactivation from assembly ‘A’, there may be an 80% probability to transition to assembly ‘B’ and 20% to ‘C’. Although Kappel et al.'s model successfully solves HMMs, their neural representations do not themselves stochastically transition between states according to the learned model. Similar to the Kappel et al.'s model, while the models proposed in Barber (2002) and Barber and Agakov (2002) learn the Markovian statistics, these models learned a static spatiotemporal input patterns only and how assemblies of neurons show stochastic transition in spontaneous activity has been still unclear. In contrast with these models, our model captures the probabilistic neural state trajectories, allowing spontaneous replay of experienced sequences with stochastic dynamics matching the learned environmental statistics.

We have explained this point in ll.509-533 in the revised manuscript.

Going into more detail, the first major weakness I see in this paper is the heuristic choice of learning rules. The paper studies Poisson spiking neurons (I return to this point below), for which learning rules can be derived from a statistical objective, typically maximum likelihood. For fully-visible networks, these rules take a simple form, similar in many ways to the E-to-E rule introduced by the authors. This more principled route provides quite a lot of additional understanding on what is to be expected from the learning process. 

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. To better demonstrate the function of our plasticity rules, we have included the derivation of the rules of synaptic plasticity in ll. 630-670 in the revised manuscript. Consistent with our claim that excitatory plasticity updates the excitatory synapse to predict output firing rates, we have shown that the corresponding cost function measures the discrepancy between the recurrent prediction and the output firing rate. Similarly, for inhibitory plasticity, we defined the cost function that evaluates the difference between the excitatory and inhibitory potential within each neuron. We showed that the resulting inhibitory plasticity rule updates the inhibitory synapses to maintain the excitation-inhibition balance.

For instance, should maximum likelihood learning succeed, it is not surprising that the statistics of the training sequence distribution are reproduced. Moreover, given that the networks are fully visible, I think that the maximum likelihood objective is a convex function of the weights, which then gives hope that the learning rule does succeed. And so on. This sort of learning rule has been studied in a series of papers by David Barber and colleagues [refs. 1, 2 below], who applied them to essentially the same problem of reproducing sequence statistics in recurrent fully-visible nets. It seems to me that one key difference is that the authors consider separate E and I populations, and find the need to introduce a balancing I-to-E learning rule. 

The reviewer’s understanding that inhibitory plasticity to maintain EI balance is one of a critical difference from previous works is correct. However, we believe that the most striking point of our study is that we have shown numerically that predictive plasticity rules enable recurrent networks to learn and replay the assembly activations whose transition statistics match those of the evoked activity. Please see our reply above.

Because the rules here are heuristic, a number of questions come to mind. Why these rules and not others - especially, as the authors do not discuss in detail how they could be implemented through biophysical mechanisms? When does learning succeed or fail? What is the main point being conveyed, and what is the contribution on top of the work of e.g. Barber, Brea, et al. (2013), or Pfister et al. (2004)? 

Our proposed plasticity mechanism could be implemented through somatodendritic interactions. Analogous to previous computational works (Senn, Asabuki), our model suggests that somatic responses may encode the stimulusevoked neural activity states, while dendrites encode predictions based on recurrent dynamics that aim to minimize the discrepancy between somatic and dendritic activity. To directly test this hypothesis, future experimental studies could simultaneously record from both somatic and dendritic compartments to investigate how they encode evoked responses and predictive signals during learning.

To address the point of the reviewer, we conducted addionnal simulations to test where the model fails. We found that the model with our plasticity rule applied to all synapses only showed faint replays and failed to replay the appropriate transition (Supplementary Fig. 7b). This result is reasonable because the inhibitory neurons were no longer driven by the synaptic currents reflecting the stimulus, due to a tight balance of excitatory and inhibitory currents on the inhibitory neurons. Our model predicts that mixed selectivity in the inhibitory population is crucial to learn an appropriate transition statistics (Supplementary Fig. 7d). Future work should clarify the role of synaptic plasticity on inhibitory neurons, especially plasticity at I to I synapses. We have explained this result as new supplementary Figure7 in the revised manuscript.

The use of a Poisson spiking neuron model is the second major weakness of the study. A chief challenge in much of the cited work is to generate stochastic transitions from recurrent networks of deterministic neurons. The task the authors set out to do is much easier with stochastic neurons; it is reasonable that the network succeeds in reproducing Markovian sequences, given an appropriate learning rule. I believe that the main point comes from mapping abstract Markov states to assemblies of neurons. If I am right, I missed more analyses on this point, for instance on the impact that varying cell assembly size would have on the findings reported by the authors.

The reviewer’s understanding is correct. Our main point comes from mapping Markov statistics to replays of cell assemblies. In the revised manuscript, we performed additional simulations to ask whether varying the size of the cell assemblies would affect learning. We ran simulations with two different configurations in the task shown in Figure 2. The first configuration used three assemblies with a size ratio of 1:1.5:2. After training, these assemblies exhibited transition statistics that closely matched those of the evoked activity (Supplementary Fig.4a,b). In contrast, the second configuration, which used a size ratio of 1:2:3, showed worse performance compared to the 1:1.5:2 case (Supplementary Fig.4c,d). These results suggest that the model can learn appropriate transition statistics as long as the size ratio of the assemblies is not drastically varied.

Finally, it was not entirely clear to me what the main fundamental point in the HVC data section was. Can the findings be roughly explained as follows: if we map syllables to cell assemblies, for high-uncertainty syllable-to-syllable transitions, it becomes harder to predict future neural activity? In other words, is the main point that the HVC encodes syllables by cell assemblies? 

The reviewer's understanding is correct. We wanted to show that if the HVC learns transition statistics as a replay of cell assemblies, a high-uncertainty syllable-to-syllable transition would make predicting future reactivations more difficult, since trial-averaged activities (i.e., poststimulus activities; PSAs) marginalized all possible transitions in the transition diagram.

(1) Learning in Spiking Neural Assemblies, David Barber, 2002. URL: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2002/file/619205da514e83f869515c782a328d3c-Paper.pdf  

(2) Correlated sequence learning in a network of spiking neurons usingmaximum likelihood, David Barber, Felix Agakov, 2002. URL: http://web4.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/D.Barber/publications/barber-agakovTR0149.pdf  

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

In more detail: 

A) Theoretical analysis 

The plasticity rules in the study are introduced with a vague reference to previous theoretical studies of others. Doing this, one does not provide any formal insight as to why these plasticity rules should enable one to learn to solve the intended task, and whether they are optimal in some respect. This becomes noticeable, especially in the discussion of the importance of inhibitory balance, which does not go into any detail, but rather only states that its required, both in the results and discussion sections. Another unclarity appears when error-based learning is discussed and compared to Hebbian plasticity, which, as you state, "alone is insufficient to learn transition probabilities". It is not evident how this claim is warranted, nor why error-based plasticity in comparison should be able to perform this (other than referring to the simulation results). Please either clarify formally (or at least intuitively) how plasticity rules result in the mentioned behavior, or alternatively acknowledge explicitly the (current) lack of intuition. 

The lack of formal discussion is a relevant shortcoming compared to previous research that showed very similar results with formally more rigorous and principled approaches. In particular, Kappel et al derived explicitly how neural networks can learn to sample from HMMs using STDP and winner-take-all dynamics. Even though this study has limitations, the relation with respect to that work should be made very clear; potentially the claims of novelty of some results (sampling) should be adjusted accordingly. See also Yanping Huang, Rajesh PN Rao (NIPS 2014), and possibly other publications. While it might be difficult to formally justify the learning rules post-hoc, it would be very helpful to the field if you very clearly related your work to that of others, where learning rules have been formally justified, and elaborate on the intuition of how the employed rules operate and interact (especially for inhibition). 

Lastly, while the importance of sampling learned transition probabilities is discussed, the discussion again remains on a vague level, characterized by the lack of references in the relevant paragraphs. Ideally, there should be a proof of concept or a formal understanding of how the learned behaviour enables to solve a problem that is not solved by deterministic networks. Please incorporate also the relation to the literature on neural sampling/planning/RL etc. and substantiate the claims with citations. 

We have included sentences in ll. 691-696 in the revised manuscript to explain that for Poisson spiking neurons, the derived learning rule is equivalent to the one that minimizes the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the distributions of output firing and the dendritic prediction, in our case, the recurrent prediction (Asabuki and Fukai; 2020). Thus, the rule suggests that the recurrent prediction learns the statistical model of the evoked activity, which in turn allows the network to reproduce the learned transition statistics.

We have also added a paragraph to discuss the differences between previously published similar models (e.g., Kappel et al.). Please see our response above.

B) Connection to biology 

The plasticity rules in the study are introduced with a vague reference to previous theoretical studies of others. Please discuss in more detail if these rules (especially the error-based learning rule) could be implemented biologically and how this could be achieved. Are there connections to biologically observed plasticity? E.g. for error-based plasticity has been discussed in the original publication by Urbanzcik and Senn, or more recently by Mikulasch et al (TINS 2023). The biological plausibility of inhibitory balance has been discussed many times before, e.g. by Vogels and others, and a citation would acknowledge that earlier work. This also leaves the question of how neurons in the songbird experiment could adapt and if the model does capture this well (i.e., do they exhibit E-I balance? etc), which might be discussed as well. 

Last, please provide some testable experimental predictions. By proposing an interesting experimental prediction, the model could become considerably more relevant to experimentalists. Also, are there potentially alternative models of stochastic sequence learning (e.g., Kappel et al)? How could they be distinguished? (especially, again, why not Hebbian/STDP learning?) 

We have cited the Vogels paper to acknowledge the earlier work. We have also included additional paragraphs to discuss a possible biologically plausible implementation of our model and how our model differs from similar models proposed previously (e.g., Kappel et al.). Please see our response above.

Other comments 

As mentioned, a derivation of recurrent plasticity rules is missing, and parameters are chosen ad-hoc. This leaves the question of how much the results rely on the specific choice of parameters, and how robust they are to perturbations. As a robustness check, please clarify how the duration of the Markov states influences performance. It can be expected that this interacts with the timescale of recurrent connections, so having longer or shorter Markov states, as it would be in reality, should make a difference in learning that should be tested and discussed.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. To address this point, we performed new simulations and asked to what extent the duration of Markov states affect performance. Interestingly, even when the network was trained with input states of half the duration, the distributions of the durations of assembly reactivations remain almost identical to those in the original case (Supplementary Figure 3a). Furthermore, the transition probabilities in the replay were still consistent with the true transition probabilities (Supplementary Figure 3b). We have also included the derivation of our plasticity rule in ll. 630-670 in the revised manuscript. 

Similarly, inhibitory plasticity operates with the same plasticity timescale parameter as excitatory plasticity, but, as the authors discuss, lags behind excitatory plasticity in simulation as in experiment. Is this required or was the parameter chosen such that this behaviour emerges? Please clarify this in the methods section; moreover, it would be good to test if the same results appear with fast inhibitory plasticity. 

We have performed a new simulation and showed that even when the learning rate of inhibitory plasticity was larger than that of excitatory plasticity, inhibitory plasticity still occurred on a slower timescale than excitatory plasticity. We have included this result in a new Supplementary Figure 2 in the revised manuscript.

What is the justification (biologically and theoretically) for the memory trace h and its impact on neural spiking? Is it required for the results or can it be left away? Since this seems to be an important and unconventional component of the model, please discuss it in more detail. 

In the model, it is assumed that each stimulus presentation drives a specific subset of network neurons with a fixed input strength, which avoids convergence to trivial solutions. Nevertheless, we choose to add this dynamic sigmoid function to facilitate stable replay by regulating neuron activity to prevent saturation. We have explained this point in ll.605-611 in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

I noticed a couple of minor typos: 

Page 3 "underly"->"underlie" 

Page 7 "assemblies decreased settled"->"assemblies decreased and settled"

We have modified the text. We thank the reviewer for their careful review.

I think Figure 1C is rather confusing and not intuitive. 

We apologize that the Figure 1C was confusing. In the revised figure, we have emphasized the flow of excitatory and inhibitory error for updating synapses.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

One possible path to improve the paper would be to establish a relationship between the proposed learning rules and e.g. the ones derived by Barber. 

When reading the paper, I was left with a number of more detailed questions I omitted from the public review: 

(1) The authors introduce a dynamic sigmoidal function for excitatory neurons, Eq. 3. This point requires more discussion and analysis. How does this impact the results? 

In the model, it is assumed that each stimulus presentation drives a specific subset of network neurons with a fixed input strength, which avoids convergence to trivial solutions. Nevertheless, we choose to add this dynamic sigmoid function to facilitate stable replay by regulating neuron activity to prevent saturation. We have explained this point in ll.605-611 in the revised manuscript.

