Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
Summary:
The paper attempts to model the functional significance of variants of PLCG2 in a set of patients with variable clinical manifestations.
Strengths:
A study attempting to use the Drosophila system to test the function of variants reported from human patients.
Weaknesses:
Additional experiments are needed to shore up the claims in the paper. These are listed below.
Major Comments:
(1) Does the pLI/ missense constraint Z score prediction algorithm take into consideration whether the gene exhibits monoallelic or biallelic expression?
(2) Figure 1B: Include human PLCG2 in the alignment that displays the species-wide conserved variant residues.
(3) Figure 4A:<br /> Given that<br /> (i) sl is predicted to be the fly ortholog for both mammalian PLCγ isozymes: PLCG1 and PLCG2 [Line 62]<br /> (ii) they are shown to have non-redundant roles in mammals [Line 71] and<br /> (iii) reconstituting PLCG1 is highly toxic in flies, leading to increased lethality.<br /> This raises questions about whether sl mutant phenotypes are specifically caused by the absence of PLG1 or PLCG2 functions in flies. Can hPLCG2 reconstitution in sl mutants be used as a negative control to rule out the possibility of the same?
(4) Do slT2A/Y; UAS-PLCG1Reference flies survive when grown at 22{degree sign}C? Since transgenic fly expressing PLCG1 cDNA when driven under ubiquitous gal4s, Tubulin and Da, can result in viable progeny at 22{degree sign}C, the survival of slT2A/Y; UAS-PLCG1Reference should be possible.<br /> and similarly<br /> Does slT2A flies exhibit the phenotypes of (i) reduced eclosion rate (ii) reduced wing size and ectopic wing veins and (iii) extra R7 photoreceptor in the fly eye at 22{degree sign}C?<br /> If so, will it be possible to get a complete rescue of the slT2A mutant phenotypes with the hPLCG1 cDNA at 22{degree sign}C? This dataset is essential to establish Drosophila as an ideal model to study the PLCG1 de novo variants.
(5) Localisation and western blot assays to check if the introduction of the de novo mutations can have an impact on the sub-cellular targeting of the protein or protein stability respectively.
(6) Analysing the nature of the reported gain of function (experimental proof for the same is missing in the manuscript) variants:<br /> Instead of directly showing the effect of introducing the de novo variant transgenes in the Drosophila model especially when the full-length PLCG1 is not able to completely rescue the slT2A phenotype;<br /> (i) Show that the gain-of-function variants can have an impact on the protein function or signalling via one of the three signalling outputs in the mammalian cell culture system: (i) inositol-1,4,5-trisphosphate production, (ii) intracellular Ca2+ release or (iii) increased phosphorylation of extracellular signal-related kinase, p65, and p38.<br /> OR<br /> (ii) Run a molecular simulation to demonstrate how the protein's auto-inhibited state can be disrupted and basal lipase activity increased by introducing D1019G and D1165G, which destabilise the association between the C2 and cSH2 domains. The H380R variant may also exhibit characteristics similar to the previously documented H335A mutation which leaves the protein catalytically inactive as the residue is important to coordinate the incoming water molecule required for PIP2 hydrolysis.
(7) Clarify the reason for carrying out the wing-specific and eye-specific experiments using nub-gal4 and eyless-gal4 at 29˚C despite the high gal4 toxicity at this temperature.
(8) For the sake of completeness the authors should also report other variants identified in the genomes of these patients that could also contribute to the clinical features.