(2) For Poisson spiking neurons, it would be great to understand what cell assemblies bring (apart from biological realism, i.e., reproducing data where assemblies can be found), compared to self-connected single neurons. For example, how do the results shown in Figure 2 depend on assembly size? 

We have changed the cell assembly size ratio and how it affects learning performance in a new Supplementary Figure 4. Please see our reply above.

(3) The authors focus on modeling spontaneous transitions, corresponding to a highly stochastic generative model (with most transition probabilities far from 1). A complementary question is that of learning to produce a set of stereotypical sequences, with probabilities close to 1. I wondered whether the learning rules and architecture of the model (in particular under the I-to-E rule) would also work in such a scenario. 

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. In fact, we had the same question, so we considered a situation in which the setting in Figure 2 includes both cases where the transition matrix is very stochastic (prob=0.5) and near deterministic (prob=0.9).

(4) An analysis of what controls the time so that the network stays in a certain state would be welcome. 

We trained the network model in two cases, one with a fast speed of plasticity and one with a slow speed of plasticity. As a result, we found that the duration of assembly becomes longer in the slow learning case than in the fast case. We have included these results as Supplementary Figure 5 in the revised manuscript.

Regarding the presentation, given that this is a computational modeling paper, I wonder whether *all* the formulas belong in the Methods section. I found myself skipping back and forth to understand what the main text meant, mainly because I missed a few key equations. I understand that this is a style issue that is very much community-dependent, but I think readability would improve drastically if the main model and learning rule equations could be introduced in the main text, as they start being discussed. 

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. To cater to a wider audience, we try to explain the principle of the paper without using mathematical formulas as much as possible in the main text.

Author response:

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to quantify feral pig interactions in eastern Australia to inform disease transmission networks. They used GPS tracking data from 146 feral pigs across multiple locations to construct proximity-based social networks and analyze contact rates within and between pig social units.

Strengths:

(1) Addresses a critical knowledge gap in feral pig social dynamics in Australia.

(2) Uses robust methodology combining GPS tracking and network analysis.

(3) Provides valuable insights into sex-based and seasonal variations in contact rates.

(4) Effectively contextualizes findings for disease transmission modeling and management.

(5) Includes comprehensive ethical approval for animal research.

(6) Utilizes data from multiple locations across eastern Australia, enhancing generalizability.

Weaknesses:

(1) Limited discussion of potential biases from varying sample sizes across populations

This is a really good comment, and we will address this in the discussion as one of the limitations of the study.

(2) Some key figures are in supplementary materials rather than the main text.

We will move some of our supplementary material to the main text as suggested.

(3) Economic impact figures are from the US rather than Australia-specific data.

We included the impact figures that are available for Australia (for FDM), and we will include the estimated impact of ASF in Australia in the introduction.

(4) Rationale for spatial and temporal thresholds for defining contacts could be clearer.

We will improve the explanation of why we chose the spatial and temporal thresholds based on literature, the size of animals and GPS errors.

(5) Limited discussion of ethical considerations beyond basic animal ethics approval.

This research was conducted under an ethics committee's approval for collaring the feral pigs. This research is part of an ongoing pest management activity, and all the ethics approvals have been highlighted in the main manuscript.

The authors largely achieved their aims, with the results supporting their conclusions about the importance of sex and seasonality in feral pig contact networks. This work is likely to have a significant impact on feral pig management and disease control strategies in Australia, providing crucial data for refining disease transmission models.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper attempts to elucidate how feral (wild) pigs cause distortion of the environment in over 54 countries of the world, particularly Australia.

The paper displays proof that over $120 billion worth of facilities were destroyed annually in the United States of America.

The authors have tried to infer that the findings of their work were important and possess a convincing strength of evidence.

Strengths:

(1) Clearly stating feral (wild) pigs as a problem in the environment.

(2) Stating how 54 countries were affected by the feral pigs.

(3) Mentioning how $120 billion was lost in the US, annually, as a result of the activities of the feral pigs.

(4) Amplifying the fact that 14 species of animals were being driven into extinction by the feral pigs.

(5) Feral pigs possessing zoonotic abilities.

(6) Feral pigs acting as reservoirs for endemic diseases like brucellosis and leptospirosis.

(7) Understanding disease patterns by the social dynamics of feral pig interactions.

(8) The use of 146 GPS-monitored feral pigs to establish their social interaction among themselves.

Weaknesses:

(1) Unclear explanation of the association of either the female or male feral pigs with each other, seasonally.

This will be better explain in the methods.

(2) The "abstract paragraph" was not justified.

We have justified the abstract paragraph as requested by the reviewer.

(3) Typographical errors in the abstract.

Typographical errors have been corrected in the Abstract.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors sought to understand social interactions both within and between groups of feral pigs, with the intent of applying their findings to models of disease transmission. The authors analyzed GPS tracking data from across various populations to determine patterns of contact that could support the transmission of a range of zoonotic and livestock diseases. The analysis then focused on the effects of sex, group dynamics, and seasonal changes on contact rates that could be used to base targeted disease control strategies that would prioritize the removal of adult males for reducing intergroup disease transmission.

Strengths:

It utilized GPS tracking data from 146 feral pigs over several years, effectively capturing seasonal and spatial variation in the social behaviors of interest. Using proximity-based social network analysis, this work provides a highly resolved snapshot of contact rates and interactions both within and between groups, substantially improving research in wildlife disease transmission. Results were highly useful and provided practical guidance for disease management, showing that control targeted at adult males could reduce intergroup disease transmission, hence providing an approach for the control of zoonotic and livestock diseases.

Weaknesses:

Despite their reliability, populations can be skewed by small sample sizes and limited generalizability due to specific environmental and demographic characteristics. Further validation is needed to account for additional environmental factors influencing social dynamics and contact rates

This is a good point, and we thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We will discuss the potential biases due to sample size in our discussion. We agree that environmental factors need to be incorporated and tested for their influence on social dynamics, and this will be added to the discussion as we have plans to expand this research and conduct, the analysis to determine if environmental factors are influencing social dynamics.

Author response:

Reviewer #1:

(1) This concern is addressed in the ESM6, and partly in the ESM1. Indeed, many of the concerns raised by the reviewer later are already addressed on the multiple supplementary materials provided, so we kindly ask the reviewer to read them before moving forward into the discussion.

(2) This concern is reasonable, but its solution is not "extremely easy", as the reviewer states. The reviewer indicates the use of captive-based versus non-captive-based sources, remarking maximum lifespan, the main variable that is clearly expected to be systematically biased by the source of the data. Nevertheless, except for the ZIMS database, which includes only captive individuals, and some sources, as CNRS databases and EURING, which exclusively includes wild populations, the remaining databases, which are indeed where the vast majority of the data was collected from (i.e. Amniotes database, Birds of the World and AnAge) do not make any distinction. This means that they include just the maximum lifespan from the species as known by the authors of such databases' entries, regardless of provenance, which is also not usually made explicit by the database. Therefore, correcting for this would imply checking all the primary sources. Considering that these databases sometimes do not cite the primary source, but a secondary one, and that on several occasions such source is a specialized book that is not easily accessible, and still these referenced datasets may not indicate the source of the data, tracing all of this information becomes an arduous task, that would even render the usage of databases themselves useless. We will include some details about the concerns of database usage in the discussion to address this.

Furthermore, it remains relevant to indicate that what we discuss later about the possible effects of captivity is about our usage of animals that come from both sources, not about the provenance of the literature-extracted data used (i.e. captive or wild maximum lifespan, for example), which is an independent matter. We can test for the first for next submission, but very difficultly could we test for the second (as the reviewer seems to be pointing to). In any case, as we do not have in any case the same species from both a captive and a wild source, it would be difficult to determine if the effect tested comes from captivity or from species-specific differences.

(3) We will add data on the replicability of the glycation measurement in the next manuscript version. The CV for several individuals of different species measured repeated times is quite low (always below 2%).

(4) The reviewer remarks reported here are already addressed on the supplementary material (ESM6), given the lack of space in the main manuscript. We therefore kindly ask the reviewer to read the supplementary material added to the submission. If the editors agree, all or a considerable part of this could be transferred to the main text for clarity, but this would severely extend the length of a text that the reviewer already considered very long.

Reviewer #2:

Thanks for spotting this issue with the coefficient, as it is actually a redaction mistake. It is a remnant of a previous version of the manuscript in which a log-log relation was performed instead. Previous reviewers raised concerns about the usage of log transformation for glycation, this variable being (theoretically) a proportion variable (to which we argue that it does not behave as such), which they considered not to be transformed with a logarithm. After this, we still finally took the decision of not to transform this variable. In this line, the transformations of variables were decided generally by preliminary data exploration. In this particular case, both approaches lead to the same conclusion of higher glycation resistance in the species with higher glucose. Nevertheless, we will consider exploring the comparison of different versions for the resubmission.

About the issue related to handling time, this variable is not available, for the reasons already exposed in the answer to the other reviewer. Moreover, Kruskal-Wallis test, by its nature, does not determine differences in medians between groups per se, as the reviewer claims, but just differences in ranks-sums. It can be equivalently used for that purpose when the groups' distributions are similar, but not when they differ, as we see here with a difference in variance. What a significant outcome in a Kruskal-Wallis test tells us, thus, is just that the groups differ (in their ranks-sums), which here is plausibly caused by the higher variance in the stressed individuals. Even if we conclude that the average is higher in those groups, mere comparisons of averages for groups with very different variances render different interpretations than when homoscedasticity is met, particularly more so when the distribution of groups overlaps. For example, in a case like this, where the data is left censored (glucose levels cannot be lower than 0), most of this higher variance is related to many values in the stressed groups lying above all the baseline values. This, of course, would increase the average, but such a parameter would not mean the same as if the distributions did not overlap.

Regarding the GVIFs, why the values are above 1.6 is not well known, but we do not consider this a major concern, as the values are never above 2.2, level usually considered more worrying. We will include a brief explanation of this in the results section. Also, we explicitly calculated life history variables adjusted for body mass, which should eliminate their otherwise strong correlation. There exist other biological and interpretational reasons justified in the ESM6 for using the residuals on the models, instead of the raw values, despite previously raised concerns.

Given the asseveration by the reviewer that credible intervals are not to be used for the post hoc comparisons, as this is what the whiskers shown in Figure 4B represent, the affirmation of this graph suggesting any difference between groups remains doubtful. New comparisons have now been made with the function HPDinterval() applied to the differences between each diet category calculated from the posterior values of each group, confirming no significant differences exist.

We do not understand the suggestion made in relation to the model shown in Table 2. Removing glucose from the model could have two results, as the reviewer indicates: 1. Maximum lifespan (ML) relates with glycation, potentially spuriously through the effect of glucose (in this case not included) on both; 2. ML does not relate to glycation, and therefore "high glycation levels do not preclude the evolution of long lifespans", which is what we are already showing with the current model, which also controls for glucose, in an attempt to determine if not just raw glycation values, but glycation resistance, relates to longevity. This is intended to asses if long-lived species may show mechanisms that avoid glycation, by showing levels lower than expected for a non-enzymatic reaction.

Author response:

In this manuscript, we have addressed one of the possible modes of recruitment of Swi6 to the putative heterochromatin loci.

Our investigation was guided by earlier work showing ability of HP1 a to bind to a class of RNAs and the role of this binding in recruitment of HP1a to heterochromatin loci in mouse cells (Muchardt et al). While there has been no clarity about the mechanism of Swi6 recruitment given the multiple pathways being involved, the issue is compounded by the overall lack of understanding as to how Swi6 recruitment occurs only at the repeat regions. At the same time, various observations suggested a causal role of RNAi in Swi6 recruitment.

Thus, guided by the work of Muchardt et al we developed a heuristic approach to explore a possibly direct link between Swi6 and heterochromatin through RNAi pathway. Interestingly, we found that the lysine triplet found in the hinge domain in HP1, which influences its recruitment to heterochromatin in mouse cells, is also present in the hinge domain of Swi6, although we were cautious, keeping in mind the findings of Keller et al showing another role of Swi6 in binding to RNAs and channeling them to the exosome pathway. 

Accordingly, we envisaged that a mode of recruitment of Swi6 through binding to siRNAs to cognate sites in the dg-dh repeats shared among mating type, centromere and telomere loci could explain specific recruitment as well as inheritance following DNA replication. In accordance we framed the main questions as follows: i) Whether Swi6 binds specifically and with high affinity to the siRNAs and the cognate siRNA-DNA hybrids and whether the Swi63K-3A mutant is defective in this binding, ii) whether this lack of binding of Swi63K-3A affects its localization to heterochromatin, iii) whether the this specificity is validated by binding of Swi6 but not Swi63K-3A  to siRNAs and siRNA-DNA hybrids in vivo and iv) whether the binding mode was qualitatively and quantitatively different from that of Cen100 RNA or random RNAs, like GFP RNA.

We think that our data provides answers to these lines of inquiry to support a model wherein the Swi6-siRNA mediated recruitment can explain a cis-controlled nucleation of heterochromatin at the cognate sites in the genome. We have also partially addressed the points raised by the study by Keller et al by invoking a dynamic balance between different modes of binding of Swi6 to different classes of RNA to exercise heterochromatin formation by Swi6 under normal conditions and RNA degradation under other conditions.

While we aver about our hypothesis, we do acknowledge the need for more detailed investigation both to buttress our hypothesis and address the dynamics of siRNA binding and recruitment of Swi6  and how Swi6 functions fit in the context of other components of heterochromatin assembly, like the HDACs and Clr4 on one hand and exosome pathway on the other. Our future studies will attempt to address these issues.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript explores the RNA binding activities of the fission yeast Swi6 (HP1) protein and proposes a new role for Swi6 in RNAi-mediated heterochromatin establishment. The authors claim that Swi6 has a specific and high affinity for short interfering RNAs (siRNAs) and recruits the Clr4 (Suv39h) H3K9 methyltransferases to siRNA-DNA hybrids to initiate heterochromatin formation. These claims are not in any way supported by the incomplete and preliminary RNA binding or the in vivo experiments that the authors present. The proposed model also lacks any mechanistic basis as it remains unclear (and unexplored) how Swi6 might bind to specific small RNA sequences or RNA-DNA hybrids. Work by several other groups in the field has led to a model in which siRNAs produced by the RNAi pathway load onto the Ago1-containing RITS complex, which then binds to nascent transcripts at pericentromeric DNA repeats and recruits Clr4 to initiate heterochromatin formation. Swi6 facilitates this process by promoting the recruitment of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase leading to siRNA amplification.

Weaknesses:

(1) a) The claims that Swi6 binds to specific small RNAs or to RNA-DNA hybrids are not supported by the evidence that the authors present. Their experiments do not rule out non-specific charged-based interactions.

We disagree. We have used synthetic siRNAs of 20-22 nt length to do EMSA assay, as mentioned in the manuscript. Further, we have sequenced the small RNAs obtained after RIP experiments to validate the enrichment of siRNA in Swi6 bound fraction as compared to the mutant Swi6-bound fraction. These results are internally consistent regardless of the mode of binding. In any case the binding occurs primarily through the chromodomain although it is influenced by the hinge domain (see below).

Furthermore, we have carried out EMSA experiments using Swi6 mutants carrying all three possible double mutations of the K residues in the KKK triplet and found that there was no difference in the binding pattern as compared to the wt Swi6: only the triple mutant “3K-3A” showed the effect. These results suggest that that the bdining is not completely dependent on the basic residues. These results will be included in the revised version.

We also have some preliminary data from SAXS study showing that the CD of wt Swi6 shows a change in its structure upon binding to the siRNA, while the “3K-3A” mutant of Swi6 has a compact, folded structure that occludes the binding site of Swi6 in the chromodomain.” We propose to mention this preliminary finding in the revised version as unpublished data.

b) Claims about different affinities of Swi6 for RNAs of different sizes are based on a comparison of KD values derived by the authors for a handful of S. pombe siRNAs with previous studies from the Buhler lab on Swi6 RNA binding. The authors need to compare binding affinities under identical conditions in their assays.

Thus, the EMSA data do suggest sequence specificity in binding of Swi6 to specific siRNA sequences (Figure S5) and implies specific residues in Swi6 being responsible for that. Thus, Identification of the residues in Swi6 involved in siRNA binding in the CD would definitely be interesting, as also the experimental confirmation of the consensus siRNA sequence. It may however be noted that as against the binding of Swi6 to siRNAs occurs through CD, that of Cen100 or GFP RNA was shown be through the hinge domain by Keller et al.

The estimation of Kd by the Buhler group was based on NMR study, which we are not in a position to perform in the near future. Nonetheless, we did carry out EMSA study using the ‘Cen100’ RNA, same as the one used by the Keller et al study. Surprisingly, in contrast with the result of EMSA in agarose gel showing binding of Swi6 to “Cen100” RNA as reported by Keller et al, we fail to observe any binding in EMSA done in acrylamide gel. (The same is true of the RevCen 100). While this raises issues of why the Keller et al chose to do EMSA in agarose gel instead of the conventional approach of using acrylamide gel, it does lend support to our claim of stronger binding of Swi6 to siRNAs. Another relevant observation of binding of Swi6 to the “RevCen” RNA precursor RNAs but a detectable binding to siRNAs denoted as VI-IX (as measured by competition experiments, that are derived from RevCen RNA; Figure S4 and S7), which are derived by Dcr1 cleavage of the ‘’RevCen’’ RNA.

We also disagree that we carried out EMSA with a small bunch of siRNAs. As indicated in Figure 1 and S1, we synthesized nearly 12 siRNAs representing the dg-dh repeats at Cen, mat and tel loci and measured their specificity of binding to Swi6 using EMSA assay by labeling the ones labelled “D”, “E” and “V” directly and those of the remaining ones by the latter’s ability to compete against the binding (Figure 1, S4). These results point to presence of a consensus sequence in siRNAs that shows highly specific and strong binding to Swi6 in the low micromolar range.

Further, our claim of binding of Swi6 and not Swi63K>3A to siRNA in vivo is validated by RIP experiments, as shown in Fig 2 and S9.

c) The regions of Swi6 that bind to siRNAs need to be identified and evidence must be provided that Swi6 binds to RNAs of a specific length, 20-22 mers, to support the claim that Swi6 binds to siRNAs. This is critical for all the subsequent experiments and claims in the study.

We have provided both in vitro data, which is va;idiated in vivo by RIP experiments, as mentioned above. However, we agree that it wpuld be very interesting to identify the residues in Swi6 chromdomain responsible for binding to siRNA. However, such an investigation is beyond the scope of the present study.

(2) a) The in vivo results do not validate Swi6 binding to specific RNAs, as stated by the authors. Swi6 pulldowns have been shown to be enriched for all heterochromatic proteins including the RITS complex. The sRNA binding observed by the authors is therefore likely to be mediated by Ago1/RITS.

We disagree with the first comment. Our RIP experiments do validate the in vitro results (Fig 1, 2, S4 and S9), as argued above. The observation alluded to by the reviewer “Swi6 pulldowns have been shown to be enriched for all heterochromatic proteins including the RITS complex” is not inconsistent with our observation; it is possible that the siRNA may be released from the RITS complex and transferred to Swi6, possibly due to its higher affinity.

Thus, we would like to suggest that the role of Swi6 is likely to be coincidental or subsequent to that of Ago1/RITS (see below). We think that the binding by Swi6 to the siRNA and siRNA-DNA hybrid and could be also carried out in cis at the level of siRNA-DNA hybrids.

This point needs to be addressed in future studies.

b) Most of the binding in Figure S8C seems to be non-specific.

We would like to point out that the result in Figure S8C needs to be examined together with the Figure S8B, which shows RNA bound by Swi6 but not Swi63K-3A to hybridize with dg, dh and dh-k probes.

c) In Figure S8D, the authors' data shows that Swi6 deletion does not derepress the rev dh transcript while dcr1 delete cells do, which is consistent with previous reports but does not relate to the authors' conclusions.

The purpose of results shown in Figure S8D is just to compare the results of Swi6 with that of Swi63K-3A.

d) Previous results have shown that swi6 delete cells have 20-fold fewer dg and dh siRNAs than swi6+ cells due to decreased RNA-dependent RNA polymerase complex recruitment and reduced siRNA amplification.

This result is consistent with our results invoking a role of Swi6 in binding to, protecting and recruiting siRNAs to homologous sites.

To find if the overall production of siRNA is compromised in swi6 3K->3A mutant, we i) calculated the RIP-Seq read counts for swi6 3K->3A , swi6+ and vector control in 200 bp genomic bins , ii) divided the Swi6 3K->3A and swi6+ signals by that of control, iii) removed the background using the criteria of signal value < 25% of max signal, and iv) counted the total reads (in excess to control) in all peak regions in both samples.  This revealed a total count of 10878 and 8994 respectively for Swi6 3K->3A  and swi6+ samples, possibly implying that the overall siRNA production is not compromised in the Swi6 3K->3A mutant.

(3) a) The RIP-seq data are difficult to interpret as presented. The size distribution of bound small RNAs, and where they map along the genome should be shown as for example presented in previous Ago1 sRNA-seq experiments.

Please see the response to 2(d).

b) It is also unclear whether the defects in sRNA binding observed by the authors represent direct sRNA binding to Swi6 or co-precipitation of Ago1-bound sRNAs.

The correspondence between our in vivo and in vitro results suggests that the binding to Swi6 would be direct. We do not observe a complete correspondence between the Swi6- and Ago-bound siRNAs. We think Swi6 binding may be coincident with or following RITS complex formation.

This point will be discussed in the Revision.

The authors should also sequence total sRNAs to test whether Swi6-3A affects sRNA synthesis, as is the case in swi6 delete cells.

Please see response to 2(d) above.

(4) The authors examine the effects of Swi6-3A mutant by overexpression from the strong nmt1 promoter. Heterochromatin formation is sensitive to the dosage of Swi6. These experiments should be performed by introducing the 3A mutations at the endogenous Swi6 locus and effects on Swi6 protein levels should be tested.

Although we agree, we think that the heterochromatin formation is occurring in presence of nmt1-driven Swi6 but not Swi63K>3A, as indicated by the phenotype and Swi6 enrichment at otr1R::ade6, imr1::ura4 and his3-telo (Figure 3) and mating type (Fig. S10). Furthermore, the both GFP-Swi6 and GFPSwi63K>3A are expressed at similar level (Fig. S8A).

(5) The authors' data indicate an impairment of silencing in Swi6-3A mutant cells but whether this is due to a general lower affinity for nucleosomes, DNA, RNA, or as claimed by the authors, siRNAs is unclear. These experiments are consistent with previous findings suggesting an important role for basic residues in the HP1 hinge region in gene silencing but do not reveal how the hinge region enhances silencing.

Our study aims to correlate the binding of Swi6 but not Swi63K-3A to siRNA with its localization to heterochromatin. A similar difference in binding of Swi6 but not Swi63K-3A to siRNA-DNA hybrid, together with sensitivity of silencing and Swi6 localization to heterochromatin to RNaseH support the above correlations as being causally connected.

In terms of mechanism of binding, we need to clarify that the primary mode of binding is through the CD and not the hinge domain, although the hinge domain does influence this binding. This result is different from those of Keller et al.

We have some structural data based on preliminary SAXS experiment supporting binding of siRNA to the CD and influence of the hinge domain on this binding. However, this line of investigation need to be extended and will be subject of future investigations.

(6) RNase H1 overexpression may affect Swi6 localization and silencing indirectly as it would lead to a general reduction in R loops and RNA-DNA hybrids across the genome. RNaseH1 OE may also release chromatin-bound RNAs that act as scaffolds for siRNA-Ag1/RITS complexes that recruit Clr4 and ultimately Swi6.

These are formal possibilities. However, the correlation between swi6 binding to siRNA-DNA hybrid and delocalization upon RNase H1 treatment argues for a more direct link.

(7) Examples of inaccurate presentation of the literature.

a) The authors state that "RNA binding by the murine HP1 through its hinge domains is required for heterochromatin assembly (Muchardt et al, 2002). The cited reference provides no evidence that HP1 RNA binding is required for heterochromatin assembly. Only the hinge region of bacterially produced HP1 contributes to its localization to DAPI-stained heterochromatic regions in fixed NIH 3T3 cells.

Noted. Statement will be corrected.

b) "... This scenario is consistent with the loss of heterochromatin recruitment of Swi6 as well as siRNA generation in rnai mutants (Volpe et al, 2002)." Volpe et al. did not examine changes in siRNA levels in swi6 mutant cells. In fact, no siRNA analysis of any kind was reported in Volpe et al., 2002.

Correct.  We only say that Swi6 recruitment is reduced in rnai mutants and correlate it with ability of SWi6 to bind to siRNA generated by RNAi and subsequently to siRNA-DNA hybrid.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The aim of this study is to investigate the role of Swi6 binding to RNA in heterochromatin assembly in fission yeast. Using in vitro protein-RNA binding assays (EMSA) they showed that Swi6/HP1 binds centromere-derived siRNA (identified by Reinhardt and Bartel in 2002) via the chromodomain and hinge domains. They demonstrate that this binding is regulated by a lysine triplet in the conserved region of the Swi6 hinge domain and that wild-type Swi6 favours binding to DNA-RNA hybrids and siRNA, which then facilitates, rather than competes with, binding to H3K9me2 and to a lesser extent H3K9me3.

However, the majority of the experiments are carried out in swi6 null cells overexpressing wild-type Swi6 or Swi63K-3A mutant from a very strong promoter (nmt1). Both swi6 null cells and overexpression of Swi6 are well known to exhibit phenotypes, some of which interfere with heterochromatin assembly. This is not made clear in the text.

We think that the argument is not valid as we show that swi6 but not Swi63K-3A could restore silencing at imr1::ura4, otr1::ade6 and his3-telo (Fig 3) and mating type (Fig. S10), when transformed into a swi6D strain.

Whilst the RNA binding experiments show that Swi6 can indeed bind RNA and that binding is decreased by Swi63K-3A mutation in vitro (confusingly, they only much later in the text explained that these 3 bands represent differential binding and that II is likely an isotherm). The gels showing these data are of poor quality and it is unclear which bands are used to calculate the Kd.

We disagree with the comment about the quality of EMSA data. We think it is of similar quality or better than that of Keller et al, except in some cases, like Fig 1D, a shorter exposure shown to distinguish the slowest shifted band has caused the remaining bands to look fainter.

RNA-seq data shows that overall fewer siRNAs are produced from regions of heterochromatin in the Swi63K-3A mutant so it is unsurprising that analysis of siRNA-associated motifs also shows lower enrichment (or indeed that they share some similarities, given that they originate from repeat regions).

Please see response to comment 2(d) of the first reviewer above.

It is not clear which bands are being alluded to. However, we‘ll rectify any gaps in information in the revision.

The experiments are seemingly linked yet fail to substantiate their overall conclusions. For instance, the authors show that the Swi63K-3A mutant displays reduced siRNA binding in vitro (Figure 1D) and that H3K9me2 levels at heterochromatin loci are reduced in vivo (Figure 3C-D). They conclude that Swi6 siRNA binding is important for Swi6 heterochromatin localization, whilst it remains entirely possible that heterochromatin integrity is impaired by the Swi63K-3A mutation and hence fewer siRNAs are produced and available to bind. Their interpretation of the data is really confusing.

Our argument is that the lack of binding by Swi63K>3A to siRNA can explain the loss of recruitment to heterochromatin loci and thus affect the integrity of heterochroamtin; the recruitment of Swi6 can occur possibly by binding initially to siRNA and thereafter as siRNA-DNA hybrid. However, the overall level of siRNAs is not affected, as in 2(D) above. This interpretation is supported by results of ChIP assay and confocal experiments, as also by the effect of RNaseH1 in the recruitment of Swi6.

The authors go on to show that Swi63K-3A cells have impaired silencing at all regions tested and the mutant protein itself has less association with regions of heterochromatin. They perform DNA-RNA hybrid IPs and show that Swi63K-3A cells which also overexpress RNAseH/rnh1 have reduced levels of dh DNA-RNA hybrids than wild-type Swi6 cells. They interpret this to mean that Swi6 binds and protects DNA-RNA hybrids, presumably to facilitate binding to H3K9me2. The final piece of data is an EMSA assay showing that "high-affinity binding of Swi6 to a dg-dh specific RNA/DNA hybrid facilitates the binding to Me2-K9-H3 rather than competing against it." This EMSA gel shown is of very poor quality, and this casts doubt on their overall conclusion.

We do agree with the reviewer about the quality of EMSA (Fig. 5B). However, as may be noticed in the EMSA for siRNA-DNA hybrid binding  (Fig 4A), the bands of Swi6-bound siRNA-DNA hybrid are extremely retarded. Hence the EMSA for subsequent binding by H3-K9-Me peptides required a longer electrophoretic run, which led to reduction in the sharpness of the bands. Nevertheless, the data does indicate binding efficiency in the order H3K9-Me2> H3-K9-Me3 > H3-K9-Me0. Having said that, we plan to repeat the EMSA or address the question by other methods, like SPR.

Unfortunately, the manuscript is generally poorly written and difficult to comprehend. The experimental setups and interpretations of the data are not fully explained, or, are explained in the wrong order leading to a lack of clarity. An example of this is the reasoning behind the use of the cid14 mutant which is not explained until the discussion of Figure 5C, but it is utilised at the outset in Figure 5A.

We tend to agree somewhat and will attempt to submit a revised version with greater clarity, as also the explanation of experiment with cid14D strain.

Another example of this lack of clarity/confusion is that the abstract states "Here we provide evidence in support of RNAi-independent recruitment of Swi6". Yet it then states "We show that...Swi6/HP1 displays a hierarchy of increasing binding affinity through its chromodomain to the siRNAs corresponding to specific dg-dh repeats, and even stronger binding to the cognate siRNA-DNA hybrids than to the siRNA precursors or general RNAs." RNAi is required to produce siRNAs, so their message is very unclear. Moreover, an entire section is titled "Heterochromatin recruitment of Swi6-HP1 depends on siRNA generation" so what is the author's message?

The reviewer has correctly pointed out the error. Indeed, our results actually indicate an RNAi-dependent rather than independent mode of recruitment. Rather, we would like to suggest an H3-K9-Me2-indpendnet recruitment of Swi6. We will rectify this error in our revised manuscript.

The data presented, whilst sound in some parts is generally overinterpreted and does not fully support the author's confusing conclusions. The authors essentially characterise an overexpressed Swi6 mutant protein with a few other experiments on the side, that do not entirely support their conclusions. They make the point several times that the KD for their binding experiments is far higher than that previously reported (Keller et al Mol Cell 2012) but unfortunately the data provided here are of an inferior quality and thus their conclusions are neither fully supported nor convincing.

We have used the method of Heffler et al (2012) to compute the Kd from EMSA data.

Author response:

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

Joint Public Review:

(1) This work investigates numerically the propagation of subthreshold waves in a model neural network that is derived from the C. elegans connectome. Using a scattering formalism and tight-binding description of the network -- approximations which are commonplace in condensed matter physics -- this work attempts to show the relevance of interference phenomena, such as wavenumber-dependent propagation, for the dynamics of subthreshold waves propagating in a network of electrical synapses.

(2) The primary strength of the work is in trying to use theoretical tools from a far-away corner of fundamental physics to shed light on the properties of a real neural system. While a system composed of neurons and synapses is classical in nature, there are occasions in which interference or localization effects are useful for understanding wave propagation in complex media [review, van Rossum & Nieuwenhuizen, 1999]. However, it is expected that localization effects only have an impact in some parameter regimes and with low phase dissipation. The authors should have addressed the existence of this validity regime in detail prior to assuming that interference effects are important.

The theoretical concept and tool used in this study are not situated in a far-away corner of fundamental physics but hold one of the central positions in condensed matter physics and statistical physics. In fact, the non-scientific statement about where the theoretical concept and tool employed by the researchers are positioned within the realm of fundamental physics is irrelevant. The fundamental physics governs the foundations of all natural phenomena, and thus it provides indispensable principles for interpreting not only neural systems but also all life phenomena. One such principle explored in our study is the interference and localization of waves.

Specifically, in the third paragraph of the Introduction, we introduced that the interference effect of subthreshold oscillating waves, beyond being a theoretical possibility, is a phenomenon actually observed in neural tissue (Chiang and Durand, 2023; Gupta et al., 2016). Moreover, according to Devor and Yarom (2002), the propagation of subthreshold oscillations observed in the inferior olivary nucleus extended beyond a distance of 0.2 mm. Therefore, considering the propagation of subthreshold waves and the resulting interference in the connectome of C. elegans, which has a total body length of less than 1 mm, a diameter of about 0.08 mm, and most neurons distributed in the ring structure near its neck, provides sufficient validity for the initiation of theoretical and computational studies.

The primary objective of our study is to investigate which regimes of signal transmission/localization and interference phenomena are valid within the network of electrical synapses in C. elegans, the only system for which the neural connectome structure is perfectly known. As the Reviewer rightly pointed out in the question, this is exactly the issue that the Reviewer is curious about. Therefore, the existence of this validity regime cannot be addressed prior to conducting the study but can only be identified as a result of performing the research. And we have conducted such a study.

(3) An additional approximation that was made without adequate justification is the use of a tight-binding Hamiltonian. This can be a reasonable approximation, even for classical waves, in particular in the presence of high-quality-factor resonators, where most of the wave amplitude is concentrated on the nodes of the network, and nodes are coupled evanescently with each other. Neither of these conditions were verified for this study.

The tight-binding Anderson Hamiltonian we used in this study originally consisted of the on-site energy at each node and the hopping matrix between nodes. When the on-site energy is relatively much more stable (i.e., has a large negative value) compared to the hopping matrix, most of the wave amplitude becomes concentrated on the nodes as the Reviewer mentioned. However, as is well-known from reference papers (Anderson, 1958; Chang et al., 1995; Meir et al., 1989; Shapir et al., 1982; Thomas and Nakanishi, 2016), in this study, we also removed the on-site energy to prevent the waves from being concentrated on the nodes. Therefore, the tight-binding Hamiltonian we used in this study ensures that waves propagate through edges in the network where the values of the hopping matrix exist.

To assist the Reviewer in better understanding the model used in this study, we provide additional explanations as follows. In the manuscript, we have already provided detailed descriptions of the setup using the tight-binding Anderson Hamiltonian in the Method section under “Construction of our circuit model” and the explanation of Figure 1. In the model we used, the edges represented by solid lines are perfect conductors, while the dotted lines representing gap junctions act as potential barriers (Fig. 1B). Therefore, when electric signals propagate, we are dealing with the phenomenon where signals transmitted through the edges encounter potential barriers, causing scattering or attenuation. The model described by the Reviewer is indeed a commonly used model in condensed matter physics, but we did not use the exact model mentioned by the Reviewer. Instead, as is common in well-known reference papers, we modified it to suit our purposes. We hope this explanation helps the Reviewer gain a better understanding.

(4) The motivation for this work is to understand the basic mechanisms underlying subthreshold intrinsic oscillations in the inferior olive, but detailed connectivity patterns in this brain area are not available. The connectome is known for C elegans, but sub-threshold oscillations have not been observed there, and the implications of this work for C elegans neuroscience remain unclear. The authors should also give more evidence for the claim that their study may give a mechanism for synchronized rhythmic activity in the mammalian inferior olive nucleus, or refrain from making this conclusion.

We agree with the Reviewer's point. In this study, we do not provide additional analysis on the mammalian inferior olive nucleus beyond what is already known from previous research. What we intended to discuss in the Discussion section was to suggest that within our model, there is a “possibility” that a group of cells exchanging wave signals of a specific wavenumber with high transmittance may show synchronized rhythmic activity. Therefore, to avoid any misunderstanding for the reader, we have revised the corresponding sentence in the Discussion as follows.

In the Discussion, “The plausible possibility according to our model study is that the constructive interference of subthreshold membrane potential waves with a specific wavenumber may generate the synchronized rhythmic activation.

(5) In the same vein, since the work emphasizes the dependence on the wavenumber for the propagation of subthreshold oscillations, they should make an attempt at estimating the wavenumber of subthreshold oscillations in C elegans if they were to exist and be observed. Next, the presence of two "mobility edges" in the transmission coefficient calculated in this work is unmistakably due to the discrete nature of the system, coming from the tight-binding approximation, and it is unclear if this approximation is justified in the current system.

In this study, we modeled the propagation of subthreshold waves on the electrical synapse network of C. elegans, but we did not explain the generation of subthreshold oscillations themselves. Here, we simply injected wave signals with various wavenumber values into the network using a hypothetical device called an "Injector." As the Reviewer pointed out, estimating the wavenumbers of subthreshold oscillations that may exist or be observed in C. elegans would require a comprehensive investigation of the membrane potential dynamics occurring in the membranes of individual neurons. However, this is beyond the scope of this study and would require considerable effort to accomplish.

As for the use of the tight-binding Hamiltonian, we have addressed that in our response to the third paragraph in the Joint Public Review above.

(6) Similarly, it is possible that the wavenumber-dependent transmission observed depends strongly on the addition of a large number of virtual nodes (VNs) in the network, which the authors give little to no motivation for. As these nodes are not present in the C elegans connectome, the authors should explain the motivation for their inclusion in the model and should discuss their consequences on the transmission properties of the network.

As mentioned in our response to the third paragraph in the Joint Public Review above, in our model, a node is simply a pathway for waves to pass through. Therefore, inserting virtual nodes between two neurons that are connected in the C. elegans connectome does not alter the actual connection structure. In other words, virtual nodes do not create new connections between cells that didn’t exist in the connectome. The virtual nodes we introduced are merely a way to divide the sections—axon, gap junction, dendrite—through which the wave passes when it is transmitted between two neurons. As we have already explained in Fig. 1B, the edge connected by two virtual nodes, represented by a dotted line, is motivated to depict the gap junction acting as a potential barrier. We hope this explanation helps the Reviewer better understand the model used in this study.

(7) As it stands, the work would only have a very limited impact on the understanding of subthreshold oscillations in the rat or in C elegans. Indeed, the preprint falls short of relating its numerical results to any phenomena which could be observed in the lab.

In this study, we proposed a minimalistic model built using the currently available but limited C. elegans connectome information. Specifically, our model is not a phenomenological one that adjusts parameters to accurately predict experimental measurements, but rather an attempt at a novel conceptual approach to theoretically possible scenarios. While the model may not be satisfactory enough to explain experimental phenomena at present, it is a theoretical/computational study that someone needs to undertake. We believe this is the path of scientific progress. Therefore, as the Reviewer has expressed concern, it is entirely understandable that reproducing the numerical results measured in actual experiments is difficult in this study. Nevertheless, we believe that this study makes a basic contribution to the conceptual understanding of subthreshold signal propagation in C. elegans’ electric synapses.

Rather than offering a stretched opinion, we maintain a positive hope that future researchers in this field will improve the model by incorporating more detailed and extensive biological data through follow-up studies, allowing us to get closer to describing real phenomena.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

The word "Sensory" was misspelled in Figures 2, 4 and 5.

We appreciate the feedback from Reviewer #1. We have corrected the mentioned typos in Figures 2, 4, and 5 of the revised manuscript.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

What neurophysiological changes support the learning of new sensorimotor transformations is a key question in neuroscience. Many studies have attempted to answer this question at the neuronal population level - with varying degrees of success - but few, if any, have studied the change in activity of the apical dendrites of layer 5 cortical neurons. Neurons in layer 5 of the sensory cortex appear to play a key role in sensorimotor transformations, showing important decision and reward-related signals, and being the main source of cortical and subcortical projections from the cortex. In particular, pyramidal track (PT) neurons project directly to subcortical regions related to motor activity, such as the striatum and brainstem, and could initiate rapid motor action in response to given sensory inputs. Additionally, layer 5 cortical neurons have large apical dendrites that extend to layer 1 where different neuromodulatory and long-range inputs converge, providing motor and contextual information that could be used to modulate layer 5 neurons output and/or to establish the synaptic plasticity required for learning a new association. 

In this study, the authors aimed to test whether the learning of a new sensorimotor transformation could be supported by a change in the evoked response of the apical dendrites of layer 5 neurons in the mouse whisker primary somatosensory cortex. To do this, they performed longitudinal functional calcium imaging of the apical dendrites of layer 5 neurons while mice learned to discriminate between two multi-whisker stimuli. The authors used a simple conditioning task in which one whisker stimulus (upward or backward air pu , CS+) is associated with a reward after a short delay, while the other whisker stimulus (CS-) is not. They found that task learning (measured by the probability of anticipatory licking just after the CS+) was not associated with a significant change in the average population response evoked by the CS+ or the CS-, nor a change in the average population selectivity. However, when considering individual dendritic tufts, they found interesting changes in selectivity, with approximately equal numbers of dendrites becoming more selective for CS+ and dendrites becoming more selective for CS-. 

One of the major challenges when assessing changes in neural representation during the learning of such Go/NoGo tasks is that the movements and rewards themselves may elicit strong neural responses that may be a confounding factor, that is, inexperienced mice do not lick in response to the CS+, while trained mice do. In this study, the authors addressed this issue in three ways: first, they carefully monitored the orofacial movements of mice and showed that task learning is not associated with changes in evoked whisker movements. Second, they show that whisking or licking evokes very little activity in the dendritic tufts compared to whisker stimuli (CS+ and CS-). Finally, the authors introduced into the design of their task a post-conditioning session after the last conditioning session during which the CS+ and the CS- are presented but no reward is delivered. During this post-session, the mice gradually stopped licking in response to the CS+. A better design might have been to perform the pre-conditioning and post-conditioning sessions in nonwater-restricted, unmotivated mice to completely exclude any lick response, but the fact that the change in selectivity persists after the mice stopped licking in the last blocks of the post-conditioning session (in mice relying only on their whiskers to perform the task) is convincing. 

The clever task design and careful data analysis provide compelling evidence that learning this whisker discrimination task does not result in a massive change in sensory representation in the apical dendritic tufts of layer 5 neurons in the primary somatosensory cortex on average. Nevertheless, individual dendritic tufts do increase their selectivity for one or the other sensory stimulus, likely enhancing the ability of S1 neurons to accurately discriminate the two stimuli and trigger the appropriate motor response (to lick or not to lick). 

One limitation of the present study is the lack of evidence for the necessity of the primary somatosensory cortex in the learning and execution of the task. As the authors have strongly emphasized in their previous publications, the primary somatosensory cortex may not be necessary for the learning and execution of simple whisker detection tasks, especially when the stimulus is very salient. Although this new task requires the discrimination between two whisker stimuli, the simplicity and salience of the whisker stimuli used could make this task cortex-independent. Especially when considering that some mice seem to not rely entirely on their whiskers to execute the task. 

Nevertheless, this is an important result that shows for the first time changes in the selectivity to sensory stimuli at the level of individual apical dendritic tufts in correlation with the learning of a discrimination task. This study sheds new light on the cortical cellular substrates of reward-based learning and opens interesting perspectives for future research in this area. In future studies, it will be important to determine whether the change in selectivity of dendritic calcium spikes is causally involved in the learning of the task or whether it simply correlates with learning, as a consequence of changes in synaptic inputs caused by reward. The dendritic calcium spikes may be involved in the establishment of synaptic plasticity required for learning and impact the output of layer 5 pyramidal neurons to trigger the appropriate motor response. It would be important also to study the changes in selectivity in the apical dendrite of the identified projection neurons.  

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary: 

The authors did not find an increased representation of CS+ throughout reinforcement learning in the tuft dendrites of Rbp4-positive neurons from layer 5B of the barrel cortex, as previously reported for soma from layer 2/3 of the visual cortex. 

Alternatively, the authors observed an increased selectivity to both stimuli (CS+ and CS-) during reinforcement learning. This feature: 

(1) was not present in repeated exposures (without reinforcement), 

(2) was not explained by the animal's behaviour (choice, licking, and whisking), and 

(3) was long-lasting, being present even when the mice disengaged from the task. 

Importantly, increased selectivity was correlated with learning (% correct choices), and neural discriminability between stimuli increased with learning. 

In conclusion, the authors show that tuft dendrites from layer 5B of the barrel cortex increase the representation of conditioned (CS+) and unconditioned stimuli (CS-) applied to the whiskers, during reinforcement learning. 

Strengths: 

The results presented are very consistent throughout the entire study, and therefore very convincing: 

(1) The results observed are very similar using two different imaging techniques (2-photon planar imaging- and SCAPE-volumetric imaging). Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively. 

(2) The results are similar using "different groups" of tuft dendrites for the analysis (e.g.

initially unresponsive and responsive pre- and post-learning). Figure 5. 

(3) The results are similar from a specific set of trials (with the same sensory input, but di erent choices). Figure 7. 

(4) Additionally, the selectivity of tuft dendrites from layer 5B of the barrel cortex was higher in the mice that exclusively used the whisker to respond to the stimuli (CS+ and CS-).  The results presented are controlled against a group of mice that received the same stimuli presentation, except for the reinforcement (reward). 

Additionally, the behaviour outputs, such as choice, whisking, and licking could not account for the results observed. 

Although there are no causal experiments, the correlation between selectivity and learning (percentage of correct choices), as well as the increased neural discriminability with learning, but not in repeated exposure, are very convincing. 

Weaknesses: 

The biggest weakness is the absence of causality experiments. Although inhibiting specifically tuft dendritic activity in layer 1 from layer 5 pyramidal neurons is very challenging, tuft dendritic activity in layer 1 could be silenced through optogenetic experiments as in Abs et al. 2018. By manipulating NDNF-positive neurons the authors could specifically modify tuft dendritic activity in the barrel cortex during CS presentations, and test if silencing tuft dendritic activity in layer 1 would lead to the lack of selectivity and an impairment of reinforcement learning. Additionally, this experiment will test if the selectivity observed during reinforcement learning is due to changes in the local network, namely changes in local synaptic connectivity, or solely due to changes in the long-range inputs.    

We agree that such causal manipulations are a logical next step. Such manipulations are unfortunately not specific to layer 5 apicals, so the results would be difficult to interpret. We now discuss the challenge of such manipulations in the Discussion section.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

Overall, the study is solid and the article is well and clearly written. I have no suggestion for other experiments that would fall within the scope of this article. I would like only to suggest some additional analyses and clarifications in the writing. 

Additional analyses: 

Obviously, the main confounding factor in this type of data comes from the acquired motor response which follows - with a short latency - the sensory stimulus. This is particularly problematic for functional calcium imaging which has very low temporal resolution. The authors have addressed this question to some extent by showing that motor-evoked activity does not account for the change in selectivity acquired with learning and through the use of a post-conditioning session during which no reward was delivered. Figures 8C-D show that mice gradually stop licking in response to CS+ in this session and that the distribution of the selectivity index remains similar in these last blocks. Perhaps a more convincing analysis would be to simply select Miss and Correct rejection trials in which mice did not lick in response to the CS+ and CS-, respectively. Ideally, if the number of trials is sufficient, one could even select trials devoid of any evoked movement (no licking and no whisking).  

We agree it would be interesting to compare Miss and Correct rejection trials to further rule out effects of a motor response, but there were never enough Miss trials to conduct such an analysis. Even in very early learning, there are few Miss trials (see Figure 1, session 2). We found that in early learning, animals would lick in most trials. Then, over the course of conditioning, they would learn to withhold licks during CS- presentation. Thus, we were able to examine Hits, Correct rejections, and False alarms (Figure 7), but not Miss trials. We have added text suggesting a future experiment in which the stimulus strengths are substantially reduced to drastically increase the error rates.

The fact that changes in selectivity occur in both directions overall is really interesting. However, in the way the data are presented currently, one may wonder about mice/field of view vs single cell effect. i.e., do di erent dendritic tufts in the same field of view show opposite changes in selectivity? If we were to replot Figure 3A for a single mouse, would we obtain the same picture?  

We appreciate this very good suggestion and have added scatter plots and selectivity index histograms for individual conditioned animals in Supplementary figure 2. These data demonstrate that different dendritic tufts in the same field of view exhibit opposite changes in selectivity.

The authors point out that they observed no change in the mean response or selectivity during learning, but did find changes in selectivity at the level of individual dendritic tufts. This suggests that, at the population level, the ability to discriminate between the two stimuli should improve. A possible complementary analysis would be to show that the ability to decode stimulus identity from dendritic tuft population activity increases with learning.  

Given the substantial change in individual tuft selectivity and that the tuft events occur are not rare, the population result is guaranteed. If individual tufts increase selectivity, the population will also increase its selectivity on a trial-by-trial basis. We have nevertheless included a new supplementary figure with a population analysis using SVMs to demonstrate this.

Clarification: 

The authors should make it clear from the beginning that mice are still water-restricted during the post-conditioning session and actually do keep licking for many CS+ trials. Therefore, this session is not devoid of motor response. 

We have clarified this in the text.

Did mice in the repeated exposure condition receive any reward during the recording sessions? If so when were rewards delivered? 

We previously described in the Methods that these mice received water in their home cage, but we now additionally clarify this in the Results section.

Minor: 

Figure 2Aii, the labels of the Alpha and Betta barrels should be swapped. 

Fixed

Line 218: I believe this sentence should read "Using SCAPE microscopy, ...". 

Corrected.

Line 665: 'Reconstruction from 50' does that refer to the single cell reconstruction on the left panel? 

Yes – Clarified in legend

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors): 

Minor suggestions: 

The 'summary' should mention from which brain area the results were acquired. Otherwise, it is misleading, giving the idea that the results described a generic feature, which is still unknown.  

Added to the text.

Please correct sentence 219: "SCAPE microscopy, we image tuft activity of additional mice..." 

Added to the text.

In the same sentence (219) it would be good to provide the number of additional mice imaged (2). 

Added to the text.

Regarding Supplementary Figure 1, it would be interesting to correlate the second peak after reward and learning rate, to provide further support to the sentences 109 to 113. 

We agree this would be interesting to examine, but only four animals exhibited this second peak, which is too small of a sample to observe a meaningful correlation. We now clarify this in the text.

In Figure 3, why not present the correlation between 'neural discriminability' and % of correct choices? 

We appreciate the suggestion and have added this plot to Figure 3.

The 'results' section will benefit tremendously if the authors consistently indicate the figures to which the results are being described, or 'data not shown' if it is the case. To give a few examples: 

Sentence 108 - "averaged 28% ΔF/F" - From which figure is this result coming from?  Sentence 123 - "(p = 0.62, 0.64, respectively)" - comparison not shown, but see Figures 2E and D respectively? 

Sentence 125 - "(CS+ responsive (...) across all sessions)" - From which figure is this result coming from? 

Sentence 130 - "during pre-conditioning (p=0.66) or post-conditioning sessions (p=0.44) - From which figure? 

Sentence 154 - "(Pre: p=0.20; last rewarded: p=0.43; Post: p=0.64, sign-rank test)" - From which figure? 

Sentence 175 - "(-0.049, -0.001, and 0.003" - From which figure? Please show the graph that shows that the mean SI is not different. It can be supplementary. The distribution of SI will be strengthened by it.  

We added this plot to supplementary figure 2.

Sentence 244 - "(conditioned: 458/603; repeated exposure: 334/457) - From Figure 5E. 

Sentence 256 - "(p=0.04, 2-sample t-test comparison mice) - From Figure 5B.  Sentence 258 - "(p=0.03, paired t-test) - from Figure 5B  Sentences 370 to 378 - No reference to the figure. 

The 'discussion' section (sentences 459 to 494) refers to the differences between the current and previous studies (references 1,3,5), namely soma vs. dendrites and layer 2/3 vs. layer 5. However, it should also mention the difference between the nature of the stimuli and the brain area recorded (visual cortex vs. barrel cortex).

We have addressed these issues in the text.

Author response:

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

Reviewer 1:

Authors reject the substance of Reviewer 1’s feedback primarily due to clear lack of understanding of typical parameterization practices used to avoid overfitting. To ensure the Spearman-rank correlation accuracy, 70% of all data was withheld from the optimization process and used solely for testing to yield figure 6. Data was withheld prior to model parameterization and therefore avoids Reviewer 1’s charge of “artificially forcing the correlation”. Authors did appreciate the request for clarification of additional definitions and minor reorganization suggestions. Below we provide specific responses to each numbered point (note: multiple responses are provided for some of the reviewer points).

Point 1: Clarify Metrics Definition and Evaluation

Authors clarified the description of biodiversity metrics. The metrics associated with manual methods are detailed in the third paragraph of the Materials and Methods: Data Analysis section, while the sensor-based metric is described in the second paragraph, and summarized in its last sentence.

Text Additions:

Authors added clarification to the introduction’s first paragraph defining biodiversity metrics, including species richness.

Authors added detailed definitions of community metrics and their significance in community ecology in the Materials and Methods section (3rd paragraph of “Data Analysis” section). The discussion was updated to include a reference to community ecology and the benefits of big data, specifically highlighting the potential of autonomous optical sensors in entomology.

Methods Reorganization

We have reorganized the Methods section for clarity. Updated section clarifies metrics studied, location, dates, a description and methods around optical sensors, Malaise traps, and sweep netting.

Text Additions:

An overview paragraph was added to “Data analysis” (3rd paragraph) detailing key metrics used, specifying metrics such as abundance, richness, Shannon index, and Simpson index.

Visualization methods for sensor data to deliver analogous metrics of abundance, richness, and diversity indices was added to “Data analysis” section.

Supplementary Table 1 and the first paragraph of the Materials and Methods section cover location, dates, and other general information.

Detailed descriptions and methods for optical sensors, Malaise traps, and sweeping are provided.

Integration of Metrics

Authors integrated two paragraphs explaining the fundamental differences between conventional methods in the 3rd paragraph of the discussion and the presented method of biodiversity measurement.

Point 2: Body-to-Wing Ratio Calculation

The backscattered optical cross-section is now clearly defined as the value measured at the maximum point of the event. Specifically, we have added the word ‘maximum’ to our methods section for clarity.

Point 3: Ecosystem Services Paragraph

We have shortened and edited this paragraph for clarity. The revised text is now more straightforward and comprehensible.

Point 4: Results Section Structure

We believe restructuring the results section around each metric would result in redundancy. The value of our analysis is in the comparison of different methods; therefore, instead of talking about methods in isolation, we provide an integrated discussion and comparison of all three methods across all metrics. Instead, we have maintained our current structure but ensured that the metrics are consistently described and analyzed.

Point 5: Abundance Correlation

We agree that the lack of a correlation between methods for abundance remains an open question. However, we maintain that fitting a linear model would be inappropriate and potentially misleading in the absence of significant correlation. We have clarified this in our manuscript.

Point 6: Richness and Diversity Evaluations

The authors disagree with Reviewer 1's feedback, citing a clear misunderstanding of standard parameterization practices used to prevent overfitting. Specifically, authors implemented a 30/70 Training/Testing split. Therefore only 30% of the data was used to fit the model and 70% of the dataset was reserved for testing to ensure the validity and reliability of our clustering results. By validating with a 70% testing dataset, we ensure that the clustering model can accurately group new data points and is robust against overfitting. This process helps verify that the identified clusters are meaningful and consistent across different subsets of the data.  Spearman's rho converts the data values into ranks and does not assume a linear relationship between the variables or require the data to follow a normal distribution. Spearman's rank correlation offers robustness against non-linearity and outliers by focusing on ranks. This approach is explained in the 4th paragraph of the “Data Analysis” section.

Point 7: Clustering Method Credibility

Authors acknowledge the variability in optical sensor features. However, the Law of Large Numbers supports increased insect measurement accuracy and stability occurs from optical insect sensors due to the increased number of observations made by the optical sensors compared to conventional methods. The manuscript now includes a detailed discussion of these aspects in the 3rd paragraph of discussion, emphasizing the correlation observed despite variability.

Reviewer 2:

Authors appreciate Reviewer 2’s feedback especially regarding contextualization. While authors disagree with the need for more specific experimental questions in a methods paper and the suggested need for more complex analysis, we agree with the essence of the review and added additional text regarding potential questions, method applications, and ecosystem processes for contextualization.

Point 1: Larger Question Framing

We present this article as a methodological paper rather than asking a specific experimental question. This approach is justified by the generalizable nature of methods papers, akin to those describing ImageJ or mass spectrometers. The method is widely applicable to a range of scientific questions. 

We provided a discussion on how this technology could be applied in community ecology, conservation, and managed ecological systems like agriculture.

In the Conclusion section we provided elaboration on the potential research questions and applications.

Point 2: Complex Analyses

While complex analyses like NMDS are useful for specific questions, this paper aims to establish the method. Once established, this method can be applied to various research questions in future studies. Therefore, as we are not directly asking an experimental question, more complex analysis is unnecessary.

Point 3: Ecosystem Process (Granivory) Assay

We have improved the contextualization and explanation of the ecosystem process assay throughout the manuscript, ensuring it is well-integrated and clear to readers.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This paper explores how diverse forms of inhibition impact firing rates in models for cortical circuits. In particular, the paper studies how the network operating point affects the balance of direct inhibition from SOM inhibitory neurons to pyramidal cells, and disinhibition from SOM inhibitory input to PV inhibitory neurons. This is an important issue as these two inhibitory pathways have largely been studies in isolation. Support for the main conclusions is generally solid, but could be strengthened by additional analyses.

Strengths:

A major strength of the paper is the systematic exploration of how circuit architecture effects the impact of inhibition. This includes scans across parameter space to determine how firing rates and stability depend on effective connectivity. This is done through linearization of the circuit about an effective operating point, and then the study of how perturbations in input effect this linear approximation.

Weaknesses:

The linearization approach means that the conclusions of the paper are valid only on the linear regime of network behavior. The paper would be substantially strengthened with a test of whether the conclusions from the linearized circuit hold over a large range of network activity. Is it possible to simulate the full network and do some targeted tests of the conclusions from linearization? Those tests could be guided by the linearization to focus on specific parameter ranges of interest.

We agree with the reviewer that it would be interesting to test if our results hold in a nonlinear regime of network behaviour (i.e. the chaotic regime, see also comment 1 by reviewer 2). As mentioned above, this requires a different type of model (either rate-based or spiking model with multiple neurons instead of modelling the mean population rate dynamics) which, in our opinion, exceeds the scope of this manuscript. Furthermore, the core measures of our study, network gain, and stability require linearization. In a chaotic regime where the linearization approach is impossible, we would need to consider/define new measures to characterize network response/activity. Therefore, while certainly being an interesting question to study, the broad scope of the studying networks in a nonlinear regime is better tackled in a separate study. We now acknowledge in the discussion of our manuscript that the linearization approach is a limitation in our study and that it would be an interesting future direction to investigate chaotic dynamics.

The results illustrated in the figures are generally well described but there is very little intuition provided for them. Are there simplified examples or explanations that could be given to help the results make sense? Here are some places such intuition would be particularly helpful:

page 6, paragraph starting ”In sum ...”

Page 8, last paragraph

Page 10, paragraph starting ”In summary ...”

Page 11, sentence starting ”In sum ...”

We agree with the reviewer that we didn’t provide enough intuition to our results. We now extended the paragraphs listed by the reviewer with additional information, providing a more intuitive understanding of the results presented in the respective chapter.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Bos and colleagues address the important question of how two major inhibitory interneuron classes in the neocortex differentially affect cortical dynamics. They address this question by studying Wilson-Cowan-type mathematical models. Using a linearized fixed point approach, they provide convincing evidence that the existence of multiple interneuron classes can explain the counterintuitive finding that inhibitory modulation can increase the gain of the excitatory cell population while also increasing the stability of the circuit’s state to minor perturbations. This effect depends on the connection strengths within their circuit model, providing valuable guidance as to when and why it arises.

Overall, I find this study to have substantial merit. I have some suggestions on how to improve the clarity and completeness of the paper.

Strengths:

(1) The thorough investigation of how changes in the connectivity structure affect the gain-stability relationship is a major strength of this work. It provides an opportunity to understand when and why gain and stability will or will not both increase together. It also provides a nice bridge to the experimental literature, where different gain-stability relationships are reported from different studies.

(2) The simplified and abstracted mathematical model has the benefit of facilitating our understanding of this puzzling phenomenon. (I have some suggestions for how the authors could push this understanding further.) It is not easy to find the right balance between biologically detailed models vs simple but mathematically tractable ones, and I think the authors struck an excellent balance in this study.

Weaknesses:

(1) The fixed-point analysis has potentially substantial limitations for understanding cortical computations away from the steady-state. I think the authors should have emphasized this limitation more strongly and possibly included some additional analyses to show that their conclusions extend to the chaotic dynamical regimes in which cortical circuits often live.

We agree with the reviewer that it would be interesting to test if our results hold in a chaotic regime of network behaviour (see also comment by reviewer 1). As mentioned above, this requires a different type of model (either rate-based or spiking model with multiple neurons instead of modelling the mean population rate dynamics) which, in our opinion, exceeds the scope of this manuscript. Furthermore, the core measures of our study, network gain, and stability require linearization. In a chaotic regime where the linearization approach is impossible, we would need to consider/define new measures to characterize network response/activity. Therefore, while certainly being an interesting question to study, the broad scope of the studying networks in a nonlinear regime is better tackled in a separate study. We now acknowledge in the discussion of our manuscript that the linearization approach is a limitation in our study and that it would be an interesting future direction to investigate chaotic dynamics.

(2) The authors could have discussed – even somewhat speculatively – how SST interneurons fit into this picture. Their absence from this modelling framework stands out as a missed opportunity.

We believe that the reviewer wanted us to speculate about VIP interneurons (and not SST interneurons, which we already do extensively in the manuscript). Previous models have included VIP neurons in the circuit (e.g. del Molino et al., 2017; Palmigiano et al., 2023; Waitzmann et al., 2024). While we do not model VIP cells explicitly, we implicitly assume that a possible source of modulation of SOM neurons comes from VIP cells. We have now added a short discussion on VIP cells in the last paragraph in our discussion section.

(3) The analysis is limited to paths within this simple E,PV,SOM circuit. This misses more extended paths (like thalamocortical loops) that involve interactions between multiple brain areas. Including those paths in the expansion in Eqs. 11-14 (Fig. 1C) may be an important consideration.

We agree with the reviewer that our framework can be extended to study many other different paths, like thalamocortical loops, cortical layer-specific connectivity motifs, or circuits with VIP or L1 inhibitory neurons. Studying these questions, however, are beyond the scope of our work. In our discussion, we now mention the possibility of using our framework to study those questions.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Bos et al study a computational model of cortical circuits with excitatory (E) and two subtypes of inhibition parvalbumin (PV) and somatostatin (SOM) expressing interneurons. They perform stability and gain analysis of simplified models with nonlinear transfer functions when SOM neurons are perturbed. Their analysis suggests that in a specific setup of connectivity, instability and gain can be untangled, such that SOM modulation leads to both increases in stability and gain. This is in contrast with the typical direction in neuronal networks where increased gain results in decreased stability.

Strengths:

- Analysis of the canonical circuit in response to SOM perturbations. Through numerical simulations and mathematical analysis, the authors have provided a rather comprehensive picture of how SOM modulation may affect response changes.

- Shedding light on two opposing circuit motifs involved in the canonical E-PV-SOM circuitry - namely, direct inhibition (SOM → E) vs disinhibition (SOM → PV → E). These two pathways can lead to opposing effects, and it is often difficult to predict which one results from modulating SOM neurons. In simplified circuits, the authors show how these two motifs can emerge and depend on parameters like connection weights.

- Suggesting potentially interesting consequences for cortical computation. The authors suggest that certain regimes of connectivity may lead to untangling of stability and gain, such that increases in network gain are not compromised by decreasing stability. They also link SOM modulation in different connectivity regimes to versatile computations in visual processing in simple models.

Weaknesses:

The computational analysis is not novel per se, and the link to biology is not direct/clear.

Computationally, the analysis is solid, but it’s very similar to previous studies (del Molino et al, 2017). Many studies in the past few years have done the perturbation analysis of a similar circuitry with or without nonlinear transfer functions (some of them listed in the references). This study applies the same framework to SOM perturbations, which is a useful and interesting computational exercise, in view of the complexity of the high-dimensional parameter space. But the mathematical framework is not novel per se, undermining the claim of providing a new framework (or ”circuit theory”).

In the introduction we acknowledge that our analysis method is not novel but is rather based on previous studies (del Molino et al., 2017; Kuchibhotla et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2023, Litwin-Kumar et al., 2016; Mahrach et al., 2020; Palmigiano et al., 2023; Veit et al., 2023; Waitzmann et al., 2024). We now rewrote parts of the introduction to make sure that it does not sound like the computational analysis has been developed by us, but that we rather use those previously developed frameworks to dissect stability and gain via SOM modulation.

Link to biology: the most interesting result of the paper with regard to biology is the suggestion of a regime in which gain and stability can be modulated in an unconventional way - however, it is difficult to link the results to biological networks: - A general weakness of the paper is a lack of direct comparison to biological parameters or experiments. How different experiments can be reconciled by the results obtained here, and what new circuit mechanisms can be revealed? In its current form, the paper reads as a general suggestion that different combinations of gain modulation and stability can be achieved in a circuit model equipped with many parameters (12 parameters). This is potentially interesting but not surprising, given the high dimensional space of possible dynamical properties. A more interesting result would have been to relate this to biology, by providing reasoning why it might be relevant to certain circuits (and not others), or to provide some predictions or postdictions, which are currently missing in the manuscript.

- For instance, a nice motivation for the paper at the beginning of the Results section is the different results of SOM modulation in different experiments - especially between L23 (inhibition) and L4 (disinhibition). But no further explanation is provided for why such a difference should exist, in view of their results and the insights obtained from their suggested circuit mechanisms. How the parameters identified for the two regimes correspond to different properties of different layers?

As pointed out by the reviewer, the main goal of our manuscript is to provide a general understanding of how gain and stability depend on different circuit motifs (ie different connectivity parameters), and how circuit modulations via SOM neurons affect those measures. However, we agree with the reviewer that it would be useful to provide some concrete predictions or postdictions following from our study.

An interesting example of a postdiction of our model is that the firing rate change of excitatory neurons in response to a change in the stimulus (which we define as network gain, Eq. 2) depends on firing rates of the excitatory, PV, and SOM neurons at the moment of stimulus presentation (Fig. 3ii; Fig. 4Aii,Bii,Cii; Fig. 5Aii, Bii, Cii). Hence any change in input to the circuit can affect the response gain to a stimulus presentation, in line with experimental evidence which suggests that changes in inhibitory firing rates and changes in the behavioral state of the animal lead to gain modifications (Ferguson and Cardin 2020).

Another recent concrete example is the study of Tobin et al., 2023, in which the authors show that optogenetically activating SOM cells in the mouse primary auditory cortex (A1) decreases the excitatory responses to auditory stimuli. In our framework, this corresponds to the case of decreases in network gain (gE) for positive SOM modulation, as seen in the circuit with PV to SOM feedback connectivity (Suppl. Fig. S1).

Another example is the study by Phillips and Hasenstaub 2016, in which the authors study the effect of optogenetic perturbations of SOM (and PV) cells on tuning curves of pyramidal cells in mouse A1. While they find large heterogeneity in additive/subtractive or multiplicative/divisive tuning curve changes following SOM inactivation, most cells have a purely multiplicative or purely additive component (and none of the cells have a divisive component). In our study, we see that large multiplicative responses of the excitatory population follow from circuits with strong E to SOM feedback connectivity.

We note that in future computational studies, it would be useful to apply our framework with a focus on a specific brain region and add all relevant cell types (at a minimum E, PV, SOM, and VIP) plus a dendritic compartment, in order to formulate much more precise experimental predictions.

We have now added additional information to the discussion section.

- Another caveat is the range of parameters needed to obtain the unintuitive untangling as a result of SOM modulation. From Figure 4, it appears that the ”interesting” regime (with increases in both gain and stability) is only feasible for a very narrow range of SOM firing rates (before 3 Hz). This can be a problem for the computational models if the sweet spot is a very narrow region (this analysis is by the way missing, so making it difficult to know how robust the result is in terms of parameter regions). In terms of biology, it is difficult to reconcile this with the realistic firing rates in the cortex: in the mouse cortex, for instance, we know that SOM neurons can be quite active (comparable to E neurons), especially in response to stimuli. It is therefore not clear if we should expect this mechanism to be a relevant one for cortical activity regimes.

We agree with the reviewer that it’s important to test the robustness of our results. As suggested by the reviewer, we now include a new supplementary figure (Suppl. Fig. S2) which measures the percentage of data points in the respective quadrant Q1-Q4 when changing the SOM firing rates (as done in Fig. 5). We see that the quadrants in which the network gain and stability change in the same direction (Q2 and Q3) remain high in the case for E to SOM feedback (Suppl. Fig. S2A) over SOM rates ranging over 0-10 Hz (and likely beyond).

- One of the key assumptions of the model is nonlinear transfer functions for all neuron types. In terms of modelling and computational analysis, a thorough analysis of how and when this is necessary is missing (an analysis similar to what has been attempted at in Figure 6 for synaptic weights, but for cellular gains). In terms of biology, the nonlinear transfer function has experimentally been reported for excitatory neurons, so it’s not clear to what extent this may hold for different inhibitory subtypes. A discussion of this, along with the former analysis to know which nonlinearities would be necessary for the results, is needed, but currently missing from the study. The nonlinearity is assumed for all subtypes because it seems to be needed to obtain the results, but it’s not clear how the model would behave in the presence or absence of them, and whether they are relevant to biological networks with inhibitory transfer functions.

It is true that the nonlinear transfer function is a key component in our model. We chose identical transfer functions for E, PV, and SOM (; Eq. 4) to simplify our analysis. If the transfer function of one of the neuron types would be linear (β \= 1), then the corresponding b terms (the slope of the nonlinearity at the steady state; b \= dfX/dqX; Fig. 1B; Eq. 4) would be equal to α. Therefore, if neurons had a linear transfer function in our model, there would not be a dependence of network gain on E and PV firing rate as studied in Fig. 3-5. This is because the relationship between PV rates and their gain would be constant (bP \= α) in Fig. 1B (bottom).

If all the transfer functions were linear, changes in firing rates would not have an impact on network gain or stability. Changing the nonlinear transfer function by changing the α or β terms in Eq. 4 would only scale the way a change in the rates affects the b terms and hence the results presented in Fig. 3-5. More interesting would be to study how different types of nonlinearities, like sigmoidal functions or sublinear nonlinearities (i.e. saturating nonlinearities), would change our results. However, we think that such an investigation is out of scope for this study. We now added a comment to the Methods section.

Experimentally, F-I curves have been measured also for PV and SOM neurons. For example, Romero-Sosa et al., 2021 measure the F-I curve of pyramidal, PV and SOM neurons in mouse cortical slices. They find that similar to pyramidal neurons, PV and SOM neurons show a nonlinear F-I curve. We now added the citation of Romero-Sosa et al., 2021 to our manuscript.

- Tuning curves are simulated for an individual orientation (same for all), not considering the heterogeneity of neuronal networks with multiple orientation selectivity (and other visual features) - making the model too simplistic.

The reviewer is correct that we only study changes in tuning curves in a simplistic model. In our model, the excitatory and PV populations are tuned to a single orientation (in the case of Fig. 7 to θ \= 90). While this is certainly an oversimplification, it allows us to understand how additive/subtractive and multiplicative/divisive changes in the tuning curves come about in networks with different connectivity motifs. To model heterogeneity of tuning responses within a network, it requires more complex models. A natural choice would be to extend a classical ring attractor model (Rubin et al., 2015) by splitting the inhibitory population into PV and SOM neurons, or study the tuning curve heterogeneity that occurs in balanced networks (Hansel and van Vreeswijk 2012). However, this model has many more parameters, like the spatial connectivity profiles from and onto PV and SOM neurons. While highly valuable, we believe that studying such models exceeds the scope of our current manuscript. We now added a paragraph in the discussion section, mentioning this as an interesting future direction.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The last sentence of the abstract is hard to interpret before reading the rest of the paper - suggest replacing or rephrasing.

We rephrased the sentence to make more clear what we mean.

Page 3, last full paragraph: I think this assumes that phi is positive. What is the justification for that assumption? More generally, I think you could say a bit more about phi in the main text since it is a fairly complicated term.

The reviewer is correct, for a stable system phi is always positive. We now clarify this and explain phi in more detail in the main text.

Fig 1D: It would be helpful to identify when the stimulus comes on and be clearer about what the stimulus is. I assume it’s a step increase in S input at 0.05 s or so - but that should be immediately apparent looking at the figure.

We agree with the reviewer and we added a dashed line at the time of stimulus onset in Fig. 1D.

Page 5: ”To motivate our analysis we compare ... (Fig. 2A)” - Figure 2A does not show responses without modulation, so this sentence is confusing.

The dashed lines in Fig. 2A (and Fig. 2C) actually represents the rate change without modulation.

Page 6: sentence “The central goal of our study ...” seems out of place since this is pretty far into the results, and that goal should already be clear.

We agree with the reviewer, hence we updated the sentence.

Page 10, top: the green curve in panel Aii always has a negative slope - so I am confused by the statement that increasing wSE decreases both gain and stability.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this mistake. We now fixed it in the text.

Figure 6: in general it is hard to see what is going on in this figure (the green and blue in particular are hard to distinguish). Some additional labels would be helpful, but I would also see if the color scheme can be improved.

We added a zoom-in to the panels which were hard to distinguish.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Major recommendations:

(1) The authors should explain early on in the results section what the key factor(s) is that differentiates SOM from PV cells in their model. E.g., in Fig. 1A, the only obvious difference is that SOM cells don’t inhibit themselves. However, later on in the paper, the difference in external stimulus drive to these interneuron classes is more heavily emphasized. Given the importance of that difference (in external stim drive), I think this should be highlighted early on.

We now mention the key factors that differentiate PV and SOM neurons already when describing Fig. 1A.

(2) The result in Figs. 5,6 demonstrate that recurrent SOM connectivity is important for achieving increases in both gain and stability. This observation could benefit from some intuitive explanation. Perhaps the authors could find this explanation by looking at their series expansion (Eqs. 11-14, Fig. 1C) and determining which term(s) are most important for this effect. The corresponding paths through the circuit – the most important ones – could then be highlighted for the reader.

We agree with the reviewer that our results benefit from more intuitive explanations. This has also been pointed out by reviewer 1 in their public review. We now extended the concluding paragraphs in the context of Fig. 4-6 with additional information, providing a more intuitive understanding of the results presented in the respective chapter. While it is possible to gain an intuitive understanding of how the network gain depends on rate and weight parameters (Eq. 2), this understanding is unfortunately missing in the case of stability. The maximum eigenvalue of the system have a complex relationship with all the parameters, and often have nonlinear dependencies on changes of a parameter (e.g. as we show in Fig. 3iv or one can see in Fig. 6). We now discuss this difficulty at the end of the section “Influence of weight strength on network gain vs stability”.

(3) I think the authors should consider including some analyses that do not rely on the system being at or near a fixed point. I admit that such analysis could be difficult, and this could of course be done in a future study. Nevertheless, I want to reiterate that this addition could add a lot of value to this body of work.

As outlined above, we decided to not include additional analysis on network behaviour in nonlinear regimes but we now acknowledge in the discussion of our manuscript that the linearization approach is a limitation in our study and that it would be an interesting future direction to investigate chaotic dynamics.

Minor recommendations:

(1) At the top of P. 6, when the authors first discuss the stability criterion involving eigenvalues, they should address the question ”eigenvalues of what?”. I suggest introducing the idea of the Jacobian matrix, and explaining that the largest eigenvalue of that matrix determines how rapidly the system will return to the fixed point after a small perturbation.

We included an additional sentence in the respective paragraph explaining the link between stability and negative eigenvalues, and we also added a sentence in the Methods section stating the the largest real eigenvalue dominates the behavior of the dynamical system.

(2) The panel labelling in Fig. 3 is unnecessarily confusing. It would be simpler (and thus better) to simply label the panels A,B,C,D, or i,ii,iii,iv, instead of the current labelling: Ai, Aii, Aiii, Aiv. (There are currently no panels ”B” in Fig. 3).

We updated the figure accordingly.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

• Suggestions for improved or additional experiments, data or analyses.

Analysis of the effect of different nonlinear transfer functions is necessary.

Please see our detailed answer to the reviewer’s comment in the public review above.

Analysis of gain modulation in models with more realistic tuning properties.

Please see our detailed answer to the reviewer’s comment in the public review above.

Mathematical analysis of the conditions to obtain ”untangled” gain and stability:

One of the promises of the paper is that it is offering a computational framework or circuit theory for understanding the effect of SOM perturbation. However, the main result, namely the untangling of gain and stability, has only been reported in numerical simulations (e.g. Fig. 6). Different parameters have been changed and the results of simulations have been reported for different conditions. Given the simplified model, which allows for rigorous mathematical analysis, isn’t it possible to treat this phenomenon more analytically? What would be the conditions for the emergence of the untangled regime? This is currently missing from the analyses and results.

We agree with the reviewer that our results benefit from more intuitive explanations. This has also been pointed out by reviewer 1 in their public review. We now extended the concluding paragraphs in the context of Fig. 4-6 with additional information, providing a more intuitive understanding of the results presented in the respective chapter. While it is possible understand analytically of how the network gain depends on rate and weight parameters (Eq. 2), this understanding is unfortunately missing in the case of stability. The maximum eigenvalue of the system have a complex relationship with all the parameters, and often have nonlinear dependencies on changes of a parameter (e.g. as we show in Fig. 3iv or one can see in Fig. 6). This doesn’t allow for a a deep analytical understanding of the entangling of gain and stability. We now discuss this difficulty at the end of the section “Influence of weight strength on network gain vs stability”.

• Recommendations for improving the writing and presentation. The Results section is well written overall, but other parts, especially the Introduction and Discussion, would benefit from proof reading - there are many typos and problems with sentence structures and wording (some mentioned below).

We have gone through the manuscript again and improved the writing.

The presentation of the dependence on weight in Figure 6 can be improved. For instance, the authors talk about the optimal range of PV connectivity, but this is difficult to appreciate in the current illustration and with the current colour scheme.

We added a zoom in to the panels which were hard to distinguish.

• Minor corrections to the text and figures. Text:

We thank the reviewer for their thorough reading of our manuscript. We fixed all the issues from below in the manuscript.

Some examples of bad structure or wording:

From the Abstract:

”We show when E - PV networks recurrently connect with SOM neurons then an SOM mediated modulation that leads to increased neuronal gain can also yield increased network stability.” From Introduction:

Sentence starting with ”This new circuit reality ...”

”Inhibition is been long identified as a physiological or circuit basis for how cortical activity changes depending upon processing or cognitive needs ...”

Sentence starting with ”Cortical models with both ...”

”... allowing SOM neurons the freedom to ..”

From Results:

”... affects of SOM neurons on E ..”

”seem in opposition to one another, with SOM neuron activity providing either a source or a relief of E neuron suppression”. The sentence after is also difficult to read and needs to be simplified.

P. 7: ”We first remark that ...”

Difficult to read/understand - long and badly structured sentence.

P. 8: ”adding a recurrent connection onto SOM neurons from the E-PV subcircuit” It’s from E (and not PV) to be more precise (Fig. 5).

Discussion:

”Firstly, E neurons and PV neurons experience very similar synaptic environments.” What does it mean?

”Fortunately, PV neurons target both the cell bodies and proximal dendrites” Fortunately for whom or what? ”in line with arge heterogeneity”

Methods:

Matrix B is never defined - the diagonal matrix of b (power law exponents) I assume.

Some of the other notations too, e.g. bs, etc (it’s implicit, but should be explained).

Structure of sentence:

”Network gain is defined as ...” (p. 17)

Figure:

The schematics in Figure 4 can be tweaked to highlight the effect of input (rather than other components of the network, which are the same and repetitive), to highlight the main difference for the reader.

Author response:

We thank the reviewers’ for their helpful comments.  We will make several minor edits to the text to improve clarity. Further experiments are beyond the scope of the current study.

Author response:

Reviewer #1:

We thank the reviewer for recognizing the impact of our work on the pivotal roles of N-glycan-dependent ERQC in cellular fitness and pathogenicity and providing valuable comments to be considered to improve the manuscript. As suggested, we will rearrange data, reduce text volume, and discuss the possibility of how ERQC mutation decreases EV secretion without significant defect in conventional secretion. Regarding the proteomics data, we have already initiated a comparative analysis of total intracellular and EV-associated proteins to determine whether the reduced cargo loading in the Ugg1 mutant is specific to EV-associated proteins. Additionally, we may extend the analysis to include total secretion, enabling a clearer comparison between classical secretion and EV-mediated secretion to better evaluate the extent of classical secretion defects in the Ugg1 mutant.

Reviewer #2:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our work. As recommended, we will reduce the text and reorganize the data to enhance the manuscript's readability.

Reviewer #3:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the high appreciation of our work. As recommended, we will provide a more detailed explanation of the results with improved interpretation, strongly grounded on the obtained data.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Weaknesses:

(1) The assertion that membrane trafficking is impaired by this variant could be bolstered by additional data.

We agree with this comment and will perform additional analysis and experiments to support the assertion that membrane trafficking is impaired. As noted by the Reviewers, standard biochemical approaches to obtain such data may be challenging due to the fact that Kv3.1 is expressed in only a subset of cells and that we do not have a Kv3.1-A421V specific antibody.

(2) In some experiments details such as the age of the mice or cortical layer are emphasized, but in others, these details are omitted.

We appreciate that the Reviewer has noted this omission. We will include such details in the resubmission.

(3) The impairments in PV neuron AP firing are quite large. This could be expected to lead to changes in PV neuron activity outside of the hypersynchronous discharges that could be detected in the 2-photon imaging experiments, however, a lack of an effect on PV neuron activity is only loosely alluded to in the text. A more formal analysis is lacking. An important question in trying to understand mechanisms underlying channelopathies like KCNC1 is how changes in membrane excitability recorded at the whole cell level manifest during ongoing activity in vivo. Thus, the significance of this work would be greatly improved if it could address this question.

Yes, the impairments in neocortical PV-IN excitability are more marked than any other PV interneuronopathy that we have studied. We will include a more extensive analysis of the 2-photon imaging data in the resubmission. However, there are limitations to the inferences that can be made as to firing patterns based on 2-photon calcium imaging data, particularly for interneurons.

(4) Myoclonic jerks and other types of more subtle epileptiform activity have been observed in control mice, but there is no mention of littermate control analyzed by EEG.

We did not observe myoclonic jerks in control mice. This data will be included in the resubmission.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Weaknesses:

In some experiments, the age of the animal in each experiment is not clearly stated. For example, the experiments in Figure 2 demonstrate impaired K+ conductance and membrane localization, but it is not clear whether they correlated with the excitability and synaptic defects shown in subsequent figures. Similarly, it is unclear how old mice the authors conducted EEG recordings, and whether non-epileptic mice are younger than those with seizures.

We will include explicit information as to the age of the animals used for each experiment in the resubmission.

The trafficking defect of mutant Kv3.1 proposed in this study is based only on the fluorescence density analysis which showed a minor change in membrane/cytosol ratio. It is not very clear how the membrane component was determined (any control staining?). In addition to fluorescence imaging, an addition of biochemical analysis will make the conclusion more convincing (while it might be challenging if the Kv3.1 is expressed only in PV+ cells).

We will include additional information in the Methods section as to how the membrane component was determined in a revised version of the manuscript. We agree with Reviewer #2 regarding the limitations in the ability to further evaluate this.

While the study focused on the superficial layer because Kv3.1 is the major channel subunit, the PV+ cells in the deeper cortical layer also express Kv3.1 (Chow et al., 1999) and they may also contribute to the hyperexcitable phenotype via negative effect on Kv3.2; the mutant Kv3.1 may also block membrane trafficking of Kv3.1/Kv3.2 heteromers in the deeper layer PV cells and reduce their excitability. Such an additional effect on Kv3.2, if present, may explain why the heterozygous A421V KI mouse shows a more severe phenotype than the Kv3.1 KO mouse (and why they are more similar to Kv3.2 KO). Analyzing the membrane excitability differences in the deep-layer PV cells may address this possibility.

We will include recordings from PV-INs in deeper layers of the neocortex in the revised version of the manuscript, as requested.

In Table 1, the A421V PV+ cells show a depolarized resting membrane potential than WT by ~5 mV which seems a robust change and would influence the circuit excitability. The authors measured firing frequency after adjusting the membrane voltage to -65mV, but are the excitability differences less significant if the resting potential is not adjusted? It is also interesting that such a membrane potential difference is not detected in young adult mice (Table 2). This loss of potential compensation may be important for developmental changes in the circuit excitability. These issues can be more explicitly discussed.

We will include a more thorough discussion of this finding in the revised version of the manuscript. However, we do not completely understand this finding. It could be compensatory, as suggested by the Reviewer; however, it is transient and seems to be an isolated finding (i.e., there does not appear to be parallel “compensation” in other properties). Alternatively, it could be that impaired excitability of the Kcnc1-A421V/+ PV-INs may reflect impaired/delayed development, which itself is known to be activity-dependent.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Weaknesses:

The manuscript identifies a partial mechanism of disease that leaves several aspects unresolved including the possible role of the observed impairments in thalamic neurons in the seizure mechanism. Similarly, while the authors identify a reduction in potassium currents and a reduction in PV cell surface expression of Kv3.1 it is not clear why these impairments would lead to a more severe disease phenotype than other loss-of-function mutations which have been characterized previously. Lastly, additional analysis of video-EEG data would be helpful for interpreting the extent of the seizure burden and the nature of the seizure types caused by the mutation.

We agree with this comment. We studied neurons in the reticular thalamus as these cells are known to express Kv3.1 and are linked to epilepty pathogenesis. Yet, we focused on neocortical PV-INs over other Kv3.1-expressing neurons such as neurons of the reticular thalamus because we evaluated the impairments of intrinsic excitability to be more profound in neocortical PV-INs. Cross of Kcnc1-Flox(A421V)/+ mice to a cerebral cortex interneuron-specific driver that would avoid recombination in thalamus – such as Ppp1r2-Cre (RRID:IMSR_JAX:012686) – could assist in determining the relative contribution of thalamic reticular nucleus dysfunction to the overall phenotype, as performed by Makinson et al (2017) to address a similar question. There are of course other Kv3.1-expressing neurons in the brain, including in GABAergic interneurons in hippocampus and amygdala. We will include additional discussion in a revised version of the manuscript as to why we think there is more severe impairment in our Kcnc1-Flox(A421V)/+ mice relative to Kv3.1 and Kv3.2 knockout mice. We will include additional data on the epilepsy phenotype in the revised version of the manuscript, as requested.

Author response:

We thank the Dr. Ealand and Reviewers for their thoughtful comments on our submitted manuscript. We are in the process of revising our manuscript in light of the comments received, outlined below.

In addition to the requested revisions, we have new data with M. tuberculosis strain H37Rv +/- gidB deletion (and complementation), confirming that deletion of gidB sensitizes the strain to rifampicin, and extending our findings to pathogenic tuberculosis. This will also be incorporated into the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1:

(1) The structural work at the end feels like both an afterthought in terms of the science and the writing. I would suggest re-writing that section to be clearer about what the figure says and does not say. For example, the caption of Figure 6 appears to be more informative than the text and refers to concepts not present in the main text. In general, I found this section to be the most difficult to understand.

We are rewriting this section to make it more coherent with the rest of the manuscript.

(2) "delta-gidB" is written out in the caption of Figure 6. Line 234: gidB not italics.

Thank you, these changes will be incorporated in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

(1) It would be essential to provide information regarding the growth rate and, ideally, translation rates in the gidB KO and the isogenic WT. As translation balances accuracy and speed, only characterising the speed is not sufficient to understand the phenomenon.

We are performing these assays and will incorporate them in the revised manuscript.